DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 53365--------------------------------------------------
ParkMaven - No Valid Parking Session - Vicar Lane, Chesterfield
DIR By: dombooth
Date: January 14, 2025, 3:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
Thanks in advance for the help but I suspect the driver is bang
to rights, but hoping there's a way out of it!
The RK is a family member.
The driver used the car park to park while going for lunch. The
driver exited and re-entered on foot using the lower exit (which
doesn't have a pay machine), and left. Only pay machines are in
the shopping centre.
Both entry and exit barriers do not work.
The parking charge was only recieved on the 13th Jan.
The RK has already appealed: "I've received a parking charge
that says if paid within 14 days of issue it's only £60 but the
charge was only delivered to my house on the 13th which is a day
too late. I refuse to pay the £100 because it took you 2 weeks
to deliver my letter."
When logging into the portal it now shows "The Parking Charge is
discounted to £60.00 if paid before 27/01/2025. If payment is
not received by this date, the full parking charge amount will
be owed."
On the letter it says "No Valid Parking Session" (whatever that
means!) and on the portal it says "No valid parking
reservation".
HTML https://i.imgur.com/IBfzs0U.jpeg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/2gEYPES.jpeg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/3GueiJj.jpeg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/17gfhD4.jpeg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/q8KY5cJ.jpeg
#Post#: 53425--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkMaven - No Valid Parking Session - Vicar Lane,
Chesterfield
DIR By: b789
Date: January 15, 2025, 4:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
When the RK appealed, did they reveal the identity of the
driver, inadvertently or otherwise?
Saying things like "I did this or that" instead of referring to
the driver in the third person such as "The driver did this or
that", is how the Keeper throws away a perfectly good PoFA
defence.
The Notice to Keeper (NtK) issued by ParkMaven is non-compliant
with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) due to a contradiction in the payment
deadline specified on the notice.
The front of the NtK prominently states: “Payment to be made
within 28 days of the date issued”. This instruction contradicts
the statutory requirement under PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph
9(2)(f), which mandates that the keeper be informed that they
have 28 days from the day after the notice is deemed to be given
(served) to either pay the charge or provide the driver's
details.
According to PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(6), a Notice to Keeper
is deemed to be served two working days after posting, meaning
the 28-day period must start after this deemed service date. The
instruction on the front of the NtK, however, misleadingly
demands payment within 28 days of the issue date, which shortens
the legal timeframe available to the keeper.
While the back of the NtK attempts to reference the correct
timeframe, the most prominent instruction on the front is
incorrect and legally misleading. The contradictory timeframes
create confusion for the recipient and breach the requirement
for clarity and transparency under PoFA.
As established in Excel Parking v. Smith [2017] and Brennan v.
Premier Parking Logistics [2023], a Notice to Keeper must
strictly comply with the wording and timeframes set out in PoFA.
Any deviation from these requirements, particularly where it
misleads the recipient, renders the notice non-compliant.
Therefore, the operator cannot rely on PoFA to transfer
liability to the keeper.
#Post#: 53429--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkMaven - No Valid Parking Session - Vicar Lane,
Chesterfield
DIR By: dombooth
Date: January 15, 2025, 4:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> When the RK appealed, did they reveal the identity of the
driver, inadvertently or otherwise?
>
> Saying things like "I did this or that" instead of referring
to the driver in the third person such as "The driver did this
or that", is how the Keeper throws away a perfectly good PoFA
defence.
>
> The Notice to Keeper (NtK) issued by ParkMaven is
non-compliant with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) due to a contradiction in
the payment deadline specified on the notice.
>
> The front of the NtK prominently states: “Payment to be made
within 28 days of the date issued”. This instruction contradicts
the statutory requirement under PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph
9(2)(f), which mandates that the keeper be informed that they
have 28 days from the day after the notice is deemed to be given
(served) to either pay the charge or provide the driver's
details.
>
> According to PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(6), a Notice to
Keeper is deemed to be served two working days after posting,
meaning the 28-day period must start after this deemed service
date. The instruction on the front of the NtK, however,
misleadingly demands payment within 28 days of the issue date,
which shortens the legal timeframe available to the keeper.
>
> While the back of the NtK attempts to reference the correct
timeframe, the most prominent instruction on the front is
incorrect and legally misleading. The contradictory timeframes
create confusion for the recipient and breach the requirement
for clarity and transparency under PoFA.
>
> As established in Excel Parking v. Smith [2017] and Brennan v.
Premier Parking Logistics [2023], a Notice to Keeper must
strictly comply with the wording and timeframes set out in PoFA.
Any deviation from these requirements, particularly where it
misleads the recipient, renders the notice non-compliant.
>
> Therefore, the operator cannot rely on PoFA to transfer
liability to the keeper.
>
--- End Quote ---
The driver says they put what I quoted above. Should I just
copy and paste your words above to appeal?
Thanks
#Post#: 53446--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkMaven - No Valid Parking Session - Vicar Lane,
Chesterfield
DIR By: b789
Date: January 15, 2025, 7:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You say that an appeal has already been made. Has the rejection
of that appeal come through yet? An appeal rejection will come
with a POPLA code in order that a secondary appeal can be made.
#Post#: 53449--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkMaven - No Valid Parking Session - Vicar Lane,
Chesterfield
DIR By: dombooth
Date: January 15, 2025, 7:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The RK has 'appealed' with that I wrote above in "".
And the payment portal now lists a new date for the discounted
£60 payment.
The RK has not recieved a formal reply yet so I believe the
appeal will be active.
#Post#: 53455--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkMaven - No Valid Parking Session - Vicar Lane,
Chesterfield
DIR By: b789
Date: January 15, 2025, 7:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Come back when the appeal is rejected.
#Post#: 53456--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkMaven - No Valid Parking Session - Vicar Lane,
Chesterfield
DIR By: dombooth
Date: January 15, 2025, 7:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Okay thanks
#Post#: 53987--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkMaven - No Valid Parking Session - Vicar Lane,
Chesterfield
DIR By: dombooth
Date: January 18, 2025, 4:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
Letter receieved, I haven't uploaded a copy of the NTK as it's
already on this thread.
Thanks
HTML https://i.imgur.com/PBBqukZ.png
HTML https://i.imgur.com/OTdCg2g.png
HTML https://i.imgur.com/4xsola8.png
#Post#: 54024--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkMaven - No Valid Parking Session - Vicar Lane,
Chesterfield
DIR By: b789
Date: January 19, 2025, 5:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
What is the date of the appeal rejection letter?
#Post#: 54106--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkMaven - No Valid Parking Session - Vicar Lane,
Chesterfield
DIR By: dombooth
Date: January 19, 2025, 5:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Recieved by email:
HTML https://i.imgur.com/Vf0BE9I.png
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 3
DIR Next Page