When the RK appealed, did they reveal the identity of the driver, inadvertently or otherwise?
Saying things like "I did this or that" instead of referring to the driver in the third person such as "The driver did this or that", is how the Keeper throws away a perfectly good PoFA defence.
The Notice to Keeper (NtK) issued by ParkMaven is non-compliant with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) due to a contradiction in the payment deadline specified on the notice.
The front of the NtK prominently states: “Payment to be made within 28 days of the date issued”. This instruction contradicts the statutory requirement under PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(f), which mandates that the keeper be informed that they have 28 days from the day after the notice is deemed to be given (served) to either pay the charge or provide the driver's details.
According to PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(6), a Notice to Keeper is deemed to be served two working days after posting, meaning the 28-day period must start after this deemed service date. The instruction on the front of the NtK, however, misleadingly demands payment within 28 days of the issue date, which shortens the legal timeframe available to the keeper.
While the back of the NtK attempts to reference the correct timeframe, the most prominent instruction on the front is incorrect and legally misleading. The contradictory timeframes create confusion for the recipient and breach the requirement for clarity and transparency under PoFA.
As established in Excel Parking v. Smith [2017] and Brennan v. Premier Parking Logistics [2023], a Notice to Keeper must strictly comply with the wording and timeframes set out in PoFA. Any deviation from these requirements, particularly where it misleads the recipient, renders the notice non-compliant.
Therefore, the operator cannot rely on PoFA to transfer liability to the keeper.
