@
3Sh3roo, having reviewed the NtK, the main issue is that HX Car Park Management have not complied with PoFA Schedule 4, paragraph 9, so they cannot transfer liability from the unknown driver to the keeper.
The first and most obvious defect is that the NtK does not specify any period of parking. It only gives a single “Incident Date/Time” of 16/04/2026 at 14:13. That is not a period of parking. It gives no start time, no end time, no duration, and no properly identified observed period. The wording that the charge relates to the “period of parking preceding the incident time” does not cure the defect because it still does not specify what that period actually was.
That also creates a wider problem for HX because, with no period of parking stated or evidenced, there is no evidence that any contract was formed with the driver. The PPSCoP requires a minimum consideration period of 5 minutes so that a driver has time to read the signs, understand the terms, and decide whether to stay or leave. This NtK does not evidence that the vehicle was present for at least 5 minutes, or for any defined period at all. A single timestamp does not prove that the driver had sufficient time to consider and accept any alleged contractual terms.
There is also a further PoFA defect because the NtK does not contain the required invitation to the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charge. PoFA paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) requires the creditor to invite the keeper to pay the unpaid charge or, if they were not the driver, to provide the driver’s details. HX’s notice instead tells the keeper that they are “now required to pay”. That is not the same thing. The keeper is not automatically required to pay simply because a notice has been issued. Keeper liability can only arise if HX fully complies with PoFA, which this notice does not.
The keeper liability warning is also defective. HX uses the wording “and/or” when describing the circumstances in which it claims it may recover the charge from the registered keeper. PoFA requires both conditions to be met: the charge must remain unpaid and the creditor must not know both the name and current address for service of the driver. The “and/or” wording misstates the statutory position and makes the warning inaccurate.
There is also a separate procedural issue with the appeal deadline. The reverse of the notice says an appeal may be made within 28 days from deemed service, but the “Important Dates” section gives an appeal deadline of 13/05/2026. A notice dated 20/04/2026 would be deemed served on 22/04/2026, so 13/05/2026 is not 28 days from deemed service. That appears to shorten the appeal period and is misleading.
The tactical move here is to send HX a narrow formal complaint first, before submitting the actual appeal. The complaint should only deal with the false appeal deadline shown on the NtK. Do not include the main appeal points yet.
The point is to require HX to explain why the NtK gives an appeal deadline of 13/05/2026 when their own wording says the appeal period runs from deemed service, and to require them to issue a corrected NtK showing the proper appeal deadline. If they try to issue a corrected NtK now, that would be too late to create keeper liability under PoFA because the 14-day period has already expired.
This complaint must make clear that it is not an appeal, that the driver is not being identified, and that no admission is made as to who was driving.
Do not wait indefinitely for their complaint response. If no formal response has been received by Monday 18 May, send the actual keeper appeal anyway. That appeal will then raise the substantive defects in the NtK, including the lack of any specified period of parking, no evidence of the required consideration period, the defective keeper liability wording, and the absence of the proper statutory invitation to the keeper.
So, use the following as your formal complaint to HX (this NOT the initial appeal):
Quote:FORMAL COMPLAINT – INCORRECT APPEAL DEADLINE ON NOTICE TO KEEPER
I am the registered keeper. This is a formal complaint about the appeal deadline stated on the Notice to Keeper issued by HX Car Park Management Ltd.
This complaint is separate from my appeal against the Parking Charge Notice [PCN no.].
The Notice to Keeper is dated 20/04/2026. The reverse of the notice states that an appeal may be submitted within 28 days and that the relevant period starts two days from the date of the letter.
However, the “Important Dates” section states that the appeal deadline is 13/05/2026. That is plainly incorrect. It is not 28 days from deemed service, nor is it 28 days from two days after the date of the letter.
This appears to wrongly shorten the appeal period and is contrary to the Private Parking Single Code of Practice, which requires operators to allow motorists 28 days to appeal a parking charge.
Please provide a specific complaint response addressing the following points:
- Why does the Notice to Keeper state an appeal deadline of 13/05/2026 when that is not 28 days from deemed service or from two days after the date of the letter?
- Does HX accept that the appeal deadline printed on this Notice to Keeper is wrong?
- Does HX accept that any appeal submitted within the proper 28-day appeal period must be treated as in time?
- What action will HX take to correct this defective notice template and prevent motorists being misled into believing they have less time to appeal than the Code requires?
If HX does not provide a satisfactory response, this complaint will be escalated to the IPC as a Code compliance complaint. The escalation will also be copied to my Member of Parliament, as this concerns an IPC operator issuing notices that appear to misstate and shorten the appeal period required under the applicable Code.
The appeal itself should be made as keeper only. Do not identify the driver. The core point is that HX has failed to comply with PoFA, has not evidenced any period of parking, has not evidenced the minimum consideration period needed for contract formation, has failed to give the required statutory invitation to the keeper, and therefore cannot hold the keeper liable.
A Keeper appeal should be made, but expectations need to be realistic. HX Car Park Management are an IPC operator, so the odds of the initial appeal being accepted are low, and the odds of any IAS secondary appeal being successful are slim to none. The IAS is not like a court and IPC operators very often reject even strong keeper liability points. They operate on the edge of legality and are only concerned with extracting money from you.
The purpose of the initial appeal is therefore to put the Keeper’s position clearly on record, avoid identifying the driver, and show that HX has been told from the outset why keeper liability cannot arise. If they later try to issue a county court claim, that is where these points can be properly argued and where this is most likely to be successfully dealt with.
For what it's worth, use the following as your initial appeal:
Quote:I appeal as the registered keeper. I do not identify the driver, and there is no admission as to the identity of the driver.
HX Car Park Management Ltd cannot hold me liable as keeper because the Notice to Keeper does not comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
First, the notice fails paragraph 9(2)(a). It does not specify any period of parking. It merely gives a single “Incident Date/Time” of 16/04/2026 at 14:13. That is not a period of parking. The wording that the charge relates to the “period of parking preceding the incident time” does not specify any actual period. It gives no start time, no end time, no duration, and no defined period of observation.
This is not merely a technical issue. Without a stated and evidenced period of parking, HX has also failed to evidence that any contract was formed with the driver. The Private Parking Single Code of Practice requires a minimum consideration period of 5 minutes so that a driver has time to read the signs, understand the terms, and decide whether to stay or leave. A single timestamp does not evidence that the vehicle was present for at least 5 minutes, or for any defined period at all.
Second, the notice fails paragraph 9(2)(e)(i). It does not properly invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charge or, if the keeper was not the driver, to provide the driver’s details. Instead, it states that the registered keeper is “now required to pay”. That is not the statutory invitation required by PoFA. The keeper is not automatically required to pay simply because a notice has been issued.
Third, the keeper liability warning is defective. The notice uses the wording “and/or” when describing the circumstances in which HX claims it may recover the charge from the registered keeper. PoFA requires the parking charge to remain unpaid and the creditor not to know both the name and current address for service of the driver. Both conditions must be met. HX’s wording misstates the statutory position.
There is also a separate procedural issue. The reverse of the notice states that an appeal may be made within 28 days from deemed service, but the “Important Dates” section gives an appeal deadline of 13/05/2026. A notice dated 20/04/2026 is deemed served on 22/04/2026, so 13/05/2026 is not 28 days from deemed service. The appeal deadline information is therefore inconsistent and misleading.
For the avoidance of doubt, I will not be naming the driver. As HX has failed to comply with PoFA, it cannot transfer liability from the unknown driver to me as keeper.
Please cancel the Parking Charge Notice. If you refuse, please provide all photographs relied upon, the evidence showing the alleged period of parking, the contemporaneous signage, a site plan showing the location of all signs, and strict proof of landowner authority.
