Free Traffic Legal Advice

It’s petty, but in return you can be, the notice has not complied with https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4

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—

(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;

(b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;

(c)describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable;

(d)specify the total amount of those parking charges that are unpaid, as at a time which is—

(i)specified in the notice; and

(ii)no later than the end of the day before the day on which the notice is either sent by post or, as the case may be, handed to or left at a current address for service for the keeper (see sub-paragraph (4));

(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; or

(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;

(f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—

(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and

(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,

the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;
(g)inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available;

(h)identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made;

(i)specify the date on which the notice is sent (where it is sent by post) or given (in any other case).

because, potentially amongst other things, no “period of parking” has been specified and therefore the registered keeper can not be liable for the actions of the driver.

You should refer to yourself as the registered keeper of the car, and will not be identifying the driver.

A simple appeal is

I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. Premier Park has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.

The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. Premier Park have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

Any initial appeal will be rejected, irrespective of the circumstances. You are not dealing with a firm that has any customer service ethos. All they want is to extract as much money out of you as they can. These are ex-clamper thugs who will do anything they can to try and scam you.

There is no legal obligation on the Keeper to identify the driver to an unregulated private parking firm. Irrespective of who was driving, you only refer to the driver in the third person. No "I did this or that", only "the driver did this or that". However, in this case, as you were not the driver, it may be a moot point.

It's pretty clear that a valid blue badge was on display and so once the initial appeal is rejected, you can make a secondary appeal to POPLA, where they may even assign a real assessor to the case and find that the evidence is overwhelming and the PCN should be cancelled. In any case, as already pointed out earlier, there can be no Keeper liability if the notice does not fully comply with PoFA. In this case, paragraph 9(2)(a) has not been complied with and you can refer the POPLA assessor to the persuasive appellate case law in Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023) where the judge dismissed the claim because a single timestamp on the NtK does not show a "period of parking" and was therefore not PoFA compliant and the Keeper could not be liable.

About to submit an appeal along the lines of what jfollows wrote. I'm guessing I don't mention which bits are not compliant?
I only ask as in the NTK they seem to try to pre-empt that with the line "The period of parking to which this notice relates is the period immediately proceeding the incident time stated above"

If you want to understand why a judge deemed that not stating a "period of parking" other than a single observation time or timestamp, have a read of this:

Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (2023)

So, no PoFA compliance to be able to hold the Keeper liable and no evidence that a contract was formed with the driver.

Just submit the simple appeal, which originated with @b789, because it will be rejected anyway “after careful consideration “ or some such similar rubbish.

Landowner has cancelled as a "gesture of goodwill". Thank you all.