Charging EV, but hit with hidden "parking charge"

usualcaveat

Out of the blue (ie without any prior notice) I have received a Notice to Keeper. It details the date of an alleged incident, and a "Date issued" of 56 days later (though it actually arrived 66 days after).

The event relates to my use of a charging station for less than 45 minutes to recharge my EV en route. I most certainly did not knowingly ignore any clearly displayed notices about parking charges.

This feels like an outrageous attempt at extortion, which I would have thought relatively easy to address. I have read the Newbies sticky several times, but its laudable attempt to be comprehensive left me feeling overwhelmed and confused as to the correct and optimum line of defence for these circumstances - hence this cry for help.

I am most grateful for any help offered.

NTK_1_redacted.jpg

NTK_2_redacted.jpg

Brie

sorry but what date was the offence and what date was the notice issued? when it was received is immaterial.

usualcaveat

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81910640#Comment_81910640

Ah, thanks. Date of Event: 29/12/2025; Date Issued: 23/02/2026.

cooldude255220

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81910640#Comment_81910640

When it was received is highly material…

Paragraph 9(4)(b) of Schedule 4 of POFA states:

The notice must be given by … sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.

Paragraph 9(5) states:

The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.

Paragraph 9(6) states:

A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered (and so “given” for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose “working day” means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday in England and Wales.

cooldude255220

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6658136/charging-ev-but-hit-with-hidden-parking-charge

Are you the registered keeper of the vehicle? And are your details up to date with the DVLA and on the V5?

And is that the full PCN? Not only does it look to be well out of time, but there's none of the mandatory wording required to impose keeper liability.

cooldude255220

When you appeal, DO NOT NAME THE DRIVER.

Appeal as follows:

The Notice is addressed to the registered keeper of the vehicle. In order to hold the keeper liable under paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, certain conditions must be met. There are a number of conditions which have not been met which means that keeper liability does not attach.

Firstly, paragraph 9(4) of Schedule 4 requires that, where the notice is sent by post, it is delivered within the relevant period. The alleged parking event was 29th December 2025. The notice needs to be delivered within 14 days, beginning with the day after the parking event. Taking 29th December 2025 as the first day, that means 12th January 2025 is the 14th day - i.e. the last day on which the Notice could arrive and meet the requirement of Paragraph 9(4).

The notice is dated Monday 23rd February 2026. This is out of time in any event. The notice is deemed to be delivered (unless the contrary is proved) on the second working day after posting. The 1st working day after posting is Tuesday 24th February 2026. The second working day after posting is Wednesday 25th February 2026. It is therefore deemed to have been delivered on 25th February 2026, which is after 11th January 2026.

This is fatal to the right to recover from the keeper.

Secondly, paragraph 9(2)(b) of Schedule 4 requires that the notice must: inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full.

The Notice does not include this information. This is fatal to the right to recover from the keeper.

Thirdly, paragraph 9(2)(e) of Schedule 4 requires that the notice must: state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper (i) to pay the unpaid parking charges; or (ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver.

The Notice does not include this information. This is fatal to the right to recover from the keeper.

Fourthly, paragraph 9(2)(f) of Schedule 4 requires that the notice must: warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given (i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and (ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid.

The Notice does not include this information. This is fatal to the right to recover from the keeper.

usualcaveat

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81910657#Comment_81910657

Yes, yes, and yes it's the full PCN. And to be honest it looked to me to be so ridiculously defective I felt I must have missed something.

Brie

I asked about the date of the event and issue as I thought that there was a short period allowed to issue. Something like 14 days? Which this has exceeded immensely. Isn't that in itself a reason for the PCN to fail?

1505grandad

How many minutes does the NtK state in car park

cooldude255220

@usualcaveat Just to double check - the driver didn't get a Notice to Driver/Windscreen PCN, did they?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81910697#Comment_81910697

If there's not been a windscreen PCN/Notice to Driver, then the Notice to keeper has to be given (which means delivered) within 14 days. So yes, this is way out of time if it is a PCN under paragraph 9 of schedule 4.

My point was that the Notice has to be delivered within those 14 days, so when it was received is not immaterial. There is a presumed delivery 2 working days after posting. That may be hard to rebut, in practice. But if it is delivered outside of the 14-day window, and it is possible to prove that, then keeper liability cannot attach even if it was presumed to delivered within the 14 days.

In this case, the date of the Notice, the deemed delivery date, and the actual delivery date are all way out of time so OP will hopefully be able to knock this on the head at appeal without worry about proving when it was actually delivered.

I hope that makes sense?

usualcaveat

Thank you for that very comprehensive and authoritative draft, which I shall be pleased to use. To be honest I had been wondering whether Jopson v Homeguard would have worked on this, but happy not to be the one to test it out.

Once again, thanks for responding both.