DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 54130--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkMaven - No Valid Parking Session - Vicar Lane,
Chesterfield
DIR By: b789
Date: January 20, 2025, 3:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
With an appeal rejection date of 18th January, you have 28 days
plus 5 days for service, so 33 days to submit your POPLA appeal.
No rush but show us what you think is a suitable appeal, taking
into account that they will not consider ay mitigating
circumstances. Only point of law and breaches of the PPSCoP.
Just remember that 18th February is the POPLA deadline.
#Post#: 54157--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkMaven - No Valid Parking Session - Vicar Lane,
Chesterfield
DIR By: dombooth
Date: January 20, 2025, 5:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> With an appeal rejection date of 18th January, you have 28
days plus 5 days for service, so 33 days to submit your POPLA
appeal. No rush but show us what you think is a suitable appeal,
taking into account that they will not consider ay mitigating
circumstances. Only point of law and breaches of the PPSCoP.
>
> Just remember that 18th February is the POPLA deadline.
>
--- End Quote ---
Hi,
Thanks. I have no idea how to write an appeal, the only thing I
can think to write is your reply earlier in the thread regarding
"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."
Do you think it's likely to be successful or should the keeper
pay the reduced amount?
#Post#: 54166--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkMaven - No Valid Parking Session - Vicar Lane,
Chesterfield
DIR By: b789
Date: January 20, 2025, 5:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Do I think the keeper should pay the discounted invoice? Do you
simply pay ay old invoice you receive from a private company
just because if you pay it early, you'll receive a 40% discount?
If you're tempted by the "mugs discount" then I won't bother
expending time and effort to assist. You either believe that you
owe this unregulated private parking company because you
genuinely braced their terms and conditions, whether you were
the driver or not. Or, you are incensed enough about this unfair
invoice and it is worth fighting.
As far as we are concerned, no one pays a penny for an unfair
invoice from a bunch of ex-clampers.
Which is it going to be?
#Post#: 54167--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkMaven - No Valid Parking Session - Vicar Lane,
Chesterfield
DIR By: dombooth
Date: January 20, 2025, 5:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Do I think the keeper should pay the discounted invoice? Do
you simply pay ay old invoice you receive from a private company
just because if you pay it early, you'll receive a 40% discount?
>
> If you're tempted by the "mugs discount" then I won't bother
expending time and effort to assist. You either believe that you
owe this unregulated private parking company because you
genuinely braced their terms and conditions, whether you were
the driver or not. Or, you are incensed enough about this unfair
invoice and it is worth fighting.
>
> As far as we are concerned, no one pays a penny for an unfair
invoice from a bunch of ex-clampers.
>
> Which is it going to be?
>
--- End Quote ---
I understand what you're saying, and the reason I'm asking
whether you think the RK will be successful is due to the fact
parking wasn't paid for.
If you believe the driver will be successful, then lets crack
on.
#Post#: 54172--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkMaven - No Valid Parking Session - Vicar Lane,
Chesterfield
DIR By: b789
Date: January 20, 2025, 6:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Well, if the appeal was only the wording you stated:
--- Quote ---
> 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.
--- End Quote ---
then, as long as the Keeper didn't select any option that states
they were the driver, there is a very good reason to appeal the
PCN on the grounds that the Keeper cannot be liable because the
NtK does not fully comply with all the requirements of PoFA. As
the Keeper is not obliged to identify the driver, ParkMaven is
put to strict proof that the person they are pursuing is the
driver.
We can include other points such as signage and no valid
contract flowing from the landowner authorising ParkMaven to
issue PCNs in its own name.
Do I think it will be successful? We have a very high success
rate here, probably around 99%. So, please confirm whether you
want to carry on.
#Post#: 54191--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkMaven - No Valid Parking Session - Vicar Lane,
Chesterfield
DIR By: dombooth
Date: January 20, 2025, 8:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The RK assures me that is what she put and didn't select any
option to name the driver.
I appreciate your help, lets continue.
Thanks
#Post#: 54206--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkMaven - No Valid Parking Session - Vicar Lane,
Chesterfield
DIR By: b789
Date: January 20, 2025, 9:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You can use this as your POPLA appeal:
--- Quote ---
> Grounds for Appeal
>
> 1. Contradiction in Payment Deadlines Renders the NtK
Non-Compliant with PoFA
> 2. Further Notice to Keeper (NtK) Non-Compliance
> 3. The Operator Has Not Established Driver Liability and
Cannot Hold the Keeper Liable
> 4. Inadequate Signage – No Contract Formed with the Driver
> 5. No evidence of landholder authority
>
> 1. Contradiction in Payment Deadlines Renders the NtK
Non-Compliant with PoFA
>
> The Notice to Keeper (NtK) issued by ParkMaven contains a
fundamental flaw that renders it non-compliant with the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), Schedule 4. This flaw
relates to the specified 28-day period for payment or providing
the driver’s details, as mandated by PoFA Paragraph 9(2)(f).
>
> a. Contradiction Between the Front and Back of the NtK
>
> The front of the NtK prominently states:
>
> [indent]“Payment to be made within 28 days of the date
issued.”[/indent]
>
> This instruction is legally incorrect under PoFA Schedule 4,
which explicitly states that the 28-day period begins “from the
day after the notice is given”. According to PoFA Schedule 4,
Paragraph 9(6), the NtK is deemed to be “given” two working days
after the date of posting, unless evidence shows otherwise.
>
> By incorrectly starting the 28-day countdown from the issue
date, the NtK shortens the time legally afforded to the
recipient. This misleading information is compounded by the fact
that the back of the NtK, which references PoFA, appears to
follow the correct timeframe. This results in a contradiction
between the front and back of the notice, creating confusion and
uncertainty for the recipient.
>
> b. PoFA Requires Absolute Clarity
>
> Under PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9, the NtK must provide all
mandatory information in a clear and unambiguous manner.
Contradictions within the NtK regarding such a fundamental
matter as the payment deadline fail to meet this standard.
>
> The wording on the front of the NtK, being the most prominent
and immediately visible to the recipient, is misleading and does
not comply with PoFA. This failure is critical because the
keeper is entitled to understand exactly how long they have to
respond to the notice, either by paying or providing the
driver’s details.
>
> c. Legal and Practical Significance of This Contradiction
>
> This issue is not a trivial technicality—it is a critical
compliance failure with significant legal consequences:
>
> [indent]• The front of the NtK, being the first and most
prominent information presented to the recipient, creates a
false impression of the deadline. A reasonable person would act
based on the incorrect instruction, potentially cutting short
their legal rights.
>
> • By providing conflicting deadlines, the NtK fails to meet
the transparency and accuracy requirements under PoFA.
>
> • A PoFA-compliant NtK is a prerequisite for transferring
liability to the registered keeper. If the NtK fails to meet the
strict wording and procedural requirements of PoFA, the operator
cannot pursue the registered keeper for the parking
charge.[/indent]
>
> 2. Further Notice to Keeper (NtK) Non-Compliance
>
> Under Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), the Notice to Keeper (NtK) must
include a specific invitation to the keeper to pay the charge.
This requirement serves to ensure that the keeper understands
their liability and has a clear course of action.
>
> The operator cannot simply rely on the fact that the Parking
Charge Notice (PCN) is addressed to the Keeper to satisfy
Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of Schedule 4 of PoFA. The law explicitly
requires a clear and specific invitation for the keeper to
either:
>
> [indent]• Pay the parking charge, or
> • Provide the name and address of the driver (if the keeper
was not the driver).[/indent]
>
> This is not an "implied" requirement; it must be explicitly
stated. Merely inferring that the keeper is invited to pay
because the notice is addressed to them does not meet the strict
wording requirements of PoFA.
>
> PoFA compliance requires specific wording. The law’s intention
is to make the responsibilities of the Keeper clear and
unambiguous. Phrases like "you are invited to pay this parking
charge" or "you are required to do X, Y, Z" are examples of
wording that PoFA expects.
>
> If the notice only says, for example, "the charge must be
paid" or "payment is required" without directly inviting the
keeper to pay, this is insufficient under PoFA. The wording must
link the keeper directly to the payment obligation in an
unambiguous way.
>
> The operator cannot claim keeper liability under PoFA if they
fail to meet the explicit requirements of 9(2)(e)(i). This is a
valid appeal (and defence) point, as courts and independent
adjudicators should not rely on implied obligations instead of
explicit compliance with statutory requirements.
>
> 3. The Operator Has Not Established Driver Liability and
Cannot Hold the Keeper Liable
>
> Under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
(PoFA), the operator may only hold the registered keeper liable
for an unpaid parking charge if they fully comply with all the
requirements outlined in Paragraph 9. As demonstrated in
Sections 1 and 2 above, the NtK issued by Parkmaven is
non-compliant with PoFA in the following critical ways:
>
> [indent]• It fails to correctly specify the statutory 28-day
period for payment or the provision of the driver’s details, as
required under Paragraph 9(2)(f).
>
> • It fails to include the mandatory invitation for the keeper
to pay the charge, as required under Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i).
>
> [indent]a. Keeper Liability Cannot Be Established Due to PoFA
Failures
>
> Since the operator has not complied with PoFA Schedule 4, they
cannot transfer liability to the registered keeper. In this
case, liability rests solely with the driver of the vehicle at
the time of the alleged contravention. However:
>
> [indent]• I, as the registered keeper, am under no legal
obligation to identify the driver.
> • Parkmaven has failed to provide any evidence to identify the
driver.[/indent]
>
> b. The Operator Is Put to Strict Proof
>
> I put the operator to strict proof that:
>
> [indent]• They have fully complied with all the requirements
of PoFA Schedule 4, allowing them to transfer liability to the
registered keeper.
> • The person being pursued (the registered keeper) was, in
fact, the driver of the vehicle on the date of the alleged
contravention.[/indent]
>
> c. No Presumption of Driver Liability
>
> There is no presumption in law that the registered keeper was
the driver. In VCS v. Edward [2023], it was ruled that the
operator must provide sufficient evidence to prove that the
registered keeper and the driver are the same person. Without
such evidence, the registered keeper cannot be held liable for
the charge.
>
> In this case:
>
> [indent]•The operator has presented no evidence to prove the
identity of the driver.
> •The NtK fails to comply with PoFA, meaning the operator
cannot rely on the keeper liability provisions under the
Act.[/indent][/indent]
>
> Without evidence of the driver’s identity and given the clear
PoFA non-compliance, the operator has no lawful basis to pursue
me, the registered keeper, for this charge.[/indent]
>
> 4. Inadequate Signage – No Contract Formed with the Driver
>
> The signage at the car park is inadequate, unclear, and fails
to meet the standards set by the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single
Code of Practice (PPSCoP). For a contract to be formed, the
terms and conditions must be prominently displayed, legible, and
unambiguous. This is not the case here.
>
> [indent]a. Poor Visibility of Terms
> The operator has not provided evidence that the signage is
clear enough to form a contract with the driver. The signs in
this car park are not sufficiently prominent or legible,
particularly near the location where the vehicle was parked and
along the route taken by the driver when they exited and
re-entered the car park via the lower-level pedestrian exit.
>
> b. Operator to Strict Proof
> I put the operator to strict proof of the following:
>
> [indent]• The specific location of all signage within the car
park, including maps and photos.
> • Evidence that signs near where the vehicle was parked are
clearly visible and legible.
> • Confirmation that the driver passed these signs and had the
opportunity to read and agree to the terms.
> • Evidence that the signs comply with the BPA Code of
Practice.[/indent][/indent]
>
> Without this evidence, it cannot be established that the
driver was made aware of or agreed to any contractual terms.
>
> 5. No evidence of landholder authority
>
> The operator is also put to strict proof, by means of
contemporaneous and unredacted evidence, of a chain of authority
flowing from the landholder of the "relevant land" to the
operator. It is not accepted that the operator has adhered to
the landholder's definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours of
operation, etc. and any instructions to cancel charges due to
complaints. There is no evidence that the freeholder authorises
this operator to issue parking charges or what the land
enforcement boundary and start/expiry dates are, nor whether
this operator has standing to enforce such charges in their own
name rather than a bare licence to act as an agent ‘on behalf
of’ the landowner.
>
> The operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with
the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice. As this
operator does not have proprietary interest in the “relevant
land” then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the
contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site
agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including
exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine
resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto'
charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this
operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the
landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of
a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is
contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge
Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts
with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce
the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding
land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner
only). Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above,
often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying
the case in hand or even the site rules.
>
> A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA
but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently
evidence the definition of the services provided by each party
to the agreement. Nor would it define vital information such as
charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which
I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in
the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and
bays where enforcement applies/does not apply.
>
> Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the
landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and, of
course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge
(which cannot be assumed to be the sum on a sign because
template private parking terms and sums have been known not to
match the actual landowner agreement).
>
> Paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice defines the mandatory
requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full
compliance:
>
> [indent]• 7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on
any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have
the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed
agent) prior to legal action being taken.
>
> • 7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
>
> [indent](a) the definition of the land on which you may
operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly
defined
> (b) any conditions or restrictions on parking control and
enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of
operation
> (c) any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles
that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and
enforcement
> (d) who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining
signs
> (e) the definition of the services provided by each party to
the agreement[/indent][/indent]
>
> Conclusion
>
> For the reasons stated above, the Parking Charge Notice issued
by Parkmaven is unenforceable:
>
> [indent]• The NtK fails to comply with the strict requirements
of PoFA, particularly Paragraphs 9(2)(e) and 9(2)(f), meaning
liability cannot be transferred to me as the registered keeper.
> • The signage in the car park is inadequate and does not form
a valid contract with the driver.
> • The operator has not demonstrated that they have the
authority from the landowner to issue and enforce PCNs.
>
> I therefore request that POPLA upholds this appeal and
instructs ParkMaven to cancel the Parking Charge Notice
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 54471--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkMaven - No Valid Parking Session - Vicar Lane,
Chesterfield
DIR By: dombooth
Date: January 22, 2025, 5:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi, thank you for this.
Do I submit this as a PDF because it's too long for their box of
10000 characters?
#Post#: 54519--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkMaven - No Valid Parking Session - Vicar Lane,
Chesterfield
DIR By: b789
Date: January 22, 2025, 8:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just submit it as a PDF file and put it"see attached PSD file"
in the text box
#Post#: 54677--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkMaven - No Valid Parking Session - Vicar Lane,
Chesterfield
DIR By: dombooth
Date: January 23, 2025, 6:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks, appeal submitted.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page