10-12-2026, 09:03 AM
Thanks for providing the additional photographs. I have now reviewed them alongside both sides of the NtK.
PPS have photographs covering approximately six minutes, including close-ups of the windscreen. However, none of that corrects their failure to specify a period of parking on the NtK, as required by paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 of PoFA.
There is also a further potential failure under paragraph 9(2)(e), concerning the mandatory statement about the creditor not knowing both the identity and service address of the driver.
These requirements are statutory conditions for transferring liability to the registered keeper. Photographs cannot retrospectively correct a defective NtK.
The Amazon delivery is also potentially important.
In Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] B9GF0A9E, HHJ Harris QC distinguished genuine loading and unloading from ordinary parking. Depending on the precise circumstances, this could provide an additional defence to the underlying allegation.
You must now preserve all available evidence of the Amazon delivery, particularly anything establishing that a delivery was being made at that specific location on 1st October 2026, around 20:22–20:29.
This includes screenshots of the Amazon Flex app, delivery records, the delivery address, route history, GPS information, delivery confirmation and anything else identifying the location and timing of the delivery. Keep the original records wherever possible.
Ideally, the evidence should establish that the vehicle was stopped for the purpose of making a delivery to Donnington House or another address served by that car park, rather than being left there for an unrelated purpose.
Do not submit any of that delivery evidence to PPS at this stage. We want to preserve it for a possible POPLA appeal or subsequent court defence, without unnecessarily revealing the driver's identity.
For now, I suggest submitting the following appeal solely as the registered keeper, relying upon PPS's failure to comply with PoFA.
Submit this through the PPS online appeals facility, selecting Registered Keeper, not Driver, wherever that distinction is offered.
Keep a screenshot or PDF of the submitted appeal and its acknowledgement. Do not complete their transfer-of-liability form.
Finally, do not identify the driver at any stage of the appeals process. There is no legal obligation on the keeper to volunteer that information.
If/when PPS reject the appeal, we can examine their response and prepare a POPLA appeal addressing the PoFA defects, contractual signage and, where appropriate, the distinction between parking and loading/unloading established in Jopson.
The PoFA arguments concern keeper liability, whereas Jopson potentially challenges whether the underlying parking contravention occurred at all. Preserving the Amazon delivery evidence now ensures that this additional argument remains available should it become necessary.
PPS have photographs covering approximately six minutes, including close-ups of the windscreen. However, none of that corrects their failure to specify a period of parking on the NtK, as required by paragraph 9(2)(a) of Schedule 4 of PoFA.
There is also a further potential failure under paragraph 9(2)(e), concerning the mandatory statement about the creditor not knowing both the identity and service address of the driver.
These requirements are statutory conditions for transferring liability to the registered keeper. Photographs cannot retrospectively correct a defective NtK.
The Amazon delivery is also potentially important.
In Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] B9GF0A9E, HHJ Harris QC distinguished genuine loading and unloading from ordinary parking. Depending on the precise circumstances, this could provide an additional defence to the underlying allegation.
You must now preserve all available evidence of the Amazon delivery, particularly anything establishing that a delivery was being made at that specific location on 1st October 2026, around 20:22–20:29.
This includes screenshots of the Amazon Flex app, delivery records, the delivery address, route history, GPS information, delivery confirmation and anything else identifying the location and timing of the delivery. Keep the original records wherever possible.
Ideally, the evidence should establish that the vehicle was stopped for the purpose of making a delivery to Donnington House or another address served by that car park, rather than being left there for an unrelated purpose.
Do not submit any of that delivery evidence to PPS at this stage. We want to preserve it for a possible POPLA appeal or subsequent court defence, without unnecessarily revealing the driver's identity.
For now, I suggest submitting the following appeal solely as the registered keeper, relying upon PPS's failure to comply with PoFA.
Quote:I appeal this Parking Charge Notice solely in my capacity as the registered keeper of the vehicle.
Your Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
In particular:
1. Paragraph 9(2)(a): Your notice fails to specify the period of parking to which it relates. The statement that the period was some undefined time immediately preceding the incident date and time does not identify the required period of parking.
2. Paragraph 9(2)(e): Your notice also fails to expressly state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, as required by that provision.
Compliance with the applicable requirements of Schedule 4 is a prerequisite to transferring liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
Your failure to comply means that you cannot rely upon PoFA to recover the parking charge from me as keeper.
The identity of the driver has not been provided, and there is no legal obligation upon the keeper to identify the driver to your company. Nor does any provision of PoFA create a presumption that the keeper was the driver.
Accordingly, I require you to cancel this Parking Charge Notice.
If you refuse, please provide a POPLA verification code so that the matter may be referred for independent adjudication.
Submit this through the PPS online appeals facility, selecting Registered Keeper, not Driver, wherever that distinction is offered.
Keep a screenshot or PDF of the submitted appeal and its acknowledgement. Do not complete their transfer-of-liability form.
Finally, do not identify the driver at any stage of the appeals process. There is no legal obligation on the keeper to volunteer that information.
If/when PPS reject the appeal, we can examine their response and prepare a POPLA appeal addressing the PoFA defects, contractual signage and, where appropriate, the distinction between parking and loading/unloading established in Jopson.
The PoFA arguments concern keeper liability, whereas Jopson potentially challenges whether the underlying parking contravention occurred at all. Preserving the Amazon delivery evidence now ensures that this additional argument remains available should it become necessary.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
