DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 57927--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkMaven - No Valid Parking Session - Vicar Lane,
Chesterfield
DIR By: dombooth
Date: February 13, 2025, 5:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
ParkMaven have replied to Popla and they are asking for
comments:
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 57928--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkMaven - No Valid Parking Session - Vicar Lane,
Chesterfield
DIR By: dombooth
Date: February 13, 2025, 5:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
More attachments.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 57929--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkMaven - No Valid Parking Session - Vicar Lane,
Chesterfield
DIR By: dombooth
Date: February 13, 2025, 5:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Last attachment.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 57934--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkMaven - No Valid Parking Session - Vicar Lane,
Chesterfield
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: February 13, 2025, 6:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I would draw attention to the fact that, even in the evidence
pack in your last attachment, the images of the signage (and
even the 'proofs') are largely illegible.
How can the assessor draw a conclusion as to whether a contract
was formed if the operator has failed to provide a legible copy
of the terms and conditions the driver was allegedly bound by?
#Post#: 57935--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkMaven - No Valid Parking Session - Vicar Lane,
Chesterfield
DIR By: dombooth
Date: February 13, 2025, 6:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
Apologies I should have mentioned I had to compress the PDF to
upload it.
Original one I've uploaded to here:
HTML https://limewire.com/d/5df78d3d-29cc-4a01-8aa1-33da703a9816#UDaImkHyMA4r7DWN43IrDTVYBxriSwxnzGZqVW--3DE
#Post#: 57987--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkMaven - No Valid Parking Session - Vicar Lane,
Chesterfield
DIR By: b789
Date: February 13, 2025, 12:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
As you can only respond to the operators evidence pack using the
POPLA webform, simply copy and past the following which is
within the 10,000 character limit:
--- Quote ---
> 1. Response to Operator’s Evidence – Failure to Prove Date of
Posting
>
> The operator has failed to provide evidence of when the Notice
to Keeper (NtK) was actually entered into the postal system, as
required under PPSCoP 8.1.2(e).
>
> The provided "Certificate of Postage" only confirms when the
document was transmitted via hybrid mail (30/12/2024 at 18:50).
It does not prove when it was physically handed over to the
postal system by the Mail Consolidator.
>
> For the NtK to have been deemed delivered within the 14-day
PoFA deadline, it would have had to enter the postal system on
31/12/2024 (Tuesday) at the latest, as delivery via Second Class
post requires three working days:
>
> - 31/12/2024 (Tuesday) – Latest possible posting date for PoFA
compliance
> - 02/01/2025 (Thursday) – Day 1 (First working day after New
Year's Day bank holiday)
> - 03/01/2025 (Friday) – Day 2
> - 06/01/2025 (Monday) – Day 3 (latest expected delivery date
under Second Class and final PoFA deadline)
>
> However, the operator has provided no evidence whatsoever that
the NtK actually entered the postal system on 31/12/2024.
>
> PPSCoP 8.1.2(e) is clear:
>
> "Therefore, parking operators must retain a record of the date
of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice having been
generated (e.g. the date that any third-party Mail Consolidator
actually put it in the postal system.)"
>
> No such evidence has been provided by the operator. Without
proof of actual postal entry, there is no way to verify PoFA
compliance.
>
> Even if we assume all minimum delivery times were met, the
operator must prove compliance, not just assume it. Since they
have failed to provide the required evidence, their claim of
PoFA compliance must be rejected, and Keeper liability does not
apply.
>
>
> 2. Response to Operator’s Evidence – Failure to Address
Contradictory Payment Deadlines and Incorrect References
>
> The operator has failed to address the fundamental flaw in the
Notice to Keeper (NtK) that renders it non-compliant with PoFA
9(2)(f).
>
> The front of the NtK states:
>
> "Payment to be made within 28 days of the date issued."
>
> This is incorrect under PoFA, which requires that the 28-day
period begins from the day after the notice is given. According
to PoFA 9(6), the notice is deemed given two working days after
posting unless proven otherwise. This incorrect instruction
reduces the legal time available to the recipient and directly
contradicts the correct wording on the back of the NtK, creating
confusion.
>
> The operator’s evidence pack completely ignores this point and
does not attempt to justify or rectify this fundamental
non-compliance. A PoFA-compliant NtK is a prerequisite for
transferring liability to the registered keeper, and a
contradiction in the payment deadline renders the NtK invalid.
>
> Additionally, the operator’s reference to the BPA Code of
Practice (CoP) paragraph 21.4a is incorrect and outdated. The
BPA CoP has been superseded by the Private Parking Single Code
of Practice (PPSCoP), which is now the applicable regulatory
standard. They should have referenced PPSCoP 8.1.2(e), which
states:
>
> "Therefore, parking operators must retain a record of the date
of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice having been
generated (e.g. the date that any third-party Mail Consolidator
actually put it in the postal system.)"
>
> The operator has not provided any such evidence proving the
date the NtK actually entered the postal system. Their so-called
"Certificate of Postage" merely confirms the date of electronic
transmission via hybrid mail (30/12/2024 at 18:50), which does
not prove physical posting on the same day.
>
> Furthermore, their assumption that the NtK is "given" after
two working days is only valid for First Class post (1-2 working
days). Their own evidence states that the letter was sent using
"2-3 day delivery", which is equivalent to Second Class post.
Under Second Class post, the deemed delivery period is three
working days, not two.
>
>
> 3. Response to Operator’s Evidence – Failure to Address PoFA
9(2)(e)(i) Non-Compliance
>
> The operator has completely failed to address the point raised
in the appeal regarding non-compliance with PoFA 9(2)(e)(i).
>
> Under PoFA 9(2)(e)(i), the Notice to Keeper (NtK) must contain
an explicit invitation to the keeper to:
>
> - Pay the parking charge, or
> - Provide the name and address of the driver (if the keeper
was not the driver).
>
> This is a strict statutory requirement and cannot be implied.
The fact that the notice is addressed to the keeper does not
satisfy the PoFA requirement. The law explicitly requires clear
wording linking the keeper directly to the payment obligation.
>
> The operator has not even attempted to provide evidence that
their NtK contains the legally required explicit invitation
under 9(2)(e)(i). The failure to include this wording means that
the NtK is not compliant with PoFA, and therefore, the operator
cannot claim keeper liability.
>
> The law is clear on this matter—PoFA compliance is mandatory,
and failure to meet its requirements means that liability cannot
be transferred to the keeper.
>
>
> 4. Response to Operator’s Evidence – Failure to Establish
Keeper liability
>
> Under PoFA, the operator may only hold the registered keeper
liable if they fully comply with all the requirements of
Paragraph 9. As already demonstrated in the appeal, the Notice
to Keeper (NtK) does not comply with PoFA because:
>
> - It fails to specify the correct statutory 28-day period for
payment or the provision of the driver’s details, as required
under PoFA 9(2)(f).
> - It fails to include the mandatory invitation for the keeper
to pay the charge, as required under PoFA 9(2)(e)(i).
>
> Since the operator has not complied with PoFA, they cannot
transfer liability to the keeper. Liability would rest solely
with the driver. However:
>
> - The registered keeper is under no legal obligation to
identify the driver.
> - The operator has provided no evidence to identify the
driver.
> - 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.
>
> The operator has not responded to this point (#3 in the
appeal) in their evidence pack. Instead, they simply assert that
they are pursuing the keeper without addressing the specific
PoFA failures that prevent them from doing so. The burden of
proof is on the operator, and they have failed to meet it. Since
they have not complied with PoFA and have not provided evidence
of the driver’s identity, keeper liability does not apply.
>
>
> 5. Irrelevant referencing of the BPA CoP in the operators
evidence pack.
>
> The operator has referenced the outdated BPA CoP twice in
their evidence pack, demonstrating a failure to rely on the
correct regulatory framework.
>
> They referenced BPA CoP 21.4a regarding the presumed delivery
of the Notice to Keeper, despite the fact that this has been
superseded by PPSCoP 8.1.2(e), which sets the current
requirement for evidencing the date of postal entry.
>
> They also referenced BPA CoP 20.5 regarding the cost of the
parking charge, despite the fact that the BPA Code of Practice
is no longer in force and has been replaced by the PPSCoP, which
governs private parking enforcement.
>
> By continuing to rely on an obsolete document, the operator
has demonstrated that they are applying incorrect and outdated
regulations to justify their claim. Their entire case is based
on the wrong regulatory framework, meaning their justification
for the parking charge and its costs carries no weight in this
appeal.
>
>
> 6. Operator failure to rebut point #4 Inadequate Signage – No
Contract Formed with the Driver
>
> The operator has failed to provide evidence that the signage
meets the requirements of BPA CoP v9, which remains applicable
until 2026.
>
> - They have not evidenced where the vehicle was actually
parked within the car park.
> - They have not provided proof of what signs were near the
location where the vehicle was parked.
> - They have not shown that the driver would have passed and
had the opportunity to read and agree to the terms upon exiting
the vehicle.
> - Additionally, the parking charge of £100 is not adequately
displayed. It is tiny and hidden within a block of text, using
green text on a black background, which makes it difficult to
read.
>
> This does not conform to:
>
> - BPA Code of Practice requirements for clear signage and
prominent display of terms.
> - PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 2(2), which states that a parking
charge must be a sum “of which adequate notice was given to
drivers.”
> - Since the operator has failed to provide evidence that the
signage meets the required standards or that the charge was
clearly communicated, no contract can be deemed to have been
formed with the driver, and the charge is unenforceable.
>
>
> 7. No evidence of landholder authority
>
> The operator has submitted an Enforcement Agreement signed by
a "Tom Walsh" as the Landowner, but they have also provided a
witness statement where "Tom Walsh" signs on behalf of the
Landowner. This creates a clear contradiction:
>
> - If Tom Walsh is the Landowner, he cannot also be signing "on
behalf of the Landowner."
> - If Tom Walsh is not the Landowner, then the Enforcement
Agreement is not signed by the actual Landowner, and his
authority to bind the landowner remains unproven.
> - The witness statement does not confirm who Tom Walsh is,
what position he holds, or whether he has any actual legal
standing to authorise enforcement.
>
> Since the operator has not provided a clear and verifiable
link to the actual Landowner, they have failed to prove they
have authority to issue and enforce parking charges on this
land. The burden of proof is on the operator to demonstrate that
they have a valid contract with the Landowner granting them
enforcement rights, and they have not done so.
>
> Without indisputable proof of landowner authority, the charge
is unenforceable.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 57992--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkMaven - No Valid Parking Session - Vicar Lane,
Chesterfield
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: February 13, 2025, 12:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The operator has also not signed the document.
#Post#: 58085--------------------------------------------------
Re: ParkMaven - No Valid Parking Session - Vicar Lane,
Chesterfield
DIR By: dombooth
Date: February 14, 2025, 6:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks. :) I have submitted this
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 3
DIR Previous Page