Yesterday, 11:09 PM
The Notice to Keeper was issued within the required timescale, but that does not make it PoFA compliant. To transfer liability from the driver to the keeper, the operator must comply with every mandatory requirement of Schedule 4.
This notice fails to 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 paragraph 9(2)(e). Merely asking the keeper to provide the driver’s details does not satisfy that separate statutory requirement.
The keeper-liability warning is also defective. It refers vaguely to payment not being received “after 28 days”, rather than the prescribed period of 28 days beginning with the day after the notice is given. It also omits the condition that the operator must still not know both the driver’s name and a current address for service before keeper liability can arise.
There is also an arguable failure to specify a genuine period of parking, because ANPR entry and exit timestamps record movement past cameras, not necessarily the period during which the vehicle was parked.
Accordingly, the operator has not acquired any right to recover the charge from the keeper. The keeper should not identify the driver. There is no legal obligation to do so, and identifying the driver would remove the strongest defence available.
As UK Parking Patrol Office is an IPC member, the initial appeal will almost certainly be rejected regardless of its merits. The keeper can then take the matter to the IAS, although this so-called independent appeal service regularly disregards clear PoFA defects or attempts to infer that the keeper was the driver without evidence. That does not create keeper liability and does not bind a court. The keeper should maintain the same position throughout: the driver has not been identified, the notice does not comply with PoFA, and the operator has no lawful basis to pursue the keeper.
The most likely outcome will be a county court claim which is easily defended. I just need to know whether the Keeper is prepared to fight this all the way.
This notice fails to 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 paragraph 9(2)(e). Merely asking the keeper to provide the driver’s details does not satisfy that separate statutory requirement.
The keeper-liability warning is also defective. It refers vaguely to payment not being received “after 28 days”, rather than the prescribed period of 28 days beginning with the day after the notice is given. It also omits the condition that the operator must still not know both the driver’s name and a current address for service before keeper liability can arise.
There is also an arguable failure to specify a genuine period of parking, because ANPR entry and exit timestamps record movement past cameras, not necessarily the period during which the vehicle was parked.
Accordingly, the operator has not acquired any right to recover the charge from the keeper. The keeper should not identify the driver. There is no legal obligation to do so, and identifying the driver would remove the strongest defence available.
As UK Parking Patrol Office is an IPC member, the initial appeal will almost certainly be rejected regardless of its merits. The keeper can then take the matter to the IAS, although this so-called independent appeal service regularly disregards clear PoFA defects or attempts to infer that the keeper was the driver without evidence. That does not create keeper liability and does not bind a court. The keeper should maintain the same position throughout: the driver has not been identified, the notice does not comply with PoFA, and the operator has no lawful basis to pursue the keeper.
The most likely outcome will be a county court claim which is easily defended. I just need to know whether the Keeper is prepared to fight this all the way.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
