The Notice to Driver (NtD) is not PoFA compliant as there is no "period of parking" mentioned as required by paragraph 7(2)(a). A single observation/issue time is not a "period of parking".
There is also the matter of whether any contact could be formed with the driver by the signage. Although the NPC “Parking Conditions” sign is, in principle, capable of forming a contract with a driver (including an unauthorised driver) if it is properly brought to their attention, the absence of any separate entrance signage for the bays where the vehicle was parked is a significant additional defence point.
Here, there is no entrance sign or clear boundary marker telling a driver that they have left “The Grove” patrons/staff car park and entered a different parking regime. The layout gives the impression of a single continuous parking area serving the clinic. In that context, a driver who is authorised to park for work at the clinic is entitled to proceed on the reasonable assumption that the small group of bays across the narrow drive is part of the same car park, unless clear signage indicates otherwise.
That matters because contract formation depends on clarity of the offer and the terms being presented in a way that a reasonable motorist would understand applies to the place they are parking. If it is not obvious that the bays are separate, and the only signage that could correct that impression is not prominent or noticeable, then the driver has not knowingly chosen to park under NPC’s resident-permit terms. In plain terms, you cannot fairly accept terms you would not reasonably realise applied to the area you had parked in.
So, even accepting that the NPC terms sign could create a contractual scheme, the lack of a dedicated entrance sign and the resulting confusion strengthens the argument that no contract was formed for those bays because the driver was not put on clear notice that they had entered a different, permit-only zone with a £100 charge attached. This is another useful arrow in your defence quiver, because it attacks the operator’s ability to prove that the driver knowingly accepted a separate set of terms for a separate area, rather than simply parking within what appeared to be the same clinic car park they were entitled to use.
Why the appeal is made only on day 27This appeal is deliberately submitted on day 27 after the alleged contravention because this is the point at which the Keeper can assert full procedural control while denying the operator any tactical advantage.
In an NtD scenario, the operator has no automatic right to pursue the registered keeper. Keeper liability exists only if the operator later complies fully with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. By waiting until day 27, the keeper avoids early engagement that often leads to pressure to identify the driver or to inadvertent disclosure, and instead makes a single, clear Keeper-only position once the operator’s initial evidence and documentation are fixed.
Providing the Keeper’s name and address at this stage is also deliberate. It ensures that the operator has the correct details for service before any next step is taken. From that point onward, any attempt to request the same Keeper data again from the DVLA would be unnecessary for the stated purpose of pursuing the charge. That would engage the UK GDPR data minimisation principle under Article 5(1)(c), and potentially the purpose limitation principle under Article 5(1)(b) and the requirement for a lawful basis under Article 6(1). This creates a clear and objective data protection breach if the operator proceeds regardless.
The appeal is intentionally brief and non-evidential. Initial appeals are rarely accepted and there is no tactical value in setting out a full defence at this stage. The purpose is to deny Keeper liability, prevent any attempt to infer or assume the identity of the driver, put the operator on notice of data protection obligations, and require either cancellation or a properly reasoned rejection with access to ADR.
There is no legal obligation on the
known keeper (the recipient of the NtD) to reveal the identity of the
unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.
The NtD is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the
unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the
unknown driver to the
known keeper.
Use the following as your appeal. Submit it on day 27 - Sunday 18 January through their portal or by email, No need to embellish or remove anything from it:
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.
My details are:
[name]
[address]
VRM [registration number]
As you now have my details and correct address for service, you are warned that any attempt to request my details again from the DVLA will result in a claim under the Data Protection Act 2018 for breach of the UK GDPR, including but not limited to the data minimisation principle under Article 5(1)(c).
As your Notice to Driver does not comply with all the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, including paragraph 7(2)(a), 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. You have relied on contract law allegations against the driver only.
The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtD can only hold the driver liable.
You have no prospect of success should you attempt litigation. You are therefore urged to cancel the parking charge or issue a rejection together with details of the appropriate ADR (IAS).
