POFA 2012 Explained: The Protection of Freedoms Act and Parking

What Is POFA 2012?

The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA) is an Act of Parliament that received Royal Assent on 1 May 2012. While the Act covers a broad range of civil liberties topics -- from biometric data in schools to regulation of CCTV -- the section most relevant to motorists is Schedule 4, which deals specifically with the recovery of unpaid parking charges on private land.

Before POFA came into force, private parking companies faced a fundamental problem. They could issue a parking charge notice to a vehicle, but they had no legal basis to pursue the registered keeper of that vehicle unless they could prove the keeper was also the driver. Since parking companies rarely have direct evidence of who was driving, the vast majority of charges issued on private land were unenforceable. The driver was liable, but the driver could not be identified.

POFA Schedule 4 changed this by introducing the concept of keeper liability. Under carefully prescribed conditions, a parking company can transfer liability from the unidentified driver to the registered keeper. However -- and this is critical -- the legislation imposes strict procedural requirements on the parking company. If they fail to meet any one of these requirements, keeper liability does not arise, and the company is left in the same position it was in before the Act: needing to identify and prove who was driving.

Schedule 4 was deliberately drafted with strong protections for motorists. Parliament recognised that giving private companies the power to pursue keepers was a significant step, and built in safeguards to prevent abuse. These safeguards are the foundation of most successful parking charge defences today.

Schedule 4: Keeper Liability

Schedule 4 of POFA 2012, titled “Recovery of unpaid parking charges,” establishes the conditions under which the keeper of a vehicle can be held liable for a parking charge that was incurred by the driver. The keeper is defined under paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 as the person by whom the vehicle is kept, which in practice means the registered keeper as recorded by the DVLA.

Keeper liability is not automatic. It is a fallback mechanism that only activates when the parking company cannot recover the charge from the driver. Under paragraph 4 of Schedule 4, the keeper is liable to pay the parking charge only if several conditions are met simultaneously. The relevant land must be subject to a valid agreement between the landowner and the parking company. The driver must have been given adequate notice of the parking terms. A parking charge notice must have been issued to the driver or affixed to the vehicle. And a Notice to Keeper must have been served on the keeper within the prescribed timeframe and containing all mandatory information.

If the parking company cannot demonstrate compliance with each of these conditions, the chain of keeper liability is broken. The company cannot simply assert that the keeper is liable -- they must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that they followed the correct procedure as set out in the legislation.

It is worth noting that keeper liability under POFA applies only to private parking charges -- not to council penalty charge notices or other statutory penalties. If you received a penalty from a local authority, POFA Schedule 4 does not apply to your case. This guide focuses exclusively on private parking charges issued by companies operating under contract with landowners.

The 14-Day Rule

One of the most powerful protections for motorists under POFA 2012 is the strict time limit for serving the Notice to Keeper. Under Schedule 4, paragraph 9(2), the creditor (the parking company) must give a notice to the keeper of the vehicle before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the vehicle was parked. In practice, this means the Notice to Keeper (NTK) must be served within 14 days of the alleged contravention.

The 14-day period is calculated from the day after the parking event. If your vehicle was alleged to have contravened parking terms on 1 March, the parking company must ensure that the NTK is served by 15 March. The date that matters is the date on which the notice is deemed served -- not the date on which it was printed or posted. Under the Interpretation Act 1978, a notice sent by first-class post is deemed served on the second working day after posting, and a notice sent by second-class post is deemed served on the fourth working day.

This creates an important window for scrutiny. If a parking company sends the NTK by second-class post on day 10, it may not be deemed served until day 14 or later, depending on weekends and bank holidays. If deemed service falls outside the 14-day window, the NTK is invalid and keeper liability cannot be established.

Many parking companies fail the 14-day rule. The DVLA does not provide keeper details instantaneously -- there is processing time involved. If the parking company is slow to request the data, slow to generate the NTK, or uses second-class post, the 14-day window can easily be missed. This is one of the first things you should check when you receive a parking charge notice. Check the date of the alleged contravention, the date printed on the NTK, and the postmark on the envelope if you still have it.

What the Notice to Keeper Must Contain

The Notice to Keeper is not a freeform letter. Schedule 4, paragraph 9(2) specifies that it must contain certain “prescribed information.” The precise requirements are further detailed in secondary legislation, but the NTK must at minimum include:

• The amount of the unpaid parking charge and any additional charges that have accrued
• The grounds on which the parking charge was issued, including the specific contravention alleged
• Details of where and how to pay the charge
• Information about the right to appeal the charge, including details of any internal appeals process and the relevant independent appeals service (POPLA or the IAS)
• A statement that the keeper is not liable if they were not the driver, provided they name the driver within a specified period
• A statement that the notice is being served pursuant to Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

The omission of any prescribed element from the NTK is a procedural failure that can invalidate keeper liability. Courts have found that these requirements are mandatory, not directory. The distinction matters: a mandatory requirement must be strictly complied with, whereas a directory requirement permits substantial compliance. Parliament chose to make these requirements mandatory precisely because keeper liability represents a departure from the normal common-law position that only the contracting party (the driver) is liable.

When reviewing your NTK, go through each of these requirements methodically. Compare the notice against the statutory checklist. If any element is missing, incomplete, or inaccurately stated, you have a strong basis to argue that keeper liability has not been established.

Driver vs Keeper Liability

Understanding the distinction between driver liability and keeper liability is essential for anyone defending a private parking charge. These are two entirely separate legal bases for a claim, and a parking company must pursue one or the other -- they cannot claim both simultaneously.

Driver liability arises under contract law. When a driver enters privately managed land, they may form a contract with the parking company by virtue of the signage displayed on the land. If the terms on the signs state that parking beyond two hours incurs a charge, and the driver parks beyond two hours, the parking company argues that the driver has accepted these terms by conduct and breached the resulting contract. The claim is in contract, and the liable party is the driver -- the person who was physically present and entered into the arrangement.

Keeper liability arises under statute -- specifically Schedule 4 of POFA 2012. It is a statutory mechanism that transfers the obligation to pay from the unidentified driver to the registered keeper. Keeper liability exists solely because Parliament created it. Without strict compliance with Schedule 4, it does not exist.

This distinction has a crucial practical consequence. If the parking company pursues you as the keeper, they must prove POFA compliance. If they pursue you as the driver, they must prove you were driving. If they cannot prove either, the claim fails. Many parking companies issue claims that are ambiguous about which basis they are relying on. If you receive a county court claim, examine the Particulars of Claim carefully to determine whether the company is alleging driver liability, keeper liability, or both. If they allege both, you can challenge the consistency and clarity of their case. For more detail on defending at court, see our county court defence guide.

One common tactic used by parking companies is to begin correspondence on a keeper liability basis (addressing the registered keeper) and then switch to alleging driver liability if the keeper challenges POFA compliance. Be alert to this. If the company cannot establish keeper liability, they cannot simply pivot and assert that the keeper was the driver unless they have actual evidence of this -- such as CCTV footage clearly identifying the driver.

How to Challenge POFA Compliance

Challenging POFA compliance is one of the most effective strategies available to motorists defending against a private parking charge. The key principle is straightforward: the burden of proof lies with the parking company. They must demonstrate that they complied with every requirement of Schedule 4. You do not have to prove that they failed -- they have to prove that they succeeded.

Step 1: Gather Your Documents

Collect every piece of correspondence you have received from the parking company: the initial parking charge notice (if you received one), the Notice to Keeper, any reminder letters, and any correspondence from debt collectors. Keep the original envelopes if possible, as the postmark can be critical evidence for the 14-day calculation.

Step 2: Check the 14-Day Timeline

Identify the date of the alleged contravention and the date the NTK was deemed served. Count the days carefully, accounting for postal service delivery times and the Interpretation Act provisions. If deemed service of the NTK falls outside the 14-day window, keeper liability has not been established, and the company's claim on a keeper liability basis fails.

Step 3: Audit the NTK Content

Review the NTK against the statutory requirements listed earlier in this guide. Check that every mandatory element is present and correctly stated. Pay particular attention to whether the notice correctly states that the keeper is not liable if they name the driver. Many NTKs contain errors in this statement or omit it entirely.

Step 4: Verify the Parking Charge Notice to the Driver

Under paragraph 8 of Schedule 4, the creditor must have given a notice (the parking charge notice) to the driver or affixed it to the vehicle before they can trigger the keeper liability process. If no notice was given to the driver and nothing was affixed to the windscreen, the statutory chain is broken at the first link.

Step 5: Check the Land Agreement

The parking company must have a valid contract with the landowner that authorises them to manage parking and issue charges on the relevant land. Under paragraph 5 of Schedule 4, the land must be “relevant land” -- meaning private land to which the public has access. If the company cannot produce evidence of a valid contract with the landowner, their entire claim may fail regardless of whether the charge was legitimately incurred.

What Not to Admit

Throughout this process, do not volunteer information. Do not confirm that you received the initial PCN. Do not confirm that you were driving. Do not confirm your identity beyond what is strictly necessary. Every admission you make narrows your defence options. The parking company must prove its case -- you are under no obligation to help them do so.

Common POFA Failures by Parking Companies

In practice, POFA non-compliance is remarkably common. Many parking companies operate high-volume, automated systems that are prone to procedural failures. Below are the most frequently encountered POFA failures that can form the basis of a successful defence.

The Strategic Importance of Not Admitting PCN Receipt

This is one of the most misunderstood aspects of parking charge defence, and it deserves careful explanation. When motorists receive a parking charge notice and immediately respond to the parking company -- whether to dispute it, to complain, or simply to ask for more information -- they often inadvertently undermine their own defence.

The reason is rooted in the structure of Schedule 4. Keeper liability is a fallback: it only arises when the parking company cannot recover from the driver. If you contact the parking company and say something like “I received your notice and I was not parked there for that long,” you have made two critical admissions. First, you have confirmed that you received the notice to the driver, satisfying one of the conditions for keeper liability. Second, you have implied that you were the driver, which means the parking company can pursue you directly under driver liability and does not need to rely on POFA at all.

From a strategic perspective, the optimal approach is to say nothing until you have fully assessed the parking company's compliance with POFA. Do not write to the company. Do not telephone them. Do not appeal through their internal process unless you have considered the implications carefully. The parking company's internal appeals process is not designed to help you -- it is designed to gather information that strengthens their position.

If you do choose to appeal a parking charge notice, be extremely careful about what you say. Never admit to being the driver unless you have deliberately decided to defend on driver liability grounds. Never confirm receipt of the initial PCN. Frame any correspondence in neutral terms that do not make admissions about your identity or actions.

This is not about being dishonest. It is about exercising your legal right not to assist a commercial company in building a case against you. The burden of proof lies with the parking company, and there is nothing improper about holding them to that standard. If they cannot prove their case without your voluntary assistance, their case is weak -- and that is their problem, not yours.

Frequently Asked Questions