03-29-2026, 06:09 PM
No. That is the wrong paragraph.
What they are pointing to is the warning under PoFA paragraph 9(2)(f), namely the warning that if the charge remains unpaid and the driver is not identified, the creditor may seek to recover it from the Keeper.
That is not the same as paragraph 9(2)(e), which is a separate mandatory requirement. Paragraph 9(2)(e) requires the notice to state that the creditor does not know both the driver’s name and current address for service, and then to invite the Keeper either to pay the charge or, if they were not the driver, to provide the driver’s name and address and pass the notice to the driver.
PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2) sets out a series of mandatory conditions in sub-paragraphs (a) to (i). Every one of them must be complied with if the operator wishes to transfer liability from the unknown driver to the Keeper. The operator cannot pick and choose which gateways to use and which to ignore. The NtK must be fully compliant with PoFA. Partial compliance is not enough. Mostly compliant is not enough. It is binary. Either the notice complies and Keeper liability can arise, or it does not comply and Keeper liability cannot arise.
To put it bluntly, it is like pregnancy. One cannot be partially or mostly pregnant. One either is or is not. The same applies here. A Notice to Keeper is either PoFA compliant or it is not. If even one of the mandatory requirements in paragraph 9(2)(a) to (i) is missing or defective, then Keeper liability fails.
So the answer is no: a paragraph 9(2)(f) warning does not cure the absence of the separate paragraph 9(2)(e) invitation. Both are required.
See why the judge threw out ParkingEye's case because of that failure here:
Here is a link to PoFA Schedule 4 if you are interested in the law behind it, have a careful read of paragraph 9(2):
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/201.../4/enacted
What they are pointing to is the warning under PoFA paragraph 9(2)(f), namely the warning that if the charge remains unpaid and the driver is not identified, the creditor may seek to recover it from the Keeper.
That is not the same as paragraph 9(2)(e), which is a separate mandatory requirement. Paragraph 9(2)(e) requires the notice to state that the creditor does not know both the driver’s name and current address for service, and then to invite the Keeper either to pay the charge or, if they were not the driver, to provide the driver’s name and address and pass the notice to the driver.
PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2) sets out a series of mandatory conditions in sub-paragraphs (a) to (i). Every one of them must be complied with if the operator wishes to transfer liability from the unknown driver to the Keeper. The operator cannot pick and choose which gateways to use and which to ignore. The NtK must be fully compliant with PoFA. Partial compliance is not enough. Mostly compliant is not enough. It is binary. Either the notice complies and Keeper liability can arise, or it does not comply and Keeper liability cannot arise.
To put it bluntly, it is like pregnancy. One cannot be partially or mostly pregnant. One either is or is not. The same applies here. A Notice to Keeper is either PoFA compliant or it is not. If even one of the mandatory requirements in paragraph 9(2)(a) to (i) is missing or defective, then Keeper liability fails.
So the answer is no: a paragraph 9(2)(f) warning does not cure the absence of the separate paragraph 9(2)(e) invitation. Both are required.
See why the judge threw out ParkingEye's case because of that failure here:
Here is a link to PoFA Schedule 4 if you are interested in the law behind it, have a careful read of paragraph 9(2):
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/201.../4/enacted
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
