Free Traffic Legal Advice

The NtK is not PoFA compliant but don't expect ECP to accept that.

Did you validate your parking within the store?

The NtK is not PoFA compliant but don't expect ECP to accept that.

How can they not accept (as in successfully ignore, and successfully transfer liability to the keeper) that their NtK does not validly support transfer of liability to the keeper?

Did you validate your parking within the store?

The driver did - if they had not the overstay would have been 1:39:59s, not 9:59.

It could be that the computer that works this stuff out simply recognised that the total stay exceeded 2 hours 10 mins even if that was by a few seconds.

The operator is supposed to make manual checks before requesting keeper details from DVLA but we have seen time and time again that these checks are not carried out.

In the first instance I'd suggest a single point appeal to the operator (made as the keeper) pointing out that the driver both registered and left the site in 2hrs 10 mins. You could add weight to the appeal by pointing out that 'time on site' doesn't demonstrate the exact 'period of parking' in circumstances where timings are so tight.

I agree with the OP on this.

When PoFA was introduced, the then Government lorded it as 'a modern Act of Parliament' which was 'worded in legally tight manner' and 'designed to be totally understandable by individuals with no legal background' (admittedly my paraphrasing).

If you examine the Act then you will see that this is the case.

The wording of 9(2) demonstrates that exact point; The notice must-

The wording of 9(2)(e) further reinforces that point if it were needed; The notice must state blah blah blah

If a notice 'must state' something and it subsequently fails to 'state' it then one quite reasonably imagines that this is a very good 'basis' for making such an assertion?

Otherwise, what purpose do the requirements 9(2)(a-i) perform if one could just introduce subjectivity (to such an extent as was needed) in order to ignore the precise wording of the Act itself and therefore always arrive at a position where one deems a NtK as being compliant?

The Act was deliberately designed and worded as to deliberately AVOID such subjectivity - that is the very purpose of tight wording and total objectivity.



If you want ever wanted to find an Act which exhibited the exact opposite then you should examine the Animals Act (1971).

I cut my teeth on the Animals Act and I can tell you that it was arduous.

Examine this history of interpretations of the Animals Act over the years - it is mind boggling.

Read it here;



This is the EXACT reason why modern Acts were worded in such a strict manner.

What government claims a piece of legislation to be, and what judges subsequently interpret it to be, often misalign.

the bigger ones are professional run and work with clients like supermarkets, the NHS, universities etc. that have proper contract teams and legal bound tender processes. Its not the wild west people like to portray.

Some of those 'bigger ones' are made up of the same ex-clampers whose operating practices were so poor that the government had to step in and criminalise it. The government's private parking bill wasn't brought in because the sector is working.

But lets not get too philosophical. If you fight this case all the way, there's a very fair chance they'll discontinue before it reaches a court. We can't guarantee it, but past performance suggests it's fairly likely.

Also, that's a brush off from the supermarket, keep on at them.

If it were me, and you're confident the driver did enter the correct reg, I'd be leading with the grace period in any appeals - by their own PCN it's less than 10 minutes. Regardless of whether they should, we know that POPLA have hitherto not shared the view that ECP's notices are not PoFA compliant, but it would be harder for them to assert that an overstay of less than 10 minutes was an overstay of more than 10 minutes.