Thankfully, in that original appeal the driver was never identified, and that is the key protection here.
Even with that “
I would have paid the reduced amount” line, the appeal still came from the Keeper, not from a named driver. It complained about delay and broken systems instead of accepting that there was a valid contract or a breach. The “
would have paid” sentence is only a hypothetical (“
would have… if”), not “
I accept I owe this”. It does not admit the charge is lawful, and it does not say who was driving.
If this ever reached court (highly unlikely), that sentence would just be background noise. It does not fix PoFA defects, it does not fix bad or missing signage, it does not give the operator legal “standing”, it is not a CPR 14 admission, and it does not prove who was driving. You can always explain that it was written early on, before proper advice, and was meant to show you were trying to act reasonably but were prejudiced by their delay.
The lesson to take away from this is never, ever, admit liability as Keeper and never say you “
owe” or “
would have paid” the charge. Keep everything framed as the Keeper only, with the driver remaining unidentified.
So, moving on, the alleged contravention was on 31/08/2025. For keeper liability under PoFA, a postal Notice to Keeper has to be delivered (“given”) within 14 days, so by 14/09/2025 at the latest. Their NtK is dated 15/09/2025. Even if you bend over backwards and assume it was posted that day by first-class post and deemed delivered two working days later (17/09/2025), that is day 17. It cannot create keeper liability.
On top of that, the front of the NtK itself is headed “Notice to Keeper (Postal –
Non PoFA)”. They are openly saying they are not relying on PoFA. That alone kills any Keeper liability. Only the unknown driver could ever be liable, and the driver has not been identified.
Also, the Unity5 hybrid-mail “certificate of postage” actually helps you as the Keeper. All it shows is that the notice was queued with a mail consolidator at 11:34 on 15/09/2025 on a “2–3 day delivery” service, i.e. not first-class post. The two-working-day deemed delivery rule in the Interpretation Act is based on ordinary first-class post. Using a slower consolidator service makes their claimed deemed delivery date even less credible. Realistically, it probably entered the Royal Mail system on 16th or 17th, so it would be “given” around 18th–19th September (day 18–19). Either way, it is clearly outside PoFA.
Ignore TRACE. They are not a party to anything and have no standing.
If you want to draw a line, send UKCPS one final letter as Keeper only, along the lines of: your own notice is marked “Non PoFA” and was not given within 14 days, so you have no right to recover any sum from me as Keeper, I will not be naming the driver, and I will only engage again if you cancel or you issue a fully compliant Letter of Claim.
The real external escalation that actually matters is the CMA under the DMCC. That is where you bundle up the Non PoFA NtK, the 2–3 day hybrid-mail proof, the misleading PoFA-style threat “we may recover from you, the keeper, on the assumption that you were the driver”, and the snail-mail-only complaints process, and present it as a pattern of unfair and misleading commercial practice.
Bottom line: the PoFA timing and the “Non PoFA” label mean the Keeper cannot be liable, the hybrid-mail evidence strengthens that position, and nothing the Keeper has written so far has changed it.
This is the letter I would send to UKCPS:
Subjeect: Parking Charge Notice GCL167641 – Final response from registered keeper
Dear Sirs,
I write as the registered keeper of vehicle [VRM]. I refer to your “Notice to Keeper (Postal – Non PoFA) issued on private land” dated 15/09/2025, your later letter dated 14/10/2025 (the first notice that actually arrived at my address), my appeal of 12/11/2025, and my subsequent formal complaint sent by post which has not yet been substantively answered.
1. No keeper liability – Non PoFA and out of time
Your own document is headed “Notice to Keeper (Postal – Non PoFA)”. You have therefore chosen not to rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and you accept that you cannot create statutory keeper liability.
In any event, the notice is out of time for PoFA. The alleged contravention date is 31/08/2025. A PoFA-compliant notice must be delivered within 14 days of that date. Even on your own case, the earliest that your notice dated 15/09/2025 could be “given” is two working days later, 17/09/2025, which is day 17.
Your Unity5 hybrid-mail “certificate of postage” simply shows that the item was queued with a mail consolidator on 15/09/2025 for a 2–3 day service. It does not demonstrate first class post or delivery within 14 days. PoFA therefore cannot apply.
Accordingly, you have no lawful route to recover any sum from me as Keeper. Liability, if any, could only ever rest with the unidentified driver. No admissions are made as to that person’s identity.
2. Misleading statements about keeper liability
Despite expressly labelling the notice “Non PoFA” and issuing it out of time, you go on to threaten that if the charge is not paid and the driver not named, you “may recover from you, the keeper, on the assumption that you were the driver” and that the notice is “deemed to have been given” two working days after sending.
Outside PoFA there is no legal presumption that a registered keeper was the driver, and persuasive appellate authority has made it clear that courts must not simply proceed on such an assumption. Your wording is therefore a misleading statement of my legal position and of your entitlement to pursue me as keeper.
It is also inconsistent with the Private Parking Single Code of Practice, including clause 8.1.1(d). This has already been raised with the Competition and Markets Authority in a complaint under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 and I reserve the right to expand that complaint with your latest correspondence.
3. Debt collectors
You state that the matter has been referred to TRACE Debt Recovery. TRACE are not a party to any alleged contract and have no standing. I will not communicate with them. Any further letters, texts or calls from TRACE or any other debt collector will simply be retained as evidence of unreasonable and aggressive conduct.
4. Future conduct, bulk litigators and potential proceedings
There is no purpose in any further routine demands. Unless you now confirm cancellation, the only proper next step would be a fully compliant Letter of Claim in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, followed (if you insist) by a County Court claim.
This letter puts you and any bulk litigation firm you decide to use on clear notice that there is and can be no Keeper liability for this “Non PoFA” and out-of-time notice. If you are considering instructing any firm to sue me as Keeper, you must provide them with a copy of this letter before they accept instructions, so that they fully understand the hopelessness of any Keeper-only claim.
If, despite this, a claim is issued against me as registered keeper in relation to PCN GCL167641, I will treat it as having no real prospect of success and as an abuse of process. I will promptly apply for summary judgment under CPR 24.2(a) and/or strike-out of the claim and will seek fixed costs in the sum of £750 pursuant to Practice Direction 45, Table 1(C) for an application for summary judgment under Part 24, together with the application fee of £313 and any further costs the court considers appropriate in light of your unreasonable conduct.
5. What I expect now
Unless and until I receive either:
a) written confirmation that PCN GCL167641 has been cancelled and that my data has been removed from all non-statutory systems (including debt collectors); or
b) a fully compliant Letter of Claim,
I will regard this matter as closed and will not respond to any further routine correspondence.
Yours faithfully,
[Name of keeper]
Of course you don’t have to follow up on the threat of summary judgment but I have recently had two successful applications with both receiving fixed costs of £750 plus the £313 application fee awarded and both are awaiting a costs hearing for the claimants unreasonable conduct, which will likely mean even more costs awarded.
