britannia parking - Non-POFA NTK PCN arrived late

UpITA

I received the NTK below. POFA paragraph doesn't seem to be included.

Although the date of notice is 5th Aug, I didn't actually receive it until 19th Aug (after 25 days), but I guess it doesn't really matter here.

Anyways, for the initial online appeal with Britannia, should I add the POFA non-compliance argument to the template, or should I use the blue template as is and wait for POPLA to bring up POFA?

And is there a template wording for the appeal on the basis of POFA non-compliance?

Thank you

Coupon-mad

Here's one I wrote for a friend that got rid of a Britannia non-POFA PCN:

Dear Britannia,

My appeal is that I am the registered keeper and I am not legally liable.

You chose to send a non-POFA-worded PCN. It was your choice not to hold me liable.

Under contract law there is no presumption that the keeper was the driver, despite your farcical Code of Practice pretence.

Send me my POPLA code, or cancel.
Case law is against you. In 2023, His Honour Judge Mark Gargan sitting at Teesside Combined Court (on appeal re claim H0KF6C9C) held in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ian Edward that a registered keeper cannot be assumed to have been driving. Nor could any adverse inference be drawn if a keeper is unable or unwilling to nominate the driver, because the POFA does not invoke any such obligation.  HHJ Gargan held:

35.1. "The finding I make is consistent with the underlying purpose of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act, namely, that it was necessary to bring in keeper liability pursuant to that legislation, because liability could not be established.  If this were not the case car parking companies could simply have obtained the details of the registered keeper, launched proceedings and waited to see whether or not there was a positive defence put forward, and in the absence of a positive defence they would have succeeded. If the court took such an approach, it would have been imposing a duty on the registered keeper, to identify the driver or at least set out a positive case in order to avoid responsibility himself. In my judgment that was not the position before ... [the POFA] ... was in force; 

35.2.  my decision preserves and respects the important general freedom from being required to give information, absent a legal duty upon you to do so; and 

35.3.  it is consistent with the appropriate probability analysis whereby simply because somebody is a registered keeper, it does not mean on the balance of probability they were driving on this occasion..."

You must show this reply to POPLA in your evidence pack, if you persist.  Send me a rejection or acceptance of my appeal or I will involve my MP and will report you to the Competition and Markets Authority.

Coupon-mad

It is shocking that no-one has told the parking industry that they must not dress up a simple request to a keeper to 'please tell us who was driving' (which is all a non-POFA notice is allowed to be, according to the DVLA's data release single purpose) to mimic a POFA 'NTK' and demand money.

By calling it a NTK - and by asking the keeper to pay it, then later pursuing that keeper aggressively as if it's a debt - they are giving a non-PoFA notice a legal meaning it doesn't have.

Only those of us who can spot the difference in wording know which versions are POFA and which are non-POFA.

That cannot be right or legally fair to keepers.