POFA 2012 Schedule 4 Explained: The Law Behind Every Private Parking Charge

Why POFA 2012 Schedule 4 Matters to You

When a private parking operator issues a charge from an ANPR camera, they usually do not know who was driving. They only know the registered keeper from the DVLA. Without a specific law, they could only pursue the driver, whom they cannot identify.

That law is Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). It is the *only* mechanism that lets a private operator hold the registered keeper liable when the driver is not identified. And because the requirements are strict and detailed, operators frequently get them wrong, which is the single most common successful defence against a private parking charge.

What POFA Schedule 4 Requires

To transfer liability from the unknown driver to the registered keeper, the operator must satisfy several conditions. The key ones are:

• The land must be "relevant land" (private land, not a public road, and not already covered by a statutory parking regime).
• A compliant Notice to Keeper (NtK) must be served. If a Notice to Driver was placed on the windscreen, the NtK must be served within 28 days of the contravention. If there was no windscreen notice (pure ANPR), the NtK must be served within 14 days of the contravention (paragraph 9).
• The NtK must contain specific information, including the period of parking, the amount unpaid, a clear statement inviting payment, and the precise statutory wording that warns the keeper they may become liable if the driver is not named.
• The NtK must invite the keeper to either pay or name the driver.

If the operator misses the 14-day or 28-day deadline, omits the required wording, or fails any other condition, keeper liability does not transfer. The operator is then left pursuing an unidentified driver, which usually collapses their case.

The Most Common POFA Failures

1. Late Notice to Keeper. The 14-day deadline for ANPR-only cases is the one operators miss most often. Count the days from the date of the contravention.
2. Missing or incorrect statutory wording. The NtK must use the warning wording closely tracking the Act. Paraphrased or absent wording is a defence.
3. Wrong "period of parking." POFA requires the period of parking, not just an entry time or a single timestamp. A single ANPR read often fails this.
4. Not "relevant land." Some sites (for example certain railway or airport land, or land with its own byelaws) are not relevant land, so POFA keeper liability cannot apply at all.

How POFA Fits With Beavis and the Consumer Rights Act

POFA decides who can be held liable (driver vs keeper). Two other authorities decide whether the charge itself is enforceable:

• *ParkingEye v Beavis* [2015] UKSC 67: the Supreme Court held that a clearly signed £85 charge was enforceable and not an unfair penalty, *because* the signage was prominent and the charge served a legitimate interest. The flip side: where signage is poor or the charge is out of all proportion, the Beavis reasoning does not protect the operator.
• Consumer Rights Act 2015 s.62: terms (including via signage) must be fair and transparent. Inadequate signage means no contract was properly formed.

A strong appeal often combines all three: POFA failure (keeper not liable), plus signage/Beavis distinction (no enforceable contract), plus any mitigation.