Thank you for showing the Notice to Driver (NtD). You have had two completely different pieces of paper on the windscreen.
1. The first one was a Parking Warning Notice (PWN). It is exactly what it says it is. It states no fee is payable and it is not a parking charge. It creates no liability for anyone, cannot be enforced, and it does not engage PoFA. It is simply an attempt to “educate” the driver that the operator says the area is controlled and that future incidents may result in a charge.
2. The second one is a Parking Charge Notice issued as a windscreen Notice to Driver (NtD). That is the first formal step in a private parking charge process. It is not a “warning”. It demands payment (discounted to £50, rising to £95) and it is capable of being pursued, but only if the operator follows the correct legal route.
Can the earlier warning be used “against you” for a later PCN?
Not in the way you are worried about. A private parking charge is based on an alleged contract formed on that specific occasion, on the signage and terms that were adequately brought to the driver’s attention at the time, and on whether the driver then breached those terms. A previous warning does not prove that the later driver saw the signs, read them, agreed to them, or breached them. It also does not cure poor signage. Each parking event stands on its own facts.
Also, as you correctly suspected, they cannot prove a PWN was read or even still on the vehicle. But more importantly, they do not need to prove that to issue a later PCN, and you do not need to argue about removal of the PWN. It is a red herring.
What matters for the later NtD is the signage and timings.
You have described only one sign, not at the entrance, nowhere near the bay where the car was, and often obscured by another parked vehicle and building works. If that is accurate, it points strongly to inadequate notice of terms and no clear offer capable of forming a contract.
Now, look at the NtD itself. It records “time first seen” 14:16 and “time of issue” 14:17, then asserts the “period of parking” is the period immediately preceding the time of issue. That is not a stated "period of parking". It is an undefined phrase and it appears to be based on a one minute interval. That is wholly consistent with a driver arriving, looking for signs/terms, and leaving or preparing to leave. The PPSCoP requires a consideration period at the start to allow a driver to locate and read the signage and decide whether to stay. A ticket issued one minute after first seen strongly indicates the operator did not allow the required consideration period, so they cannot show a contravention occurred.
PoFA position (keeper liability)
Because this is a windscreen NtD, the Keeper is not liable just because a ticket was placed on the windscreen. The operator can only try to hold the Keeper liable later if they serve a postal Notice to Keeper (NtK) that fully complies with PoFA and is served within the strict statutory window (not earlier than day 29 and not later than day 56 after the alleged event). If they do not serve a compliant NtK, there is no Keeper liability. If the driver is not identified, they are left trying to pursue the
unknown driver.
That is why the usual tactic is to appeal on day 27 as Keeper only, without naming the driver. You are not appealing to “win at IAS”. You are appealing to manage Keeper liability, force them to either cancel or issue the NtK properly, and to put them on notice about data protection.
Data protection point (DVLA request)
If you appeal as Keeper and provide your name and address, they then already hold the Keeper’s details. There is no justification for them to request the Keeper data from the DVLA after that, because it would be unnecessary and excessive. If they do request DVLA Keeper data despite already having it, that is a strong data minimisation/fairness point under UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018.
Your “someone else returned with this” point
It does not matter that you personally stopped parking there and another driver later used the car there. Do not get drawn into explaining who drove on which day. The Keeper simply appeals as Keeper and does not identify the driver. The operator has no automatic right to know who was driving.
What to do next
1. Do nothing with the PWN. It is irrelevant now.
2. For the windscreen NtD, appeal on day 27 as the registered keeper only. Do not say who was driving. Do not write “I parked” or “I returned”.
3. In the Keeper appeal, cover these points in simple terms:
a) Keeper is not obliged to name the driver and will not do so.
b) The NtD does not state a defined period of parking and the timings show only one minute between first seen and issue, inconsistent with allowing the required consideration period.
c) Signage is inadequate (as described: single sign, obscured, not at entrance, not near the parking location).
d) Require all evidence: photos, attendant notes, and clear images of the signage terms relied upon.
e) Data protection warning: as the keeper details are now provided, any DVLA request would be unnecessary and excessive.
4. Expect a rejection. If they reject but then fail to serve a PoFA-compliant NtK in time, they cannot transfer liability to the keeper. If they do serve an NtK, it can be assessed for PoFA compliance and signage/evidence.
You can use the following as your initial appeal:
Subject: Appeal as Registered Keeper – PCN [PCN NUMBER] / VRM [VRM]
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and I am appealing this Parking Charge Notice. I am not obliged to identify the driver and I will not do so.
This was issued as a windscreen notice and does not establish any keeper liability. Your notice does not specify any defined period of parking. It shows “time first seen” 14:16 and “time of issue” 14:17 and then uses an undefined statement about the “period immediately preceding” the time of issue. On your own timings this was issued within one minute, which is inconsistent with allowing the required consideration period before a charge is issued.
In addition, the site signage is inadequate. There is only one sign, it is not at the entrance, it is not near where vehicles park, and it is frequently obscured by building works and/or parked vehicles. Any terms are not properly brought to a driver’s attention and no contract can be formed on that basis.
Cancel the charge. If you disagree, provide all evidence relied upon, including all photographs, the attendant’s contemporaneous notes, and close-up images of the signage terms as they appeared at the material time.
Data protection notice: you are now in receipt of the keeper’s full name and address. Any request to the DVLA for keeper data after this point would be unnecessary and excessive processing and will be treated as a breach of the data protection principles.
Yours faithfully,
[KEEPER NAME]
[KEEPER POSTAL ADDRESS]
