Now I’ve had time to study the actual NtK, I can expand on what I said earlier and on
@DWMB2’s point.
1. Keeper liability and PoFABaySentry are clearly trying to invoke Schedule 4 of POFA – they even name paragraph 9(2)(b) on the front and 9(2)(f) on the back. Once they choose to go down that route they have to hit ALL of the statutory requirements, not just some of them.
The key problem for them is that there is still no properly specified “period of parking” anywhere on the NtK. What they give is:
• An allegation that the terms were breached “on 14/11/2025 at 23:17”; and
• ANPR timestamps labelled “Arrival time” and “Departure time”.
POFA requires a “period of parking to which the notice relates”. A single timestamp is not a period. ANPR entry/exit times are, at best, times on site. In a multi-storey like this, with internal circulation and a single exit, there will often be a significant interval where the vehicle is queuing and not parked at all. That distinction is particularly important in this case because the “excess” time is entirely made up of exit-queue time.
They also try to cover paragraph 9(2)(b) by saying that “the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay this parking charge in full”. The statute talks about “parking charges” in respect of the specified period of parking that have not been paid in full. Here, there is no identified unpaid tariff at all – the correct amount for up to 6 hours was paid at 22:19 and your receipt proves it. They are simply relabelling a contractual penalty as if it were an unpaid tariff.
On that basis I stick with what I said before: this NtK is not fully compliant with Schedule 4, so there is no keeper liability. You, as Keeper, should not be naming the driver and there is no legal obligation on the Keeper to do so.
2. Frustration of contract/being trapped in the exit queueSeparately from the POFA issues, I agree with
@DWMB2 that this is a strong example of frustration of contract. The driver’s position, in short:
• Entered at 16:40 and parked.
• Paid £13 at 22:19 for “up to 6 hours” – which takes them to at least 22:40.
• Returned promptly to the car and found the single exit completely blocked with arena traffic.
• Joined the queue as soon as it was safe to do so and then crawled out with everyone else, finally passing the ANPR exit camera at 23:17.
So any so-called “overstay” beyond 22:40 is entirely time spent trapped in an exit queue created by the operator’s own layout and by predictable event-night congestion. It is not additional parking time the driver chose to buy or use. Once they have paid the correct tariff and are trying to leave, they cannot be blamed for the operator’s decision to run a single-exit MSCP next to a major venue.
Under basic contract principles, if performance becomes impossible or radically different due to events outside the parties’ control, the contract is frustrated. Here, even if there were a term requiring the car to be off-site by 22:40, performance of that term was prevented by circumstances outside the driver’s control. Charging £100 because your own exit is gridlocked is the very definition of unreasonable.
3. How I’d frame it going forwardPutting it together, the line I advise taking is:
• As keeper: BaySentry have failed to meet all of POFA’s requirements (most obviously the lack of any clear “period of parking”), so they cannot hold the Keeper liable. You will not be naming the driver.
• As to the alleged breach: the correct tariff for up to 6 hours was paid before expiry. Any excess time on site arose solely because the single exit was jammed with event traffic. The driver joined the queue at the earliest safe opportunity and had no control over the pace of that queue. Any contract was therefore frustrated and no breach occurred.
You’ll then need to decide whether you want to send a short, firm keeper response on those lines (knowing that IAS is kangaroo court), or simply sit tight and see if they are rash enough to try court, where both the PoFA point and frustration argument should land far better.
The Keeper (only) should make an initial appeal to BaySentry with the following:
Appeal – Registered Keeper
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I dispute your Parking Charge Notice in full. You will not receive any admission as to the identity of the driver, and you must consider this appeal strictly in my capacity as Keeper.
Your Notice to Keeper fails to meet the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and therefore cannot create any Keeper liability. You are limited to pursuing the driver, whose identity you do not know.
Even if you had complied with PoFA (you have not), no parking breach occurred. The correct tariff of £13 for up to six hours was paid at 22:19. That covered the vehicle until at least 22:40. The driver then returned promptly to the car and attempted to exit, only to find that the multi-storey car park, which you operate with a single entry/exit point, was completely gridlocked due to predictable event-night congestion from the First Direct Arena. The driver joined the queue at the earliest safe and practical opportunity and had no control over the pace of traffic leaving the building. The entire period after 22:40 was forced upon them by the design and operation of the car park, not by any choice to remain parked.
This is a textbook instance of frustration of contract. The driver paid what was demanded and attempted to leave before the paid-for period expired, but performance was rendered impossible by circumstances entirely outside their control and entirely within yours. Any attempt to monetise exit-queue time as if it were a deliberate overstay is legally unsustainable.
It is also now abundantly clear that this location is operated as a deliberate honeytrap on event nights. BaySentry are fully aware that the multi-storey car park has a single exit and becomes severely congested every time an arena event ends. You continue to profit from this known defect in your own design and operations by issuing charges for delays that you foresee, control, and benefit from. That is an unfair trading practice under consumer law.
For the avoidance of doubt, irrespective of whatever template rejection you choose to issue, this case will be reported to the Competition and Markets Authority under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024. The conduct complained of includes, but is not limited to:
• Imposing an unfair commercial practice by exploiting a known structural defect (single-exit congestion) to generate penalty-style charges.
• Presenting misleading and false representations about the consumer’s obligations by treating unavoidable exit-queue time as chargeable parking time.
• Failing to act with professional diligence and knowingly creating a trading environment in which consumers suffer detriment they cannot reasonably avoid.
• Engaging in conduct likely to materially distort consumer behaviour, contrary to the DMCC’s prohibitions on unfair commercial practices.
BaySentry should be aware that if the CMA considers there to be breaches of the DMCC, it has extensive new enforcement powers. These include the ability to impose direct financial penalties of up to 10% of a business’s global annual turnover (plus substantial daily penalties for continued non-compliance), to issue enforcement directions requiring practices to be changed or stopped, and, in serious cases, to seek orders that may affect senior management personally, including director disqualification. I will be inviting the CMA to consider whether your business model at this site falls within the scope of those powers.
If the person reading this appeal does not understand what the CMA/DMCC powers entail, they should immediately refer this appeal to a responsible adult within your organisation who is capable of understanding the consequences. Should you reject this appeal, you must either cancel the charge or issue the appropriate IAS code. No payment will be made.
Keep copies of:
• The payment receipt showing the £13 for “up to 6 hours” at 22:19.
• The text message about “might take a while to get out” timed at 22:26.
• Anything that shows there was an arena event that evening.
