Before you continue with this, get it into your head that you must NEVER, EVER identify the driver. You have clearly done so to us, maybe inadvertently, but if you respond to the PCN like that, you will have blabbed the drivers identity and thrown away one of the best defences you will ever have for these charges!
UKPC have NO IDEA who the driver is unless you blab it to them. Because of deficiencies in their Notice to Keeper (NtK) they cannot rely on PoFA 2012 to transfer the liability from the
unknown driver to the
known Keeper. The driver is always liable and unless you, as the Keeper, refer to the driver in the third person, you will have shot yourself in both feet with a single shot! You never say silly things like "I did this or that", only "the driver did this or that". Don't tell 'em your name Pike!
So, to the PCN itself... what evidence have they provided to support their allegation that "driver left site designated for customer parking"? I'll bet you that they have not provided ANY evidence to support their allegation. Also, their NtK is not fully compliant with ALL the requirements of PoFA to be able to hold the Keeper liable if the driver is not identified.
There is no legal obligation on the
known keeper to reveal the identity of the
unknown driver to an unregulated private parking firm 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 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. UKPC 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. UKPC have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
Come back the they reject the appeal and give you a POPLA code. No initial appeal is ever successful because there is no money in it for them if they accept.
