Free Traffic Legal Advice

Can't agree.


I like to deal with what is in evidence and not what we think should be.

In this case, the PCN NTK refers to 8(2) etc. It is not the keeper's task to think this should be something else (e.g. 9) and address the alternative, neither could the keeper be criticised or placed in jeopardy for not doing so.

The NTK says what it says and the keeper is perfectly entitled to address it as such. Subject to what other correspondence they might have had with the creditor and which we have still not seen but must exist otherwise there wouldn't be a POPLA code - what I referred to as the keeper's appeal to Elite and not their appeal to POPLA), IMO the keeper cannot be presumed to know anything about matters and may act upon the NTK as written, not as we think it should have been written.

You haven't included all their evidence, or if you have they'll fail by default because there's no Notice to Keeper which is the key notice.

But assuming they have submitted this in evidence then:


You have not admitted being the driver, therefore your only issue is whether you may be held liable by the creditor, as they have asserted that they may, if the charge is not paid and the creditor doesn't know the name of the driver. 

To hold the keeper liable they must serve a compliant Notice to Keeper.

They haven't.

They have not complied with Schedule 4 of PoFA which is the precedent condition for them to hold you liable. Specifically, when a creditor relies upon para. 8 of PoFA, which is the case here, they must have issued a Notice to Driver and may not serve a NTK until at least 28 days have elapsed following service of that notice.
In this case, the date of the alleged breach is 19 Nov. and the NTK was served on 23rd.

Para 8 in part:

8(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to keeper for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met.

(2)The notice must—

(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;

(b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;

(c)state that a notice to driver relating to the specified period of parking has been given and repeat the information in that notice as required by paragraph 7(2)(b), (c) and (f);

......
4)The notice must be given by—

(a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or

(b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.

(5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 28 days following the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given.

It is not your task to guess, deduce, divine or whatever that the notice should refer to other matters e.g. should be para. 9 etc. Think about it, if you were to do this then why not guess that it says all the things it doesn't, even if it should have referred to para.9 and not appeal at all.

You have received the notice AS IS.

You are entitled to deal with it as such.

But I suspect this view won't be mainstream.

Thanks, found it.

'You are notified under para. 8(2)(b)........'couldn't be clearer.

Is what the evidence states.

Deal with what's in evidence, not what isn't.

IMO, the main part of the 8 v 9 issue is the time frame for serving the notice i.e. an 8 cannot be served until at least the Notice to Driver has expired otherwise this is an attempt at double recovery.


I refer to your Notice to Keeper (NTK) dated **** in respect of an event which occurred on ****. I have read this notice thoroughly and have referred to the references supplied by you for which I am grateful i.e. Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012(PoFA).

Your notice states the following:

'You are notified that ......

..you are now invited to pay....further recovery action ......

As your notice is dated 19 November 2023, then paras 8(4)and 8(5) of PoFA make it clear that you may not serve a Notice to Keeper until at least 28 days have elapsed since you issued the Notice to Driver to which para. 8 refers. The date of the incident and therefore presumably the date of the Notice to Driver(NTD) was 19 November and therefore it follows that the earliest that you could serve a NTK would be 18 December and that any notice issued prior to this date would be an attempt at double recovery as well as being proscribed by PoFA, and indeed your Code of Practice.

It therefore follows that you have not complied with the precedent conditions of para.4 of PoFA and therefore are unable to exercise the right to hold the keeper liable.

I cannot comment on the validity of the original NTD and parking charge and you are no doubt free to continue to pursue the driver. 

add whatever else you like....