DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 119221--------------------------------------------------
Re: Total Car Parks - Gorleston - NTK for late return
DIR By: Jimbob1976
Date: May 19, 2026, 9:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
They're stating:
the Notice to Keeper letter was approved by the BPA as being
compliant with the requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 to
enable us to pursue the keeper of a vehicle in the event they do
not provide us with the name and serviceable address of the
driver within 30 days of the notice being deemed as “served”.
Please note, that nothing in Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 requires
that we quote it verbatim, and as explained, the letter has been
approved by the BPA on several occasions as being compliant in
terms of wording relating to Schedule 4 of POFA 2012.
#Post#: 119227--------------------------------------------------
Re: Total Car Parks - Gorleston - NTK for late return
DIR By: Jimbob1976
Date: May 19, 2026, 10:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have just looked through and found this, again by AI:
Comments on Operator Evidence Pack – PCN Reference: [XXXX]
I have reviewed the operator’s evidence, including their
assertion that they do not need to quote the legal schedule
verbatim.
The operator’s Notice to Keeper states:
"you are advised that if after the period of 30 days beginning
with the day after that on which this parking charge notice to
keeper is given..."
This does not comply with the mandatory requirements of Schedule
4, paragraph 9(2)(f) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The
Act requires a specific warning using 28 days, not 30 days.
By altering this prescribed element, the operator has failed to
meet the strict conditions for keeper liability. No such
liability arises. They may only pursue the driver (whose
identity they do not know). I therefore request that the appeal
be allowed and the charge cancelled on this basis.
Is this a strong argument? I mean surely they have to fully
comply with the legal guidlines?
#Post#: 119230--------------------------------------------------
Re: Total Car Parks - Gorleston - NTK for late return
DIR By: Sander333
Date: May 19, 2026, 10:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It really depends what you have appealed on has any more weight
that you can add to it it is not unusual for Parking companies
to play tennis in an appeal situation I did one and it must have
gone back and forth about half a dozen times or more. I used
lack of sineag, period of parking before acceptance disagreement
where signs were place according to plan submitted etc to
substantiate my defence of their claim. It looks as if you can’t
bolster your appeal it may well be turned down. Then it will be
scary letters time and or court option.
#Post#: 119231--------------------------------------------------
Re: Total Car Parks - Gorleston - NTK for late return
DIR By: Jimbob1976
Date: May 19, 2026, 10:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
There were mitigating factors which i am sure they wont pay
attention to. The driver is a Mental Health Nurse visiting a
client and the appointment over ran. They have the parking app
as they use it all the time and paid (or least they thought)as
usual for the extra hour. It wasnt until a week or so later they
realised the payment didn't go through, by which time it was too
late to pay (no history on the app at all for this payment).
#Post#: 119245--------------------------------------------------
Re: Total Car Parks - Gorleston - NTK for late return
DIR By: Sander333
Date: May 19, 2026, 1:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Mitigation does not cut any ice with the parking company or
POPLA as far as I am aware you have to have a solid defence
appeal. If you cannot go further with your appeal then hope for
the best and plan for the worse i.e court. There it will be
decided if they have complied with POFA.
#Post#: 119249--------------------------------------------------
Re: Total Car Parks - Gorleston - NTK for late return
DIR By: Jimbob1976
Date: May 19, 2026, 2:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I can't add on any new evidence anyway that didn't make up my
first appeal, so I think the above is my best chance.
Hoping others can chime in with experiences that may help on
this instance.
#Post#: 119252--------------------------------------------------
Re: Total Car Parks - Gorleston - NTK for late return
DIR By: Sander333
Date: May 19, 2026, 2:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I have seen PCN whereby 29 days have mentioned your mentions 30
days. The Act does indeed mention 28 days. I have not seen any
feedback the recipient of PCN has been disadvantaged with being
over the 28 days. Perhaps someone may have further information
for you.
#Post#: 119271--------------------------------------------------
Re: Total Car Parks - Gorleston - NTK for late return
DIR By: Jimbob1976
Date: May 20, 2026, 12:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ok. So I have gone back through my initial response, made some
tweets to it. I think this is a stronger arguement
I have reviewed the operator’s evidence and case summary. I
maintain my appeal and request that it be allowed for the
reasons below. The operator has failed to establish keeper
liability and has not proved the contravention adequately.
1. The Notice to Keeper (NTK) is not compliant with Schedule 4
of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 – No Keeper Liability
This is my primary ground of appeal. The operator relies on
keeper liability but their NTK fails to meet the mandatory
statutory requirements of paragraph 9(2) of Schedule 4 POFA
2012.
The operator’s NTK states:
"you are advised that if after the period of 30 days beginning
with the day after that on which this parking charge notice to
keeper is given..."
This wording is materially defective because paragraph 9(2)(f)
requires the NTK to warn the keeper that the creditor will have
the right to recover the unpaid parking charge from the keeper
after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after the
notice is given (subject to the other conditions).
The operator has substituted 30 days for the statutory 28 days.
This is not a minor or inconsequential change. It misleads the
keeper as to the precise legal trigger for liability and alters
the timing Parliament prescribed.
The operator claims “nothing in Schedule 4 requires us to quote
it verbatim” and that the BPA has “approved” their wording. This
is misleading. While the entire Schedule need not be reproduced,
the Act does mandate that specific prescribed information
(including the exact 28-day warning in 9(2)(f)) must be
included. BPA approval does not override statute or bind POPLA.
Adjudicators assess compliance with the law, not trade body
approval.
By failing to convey the mandatory warning accurately, the
operator has not satisfied the strict conditions in paragraph 9.
Therefore, the conditions for keeper liability under paragraph
6(1)(b) are not met. They have no legal basis to pursue me as
the registered keeper. Liability (if any) remains with the
unknown driver.
2. No admission as to who was driving
I appealed strictly as the registered keeper. I have never
admitted to being the driver, and the operator has provided no
evidence identifying me as the driver on 11 March 2026. Without
a compliant NTK under POFA, they cannot pursue the keeper.
The operator has provided a redacted landowner agreement and
details of parking sessions. This does not cure the fundamental
failure on POFA compliance. The fact that no payment was
recorded does not prove the contravention if the driver was not
adequately informed of the terms.
For the reasons above — particularly the clear defect in the NTK
— I respectfully ask POPLA to allow the appeal and cancel the
charge in full.
Opinions?
#Post#: 119291--------------------------------------------------
Re: Total Car Parks - Gorleston - NTK for late return
DIR By: Jimbob1976
Date: May 20, 2026, 6:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ok so i think the above will work, however, i also think i
should remove this part:
"The fact that no payment was recorded does not prove the
contravention if the driver was not adequately informed of the
terms."
I dont think that adds anything really, im not sure?
#Post#: 119293--------------------------------------------------
Re: Total Car Parks - Gorleston - NTK for late return
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: May 20, 2026, 6:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Jimbob1976 link ---
>
> "The fact that no payment was recorded does not prove the
contravention if the driver was not adequately informed of the
terms."
>
> I dont think that adds anything really, im not sure?
>
--- End Quote ---
It's a fair point, but if you've already made that point in your
main appeal you can get away without repeating it.
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page