Before we advise on what you should do next, you have to tell us whether you are prepared to fight this all the way up to defending a debt claim from CEL should the initial appeal and subsequent POPLA appeals fail (likely).
I do not want to waste my time or yours if you are not up for the fight. If this were a single PCN, it would be a no-brainer. However, as it is for three PCNS, CEL may be more likely to go al the way with this.
Having said that, you would have a very good chance of successfully defending a claim. It would be a protracted affair lasting the good part of a year. We would advise every step of the way and you would learn a lot about the civil legal process.
The main reason I think you have a chance should it go all the way to a court claim is because of the following reasoning:
The Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not fully compliant with all the requirements of PoFA. Any initial appeal to CEL would be rejected, irrespective of the reasoning. No money in it for them. However, the secondary process of appeal, POPLA, in this case, is not likely to have much success either. This is why I say that it is likely to progress all the way to a county court claim by CEL for the money.
PoFA Compliance – Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i)
It is important to set realistic expectations regarding how this particular PoFA point may be received at the appeals stage. While the Notice to Keeper fails to properly comply with paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), POPLA assessors are not legally trained professionals. They are not judges or barristers, and their decisions are not binding on either party. POPLA assessors often approach cases using a lay interpretation, and where statutory language is loosely mirrored — even if inaccurately — they sometimes take the view that the “spirit” or general intent of the provision has been met.
However, this is not how legislation should be applied. Paragraph 9 of PoFA uses the word “must” repeatedly. The use of "must" denotes a mandatory statutory requirement, not a discretionary guideline. The Act does not allow for implication, interpretation, or approximation. Either each prescribed element has been complied with, or it has not. There is no scope within the statute for a notice to be “mostly compliant” or “good enough.”
PoFA compliance is a binary issue. A Parking Charge Notice (PCN) either complies with every required element of the Act, or it does not. To suggest otherwise undermines the very structure and purpose of statutory safeguards. Using a common-sense analogy: a person cannot be partially or even mostly pregnant. They either are, or they are not. The same applies here — a PCN cannot be partially or mostly PoFA-compliant. It either is, or it is not. And in this case, it is not.
While POPLA may consider the language "sufficiently compliant" due to a perceived reflection of the required intent, this should not be considered a pragmatic or justifiable approach. Such leniency defeats the point of having a statutory framework designed to limit liability for vehicle keepers unless certain strict conditions are met. Courts, by contrast, are more rigorous in applying legislation and are more likely to rule that every paragraph must be fully complied with for keeper liability to be established, as long as it is argued clearly and accurately.
Suffice it to say, that I've never had any claim that uses this argument to actually reach a hearing in court. Even if it had been used successfully, any decision would not be binding, or even persuasive in future cases. It would only hold significant weight if it were a point of appeal agreed by a circuit judge.
In summary, although this argument may not succeed at POPLA due to their informal assessment criteria, it would carry significantly more weight in a court of law, where statutory interpretation is properly applied.
So, are you prepared to fight this all the way or not?
