PCN Excel Crossley Retail Park, Halifax

[b789]

The immediate point is that Excel are an IPC member, not a BPA member, so when they reject the initial appeal the only second-stage appeal is to the IAS. In practical terms, the IAS is a kangaroo court, so you should proceed on the basis that a rejection at first stage will be followed by a futile IAS process and, if Excel choose to pursue the matter, potentially a county court claim.

As to the Notice to Keeper (NtK) itself, the main PoFA point is that it does not specify any period of parking. It gives only a single contravention time of 16:23. That is not what PoFA requires. Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(a) requires a Notice to Keeper to specify the period of parking. A single timestamp is not a period of parking.

That defect matters because a parking operator can only transfer liability from the unknown driver to the registered keeper if the NtK is fully compliant with PoFA. It is not enough for the notice to be mostly compliant or nearly compliant. If any one of the mandatory statutory requirements is missing, Keeper liability does not arise. In that situation, only the driver could be liable, and if the driver is not identified Excel cannot rely on PoFA to pursue the Keeper.

So the correct approach at this stage is for the Keeper to submit the initial appeal without identifying the driver, pointing out that the NtK is non-compliant with PoFA because it fails to specify the period of parking required by paragraph 9(2)(a), and that Excel therefore cannot transfer liability to the keeper.

That said, Excel are known for being vexatious and should not be expected to act reasonably simply because the PoFA defect is obvious. So whilst the Keeper should absolutely raise the point now, the realistic expectation is that Excel will reject it anyway, the IAS is unlikely to assist, and the matter may ultimately need to be defended in the county court. If that happens, the Keeper liability point can then be developed properly with reliance on Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions Ltd (2023) [H6DP632H], appeal before HHJ Mitchell at Plymouth County Court, which is directly helpful on the issue that a single timestamp is not a period of parking.

You can appeal to Excel with the following and then wait for the rejection. When that arrives we can put something together for the waste of time IAS:

I am appealing as the registered keeper. I deny any liability for this charge.

Your Notice to Keeper does not comply with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and therefore you cannot transfer liability from the driver to the keeper. In particular, the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with paragraph 9(2)(a) because it does not specify any period of parking. It states only a single contravention time. A single timestamp is not a period of parking.

As your Notice to Keeper is not fully compliant with PoFA, there is no keeper liability. There will be no admission as to the identity of the driver and no assumptions can be made in that regard.

In the circumstances, you must cancel this charge. If you refuse, then please treat this as a request for all photographs taken, all notes made by the operative, and a full copy of the notice relied upon.

As a matter of interest, why did the driver park like that? The fact that the they were heavily pregnant at the time and is a rush, is not really mitigating circumstances. Did anyone in the vehicle hold a blue badge? They are relying on the poor parking rather than the breach of the blue badge conditions.