09-06-2026, 03:00 PM
@b789 will be along shortly with a bulletproof response.
However, POFA 9(2)(e) is binary.
It requires the NTK to state that the creditor does not know the name of the driver and does not know a current address for service for the driver, and it must invite the keeper either:
(i) to pay the unpaid parking charge; or
(ii) if the keeper was not the driver, to provide the driver’s name and address and pass the notice to them.
Your NTK scan shows no compliant invitation under (i).
Under POFA, if any element of 9(2)(e) is missing, keeper liability does not arise.
It’s not “mostly compliant.”
It’s not “near enough.”
It’s not “industry standard.”
It’s not “but it’s a full moon so we get an exemption.”
POFA compliance is not determined by lunar cycles, druidic rituals, or whether the NTK was printed while someone danced around Stonehenge at the winter solstice.
Either the statutory stones line up perfectly… or they don’t.
And here, they very much don’t, because POFA is binary.
Either it is met in full, or it is not met at all.
And when it's not met in full, as has happened here, no keeper liability exists in law.
And just to manage expectations: your appeal will almost certainly fail — not because you’re wrong, but because these private parking parasites don’t operate an appeals system. They operate a revenue stream.
However, POFA 9(2)(e) is binary.
It requires the NTK to state that the creditor does not know the name of the driver and does not know a current address for service for the driver, and it must invite the keeper either:
(i) to pay the unpaid parking charge; or
(ii) if the keeper was not the driver, to provide the driver’s name and address and pass the notice to them.
Your NTK scan shows no compliant invitation under (i).
Under POFA, if any element of 9(2)(e) is missing, keeper liability does not arise.
It’s not “mostly compliant.”
It’s not “near enough.”
It’s not “industry standard.”
It’s not “but it’s a full moon so we get an exemption.”
POFA compliance is not determined by lunar cycles, druidic rituals, or whether the NTK was printed while someone danced around Stonehenge at the winter solstice.
Either the statutory stones line up perfectly… or they don’t.
And here, they very much don’t, because POFA is binary.
Either it is met in full, or it is not met at all.
And when it's not met in full, as has happened here, no keeper liability exists in law.
And just to manage expectations: your appeal will almost certainly fail — not because you’re wrong, but because these private parking parasites don’t operate an appeals system. They operate a revenue stream.
