Technically, the NtK is NOT PoFA compliant as the notice shows ANPR timestamps for entry and exit, but nowhere does it explicitly state “the period of parking” as required by Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
ANPR timestamps ≠ period of parking. They record when the vehicle crossed the boundary, not when it was parked. PoFA requires the actual period of parking to be specified — not implied, inferred, or left to interpretation.
The notice fails to use the statutory phrase or provide a clear parking duration. This is a technical failure that invalidates keeper liability.
Not that any appeal is likely to be successful. However, as this is a UKPC charge and even though it is likely to go as far as a county court claim, it will never get as far as a hearing as it will either be struck out or discontinued just before the £27 trail fee has to be paid by them.
If you follow the advice you receive here, you will never pay a penny to UKPC. However, you have to go through the motions and you should appeal only as the Keeper.
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 PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. It does not specify “the period of parking” as required. The notice merely states ANPR entry and exit times, which record vehicle movements at the site boundary — not the duration of parking. This omission renders the notice non-compliant, and as such, the operator cannot rely on PoFA to pursue the registered keeper.
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.
