Easy one to deal with… as long as the
unknown drivers identity is not revealed. There is no legal obligation on the
known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the
unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.
The NtK 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. 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.
As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (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. NCP 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 strained interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only ever attempt to hold the driver liable.
Further, you are now on notice that I am also reporting NCP to the DVLA for breach of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice, Section 8.1.1(d). You will be aware that DVLA data access is conditional upon compliance obligations, and that breaches engage your KADOE contract. I will not set out the detail here; you are invited to look up Section 8.1.1(d) yourself.
NCP has no prospect of success at POPLA. You are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel this charge.
I suggest you make the formal complaint to the DVLA that NCP have issued an NtK 20 days after the date of the alleged contravention and it was not given (served) until 24 days after the date of the alleged contravention. However, they have stated in their NtK that they are holding the Keeper liable if the driver is not identified. That is a clear breach of the PPSCoP section 8.1.1(d) which states:
The parking operator must not serve a notice which in its design and/or language: state the keeper is liable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 where they cannot be held liable.
Because their NtK specifically states that they can recover from
you (the Keeper) the charge if it is not paid. They have used the exact language from PoFA paragraph 9(2).
