I would use the excellent response provided by @b789.
If you want an alternative:
The operator has confirmed that the Notice to Keeper was issued as a "NON‑POFA" notice.
That ends the matter as far as keeper liability is concerned.
Where an operator chooses not to rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, they cannot transfer liability from driver to keeper.
Keeper liability is a statutory construct. It exists only where Parliament has expressly created it, and Parliament did so solely within POFA Schedule 4.
The operator’s assertion that they may simply "infer" that the keeper was the driver is legally fatal.
Elliott v Loake (1982) is not authority for any such inference. It concerned a criminal case involving forensic evidence, witness testimony, and an admitted lie by the defendant. It did not establish any presumption that a keeper is the driver, nor has any court ever accepted it as creating such a presumption in civil parking cases.
The operator’s reliance on Elliott v Loake has been rejected repeatedly in county court judgments, including by senior judges, and is widely recognised as irrelevant to private parking disputes.
There is no statutory, common‑law, or evidential presumption that the keeper was the driver.
The burden of proof rests entirely on the operator.
The operator has produced no evidence whatsoever identifying the driver.
Their position appears to be:
They chose not to use POFA.
They therefore cannot hold the keeper liable.
They have no evidence of the driver.
They wish to substitute a discredited criminal case from 1982 as a shortcut.
That is not, and can never be, a lawful basis for liability.
The operator’s "prima facie case" fails because it does not establish driver identity, and they have expressly disclaimed POFA compliance.
The IAS must therefore find that the operator has not established liability against the keeper.
There is no lawful basis on which this charge can continue to be pursued. It should now be brought to a close before matters escalate unnecessarily — and they will.
If you believe an offence occurred, lay an information before the magistrates under the Single Justice Procedure within six months. Otherwise, erase my data when no longer necessary for this purpose.
As to any further demands, I refer you to the response given in Arkell v Pressdram (1971).
If you want an alternative:
The operator has confirmed that the Notice to Keeper was issued as a "NON‑POFA" notice.
That ends the matter as far as keeper liability is concerned.
Where an operator chooses not to rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, they cannot transfer liability from driver to keeper.
Keeper liability is a statutory construct. It exists only where Parliament has expressly created it, and Parliament did so solely within POFA Schedule 4.
The operator’s assertion that they may simply "infer" that the keeper was the driver is legally fatal.
Elliott v Loake (1982) is not authority for any such inference. It concerned a criminal case involving forensic evidence, witness testimony, and an admitted lie by the defendant. It did not establish any presumption that a keeper is the driver, nor has any court ever accepted it as creating such a presumption in civil parking cases.
The operator’s reliance on Elliott v Loake has been rejected repeatedly in county court judgments, including by senior judges, and is widely recognised as irrelevant to private parking disputes.
There is no statutory, common‑law, or evidential presumption that the keeper was the driver.
The burden of proof rests entirely on the operator.
The operator has produced no evidence whatsoever identifying the driver.
Their position appears to be:
They chose not to use POFA.
They therefore cannot hold the keeper liable.
They have no evidence of the driver.
They wish to substitute a discredited criminal case from 1982 as a shortcut.
That is not, and can never be, a lawful basis for liability.
The operator’s "prima facie case" fails because it does not establish driver identity, and they have expressly disclaimed POFA compliance.
The IAS must therefore find that the operator has not established liability against the keeper.
There is no lawful basis on which this charge can continue to be pursued. It should now be brought to a close before matters escalate unnecessarily — and they will.
If you believe an offence occurred, lay an information before the magistrates under the Single Justice Procedure within six months. Otherwise, erase my data when no longer necessary for this purpose.
As to any further demands, I refer you to the response given in Arkell v Pressdram (1971).
