It's not PoFA compliant and it claims, unlawfully, that it has been issued in accordance with PoFA. It can only be PoFA compliant if it fully complies with ALL the requirements of the Act.
PoFA 2012 Sch 4 para 9(2)(f) requires the notice to:
“warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day AFTER that on which the notice is given... the amount has not been paid in full and the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service, the creditor will (if all applicable conditions are met) have the right to recover from the keeper.”
What their NtK actually says is:
“If the charge remains unpaid 28 days after the notice has been given, we have the right to recover the amount due from the registered keeper of the vehicle, unless you provide the driver details as outlined above.”
9(2)(f) – they mis-state the mandatory warning:
They don’t use the required formulation “28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given”. Their wording (“28 days after the notice has been given”) shortens the statutory period by a day and omits the “all applicable conditions” and the “both name and current address for service” test.
9(2)(e) – they never clearly invite the keeper to pay the charge.They only talk about “transfer of liability” by naming the driver.
Those two points alone are enough to scupper any ability to rely on PoFA if the driver is not identified. However, you are dealing with an IPC operator which means that any appeal will be futile. This would only be won if it went to court.
It also strays towards unlawful because of the misleading content, for example:
1. Pretending that the notice “is issued under PoFA” and that they “have the right to recover the amount due from the registered keeper” after “28 days” – when in law they do not, because they haven’t complied with PoFA and they’ve shortened the statutory period.
2. The CCJ line: implying that “ignoring this notice” may lead to “a County Court Judgment”, without explaining that a CCJ only happens after a claim, a judgment, and only sticks if unpaid for a month.
Those can both properly be described as breaches of their trade body Code of Practice and arguably misleading/aggressive commercial practices under consumer protection law.
This should initially be appealed ONLY by the Keeper. DO NOT identify the driver, inadvertently or otherwise. Only refer to the driver in the third person. Appeal with the following:
Re: Parking Charge Notice [7270018303]
Vehicle: [UA56 LEX]
Site: [122–128 Broad Street, Stoke-on-Trent]
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.
1. No keeper liability – non-compliant Notice to Keeper
Your Notice to Keeper purports to rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) yet it fails to meet its mandatory conditions, in particular:
(a) Paragraph 9(2)(e): you do not invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges. The only “invitation” in your notice is to “transfer liability” by providing the driver’s details. That is not what PoFA requires, and is a clear failure of 9(2)(e).
(b) Paragraph 9(2)(f): the statutory warning is misstated. PoFA requires a warning that, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given, the creditor will (if all conditions are met) have the right to recover from the keeper if the charge has not been paid and the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service.
Your wording instead says:
“If the charge remains unpaid 28 days after the notice has been given, we have the right to recover the amount due from the registered keeper of the vehicle, unless you provide the driver details as outlined above.”
This shortens the statutory period by a full day, omits the requirement to know both the name and a current address for service of the driver, and presents the right to recover from the keeper as automatic rather than conditional. It is not compliant with 9(2)(f).
Because your Notice to Keeper fails paragraphs 9(2)(e) and 9(2)(f), you have no right under PoFA to recover any sum from me as keeper. 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.
2. Trivial duration and mandatory consideration period
You allege a “Period of parking: 0:06”. The Single Code require a reasonable consideration period before any contract can be formed or enforcement action taken. A six-minute presence, based only on ANPR camera data, particularly in an access-controlled or “authorised vehicles only” location, is fully consistent with a driver stopping, reading the terms, deciding not to accept them and leaving. No contract was formed and no parking charge is owed.
3. Misleading and aggressive wording
Your notice also contains misleading threats, including suggesting that “ignoring this notice” may lead directly to a County Court Judgment. That is untrue and grossly exaggerates the legal position: a CCJ could only follow a court claim, judgment and then non-payment for more than a month. Coupled with your misrepresentation of PoFA keeper liability, this is an unfair commercial practice.
4. DMCC Act 2024 and the CMA
For the avoidance of doubt, irrespective of whether you cancel the PCN, because you have issued a template notice which misstates the law on keeper liability, shortens statutory PoFA periods and exaggerates the risk of a CCJ, I will be reporting this matter to the Competition and Markets Authority under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024. The CMA now has direct enforcement powers and can impose very substantial fines for breaches of the unfair commercial practices regime. You may wish to pass this letter to a suitably adult and legally competent person in your organisation and familiarise yourselves with the CMA’s current guidance before replying.
Given the above, you must now:
• Cancel this Parking Charge Notice; and
• Confirm in writing that you will not attempt to pursue me, as registered keeper, for any sum in relation to this allegation.
If you refuse, I require a full explanation addressing each point above, as your response will be used in any complaints to the CMA, DVLA and, should you be so stupid as to try and litigate the matter, used in court to show unreasonable behaviour and a costs application under CPR 27.14(2)(g).
