Her sis why they have not shown that their NtK is PoFA compliant:
PoFA 9(6) – Presumption of Delivery
“A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted.”
This is a rebuttable presumption. It is not absolute. The burden of proof lies initially on the recipient (keeper), who must provide sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption.
What constitutes “proof to the contrary”?
To rebut the presumption, courts often require:
• Evidence raising reasonable doubt about delivery by the presumed date.
• Evidence that is more than mere assertion. A simple “I didn’t receive it” is usually not enough.
Where applicable, independent supporting evidence, such as:
• Proof of address accuracy issues
• Patterns of misdelivered post (e.g. letters arriving late or at wrong address)
• Evidence of the notice being sent second class or bulk mail without guaranteed delivery standards
• Absence of proof of actual date of posting (e.g. no franking or Post Office receipt)
• Poor scan quality or metadata anomalies in the operator’s documentation.
The presumption of service under Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 also depends on proper addressing, prepaying, and posting. If the operator fails to prove these points, the presumption is not made out at all.
You may argue:
“The operator has failed to discharge the evidential burden of proving that the notice was properly addressed, pre-paid, and posted as required by Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978. Accordingly, the presumption of service cannot apply, or is rebutted.”
If the operator cannot prove posting on a specific date (e.g. no timestamp, no proof of mailing), they cannot benefit from the presumption of delivery under either PoFA or the Interpretation Act.
So, if you raise a substantive challenge to the operator’s claim of delivery and they fail to provide conclusive or adequate evidence, that can amount to the “contrary being proved”. It does not need to be a guaranteed rebuttal — a balance of probabilities is sufficient. If the operator relies on assumptions or generic processes, rather than specific proof of posting and addressing, you can argue the presumption is displaced.
I would respond to ParkingEye with the following:
Re: Parking Charge Reference [xxxx]
Vehicle Registration: [xxxx]
Formal Complaint – Continued
I refer to your recent correspondence following the British Parking Association’s (BPA) referral of my complaint back to you. Regrettably, your latest response entirely fails to address the core issue raised in my original complaint, namely that the Notice to Keeper (NtK) was not received, and therefore the requirement under Paragraph 9(5) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) — that the notice be “given” by the 14th day following the date of the alleged contravention — has not been met.
You rely on a mail consolidator report as proof of posting. However, PoFA 2012 requires more than internal records or generic process documentation to demonstrate that a notice was “given” within the statutory timeframe. Paragraph 9(6) of PoFA makes clear that the presumption of delivery on the second working day after posting only applies “unless the contrary is proved.”
That presumption is now rebutted.
I reiterate that the NtK dated 21/12/2024 was not received, and you have not provided any evidence capable of displacing that assertion. Your reference to a mail consolidator report lacks essential details such as:
The actual date of physical posting,
Confirmation that the mail was properly addressed, including full and correct flat/building numbers,
The class of post used (e.g. first-class, second-class, or non-priority),
Proof that the notice was handed over to Royal Mail for delivery, as required under Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 to even engage the presumption of delivery.
Without these, the presumption under PoFA 9(6) cannot stand. It is insufficient to simply state that something was “issued” internally. Unless it was demonstrably posted and delivered within the prescribed timeframe, the statutory presumption of proper service does not apply.
Moreover, as PoFA compliance hinges on the notice being “given”, and your evidence fails to establish this, keeper liability has not been established in accordance with Schedule 4.
It is deeply unsatisfactory that a complaint specifically concerning the failure to demonstrate that a NtK was “given” has been dismissed based solely on a generic mail consolidator report, which does not itself prove that the notice was correctly addressed, prepaid and actually entered into the postal system. The requirement is not proof of delivery but rather proof of posting; only once proper posting is established does the statutory presumption of delivery arise. In this case, no such evidence has been provided beyond bare assertions and internal batch data, which are insufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Interpretation Act 1978 or to displace a credible assertion that the NtK was not received.
I again request that this Parking Charge be cancelled, and formal confirmation of cancellation provided. If you persist in pursuing this charge without satisfying the requirements of Schedule 4, I will escalate the matter to the DVLA and other relevant bodies for review of both your conduct and that of the BPA.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
[Address if not already provided]
