PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) states:
9(1) A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(b) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.
(2) The notice
must—
(e) state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—
(i) to pay the unpaid parking charges
Let's put that together:
The notice must state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges.
This is the reasoning that the NtK (the notice) is not FULLY compliant with ALL the requirements of PoFA.
This shows how it is argued:
Under Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), the Notice to Keeper (NtK) must include a specific invitation to the keeper to pay the charge. This requirement serves to ensure that the keeper understands their liability and has a clear course of action.
The operator cannot simply rely on the fact that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) is addressed to the Keeper to satisfy Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of Schedule 4 of PoFA. The law explicitly requires a clear and specific invitation for the keeper to either:
• Pay the parking charge, or
• Provide the name and address of the driver (if the keeper was not the driver).
This is not an "implied" requirement; it must be explicitly stated. Merely inferring that the keeper is invited to pay because the notice is addressed to them does not meet the strict wording requirements of PoFA.
PoFA compliance requires specific wording. The law’s intention is to make the responsibilities of the Keeper clear and unambiguous. Phrases like "you are invited to pay this parking charge" or "you are required to do X, Y, Z" are examples of wording that PoFA expects.
If the notice only says, for example, "the Parking Charge is now payable" or "payment is required" without directly inviting the keeper to pay, this is insufficient under PoFA. The wording must link the keeper directly to the payment obligation in an unambiguous way.
The operator cannot claim keeper liability under PoFA if they fail to meet the explicit requirements of 9(2)(e)(i). This is a valid appeal (and defence) point, as courts and independent adjudicators should not rely on implied obligations instead of explicit compliance with statutory requirements.
Regarding the wording in PPSCoP section 8.1.2(e):
The parking operator must ensure that a notice informs the recipient: that if the recipient appeals within 28 days of receiving the parking charge, the right to pay at the rate applicable when the appeal was made must stand for a further 14 days from the date (subject to 8.1.2d) they receive notification that their appeal has been rejected
I then goes on to state in Note 2 to that section:
NOTE 2: A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have
been delivered on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this
purpose, “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday
in England and Wales.
We can take it that "delivered", "given" and "received" are the same thing.
The right to appeal is 28 days from
receipt of the parking charge, not from the date of "issue" of the notice.
In your case, the notice was issued on Tuesday 14th January and it correctly states on the front that payment is to be made by Friday 14th February. However, look at the back of the NtK under "Appeals & transfer of liability". It incorrectly sates that all appeals must be received within 28 days of issue of the notice. That is clearly wrong.
This is a strong procedural point because it demonstrates non-compliance with the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) section 8.1.2(e). The appeal deadline has been misstated, which is a clear breach of PPSCoP 8.1.2(e). This misleads the recipient into believing they have less time to appeal than they actually do, which is both procedurally unfair and legally significant in both a POPLA appeal and a potential court defence.
The PPSCoP is a binding requirement for British Parking Association (BPA) and International Parking Community (IPC) members. Any breach of the Code undermines the legitimacy of the parking charge and the operator’s compliance with regulations. Since the appeal timeframe is an important consumer right, a misstatement of it is a substantial flaw in the operator’s case.
I could go on, but you get the gist, hopefully.
