You have 33 days from the appeal rejection date to submit an appeal to POPLA. Your POPLA appeal, only as the Keeper, should include the fact that the NtK is not fully compliant with ALL the requirements of PoFA.
Paragraph 9(2)(e) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) states that the NtK
must specify the name of the
creditor who is entitled to recover the parking charge. This is a strict requirement, and failure to comply renders the NtK invalid under PoFA for keeper liability purposes.
The notice states that "
payment of the charge amount is required when parked on our client’s property". However, it does not explicitly identify who the "creditor" is. Simply stating "our client" or referring to the parking company itself is not sufficient. PoFA requires the explicit naming of the creditor so the recipient knows exactly who is owed the alleged debt.
If the NtK does not clearly identify the
creditor, it fails to meet the requirement under Paragraph 9(2)(e). This omission makes the NtK non-compliant with PoFA, meaning the parking company cannot hold the registered keeper liable for the charge.
Also, under Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) and Paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), the Notice to Keeper (NtK) must include a specific
invitation to the keeper to pay the charge. This requirement serves to ensure that the keeper understands their liability and has a clear course of action.
They cannot simply rely on the fact that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) is addressed to the Keeper to satisfy Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of Schedule 4 of PoFA. The law explicitly requires a clear and specific invitation for the keeper to either:
• Pay the parking charge, or
• Provide the name and address of the driver (if the keeper was not the driver).
This is not an "implied" requirement; it must be explicitly stated. Merely inferring that the keeper is invited to pay because the notice is addressed to them does not meet the strict wording requirements of PoFA.
PoFA compliance requires specific wording. The law’s intention is to make the responsibilities of the Keeper clear and unambiguous. Phrases like "
you are invited to pay this parking charge" or "
you are required to do X, Y, Z" are examples of wording that PoFA expects.
If the notice only says, for example, "
the charge must be paid" or "
payment is required" without directly inviting the keeper to pay, this is insufficient under PoFA. The wording must link the keeper directly to the payment obligation in an unambiguous way.
The parking company cannot claim keeper liability under PoFA if they fail to meet the explicit requirements of 9(2)(e)(i). This is a valid appeal (and defence) point, as courts and independent adjudicators should not rely on implied obligations instead of explicit compliance with statutory requirements.
You should also put the operator to strict proof that they have a valid contract flowing from the landowner that permits them to issue PCNs at the location. A statement that they hold a contract is not sufficient and you need evidence of a valid contract.
Why did the driver not realise that they had to purchase a permit to stay at the location? Was the signage sufficiently prominent and legible or not? That is also a valid appeal point. Have a read of the new Single Code of Practice (SCoP) and v9 of the BPA Code of Practice (CoP) about signs and how they must be set out.
Put together something that you think you would like to send and we will review and make any constructive criticism as necessary.
