Free Traffic Legal Advice

Failure to comply with Schedule 4, paragraph 9(2)(f), of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

I am appealing as the registered keeper. No admission is made concerning the identity of the driver.

Paragraph 9(2)(f) requires a Notice to Keeper to warn that the creditor will, “if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met,” have the right to recover from the keeper so much of the specified amount as remains unpaid.

PCM’s notice does not contain that warning. It states instead that, if the charge remains unpaid after 28 days and PCM does not know the driver’s name and address, PCM “have the right to recover the unpaid charges” from the registered keeper. This presents keeper liability as automatic and omits the mandatory statutory qualification that all applicable Schedule 4 conditions must first have been met.

The subsequent general assertion that recovery is “in accordance with Schedule 4” does not remedy the omission or warn the keeper that PCM’s alleged right is conditional upon full compliance with the Schedule.

The notice therefore does not comply with paragraph 9(2)(f). Consequently, it is not a Notice to Keeper given in accordance with paragraph 9, and PCM cannot rely on Schedule 4 to transfer liability from the unidentified driver to me as registered keeper.

I require the parking charge to be cancelled. Alternatively, PCM must explain precisely how the wording quoted above satisfies every element of paragraph 9(2)(f), including the expressly required qualification concerning all applicable Schedule 4 conditions.

They have come up with a generic response... Link to response