DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 55734--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
By: b789 Date: January 29, 2025, 8:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Are you tempted to pay a speculative invoice from an unregulated
company just because it offers a 40% discount? Why?
If a private company just sends you an invoice for anything, do
you just pay it because it offers a discount?
It is known as the "mugs discount" because they expect most
recipients to be "mugs" who are swayed by the discount rather
than the reason they received a speculative invoice in the first
place. A bit like the market seller who offers you something and
then entrances you with how much of bargain you are getting as
they reduce the original amount with a one off bargain discount.
Ignore the mugs discount.
#Post#: 55735--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
By: kgw Date: January 29, 2025, 8:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have no such intention 8)
... and I found the POPLA code
#Post#: 55740--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
By: b789 Date: January 29, 2025, 9:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is format for a POPLA appeal you can use:
[quote]APPELLANT: [Your Name]
PARKING OPERATOR: ParkMaven
POPLA VERIFICATION CODE: [Your Code]
PCN NUMBER: [Your PCN Number]
GROUNDS OF 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. The NtK Contains Misleading Information, Contradicting the
PPSCoP (Effective Since October 2024)
5. ParkMaven’s Appeal Rejection References a Defunct BPA Code of
Practice
6. Inadequate Signage – No Contract Formed with the Driver
7. 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
[indent]The front of the NtK prominently states:
[indent]"PARKING CHARGE NOTICE AMOUNT: £100 PAYMENT TO BE MADE
WITHIN 28 DAYS OF THE DATE ISSUED: BY 21/01/2025."[/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.
"Given" has the same meaning as "received" by or "delivered" to
the Keeper.
The bold and most prominent wording on the front of the NtK is
misleading and non-compliant with PoFA because the law requires
the 28-day period to be calculated from when the notice is
deemed given (received/delivered), not from the issue date.
PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(f) clearly states:
[indent]"Warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days
beginning with the day after that on which the notice is
given"[/indent]
Since the NtK was issued on Tuesday 24th December 2024, the
actual date it is deemed to have been given (i.e.,
received/delivered) is:
[indent]Deemed delivery is Monday, 30th December 2024
The 28-day period must start from Tuesday, 31st December 2024,
ending on Monday, 27th January 2025[/indent]
By incorrectly starting the 28-day countdown from the issue
date, Tuesday 24th December 2024, 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.[/indent]
b. PoFA Requires Absolute Clarity
[indent]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.[/indent]
c. Legal and Practical Significance of This Contradiction
[indent]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][/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.[/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.
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.
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.
4. The NtK Contains Misleading Information, Contradicting the
PPSCoP (Effective Since October 2024)
In addition to non-compliance with PoFA, ParkMaven’s NtK fails
to comply with the new BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of
Practice (PPSCoP), which replaced the BPA Code of Practice in
October 2024.
Section 8.1.2(e) of the PPSCoP specifically states:
[indent]"The recipient can appeal within 28 days of receiving
the parking charge."[/indent]
Furthermore, the PPSCoP clarifies in Note 2:
[indent]"A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the
contrary is proved, to have been delivered on the second working
day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose,
‘working day’ means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday, or a
public holiday in England and Wales.[/I]"[/indent]
Since the NtK was issued on Tuesday 24th December 2024, the
actual 28-day appeal period must start from the deemed delivery
date of Monday 30th December 2024.
However, ParkMaven’s incorrect instruction to pay or appeal by
Tuesday 21st January 2025 directly contradicts the PPSCoP and
misleads the Keeper into believing that they have fewer days
than they are legally entitled to.
This is a clear breach of the PPSCoP, and POPLA must uphold this
appeal.
5. ParkMaven’s Appeal Rejection References a Defunct BPA Code of
Practice
In their appeal rejection, ParkMaven erroneously quoted Section
23.12 of the BPA Code of Practice, which is no longer in force.
The relevant paragraph states:
[indent]"[i]As per section 23.12 of The BPA Code of Practice,
the only information that is required of us when rejecting an
appeal is to give clear direction on how to appeal to POPLA and
to allow a reasonable amount of time for the motorist to
pay."[/indent]
However, the BPA Code of Practice was superseded by the PPSCoP
in October 2024. Therefore, any reference to it is irrelevant.
ParkMaven’s rejection also falsely asserts:
[indent]"If the keeper refuses to name the driver, we reserve
the right to request payment from the keeper of the
vehicle."[/indent]
This statement is misleading because ParkMaven’s own NtK fails
to comply with PoFA. Since Keeper liability does not apply, they
have no legal basis to demand payment from the Keeper.
6. 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.
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.
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 PPSCoP.[/indent]
Without this evidence, it cannot be established that the driver
was made aware of or agreed to any contractual terms.
7. 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 also 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.
For the reasons stated above, the Parking Charge Notice issued
by Parkmaven is unenforceable[/quote]
#Post#: 55810--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
By: kgw Date: January 30, 2025, 4:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Wow !
I would never have come up with such a comprehensive appeal in y
wildest dreams. IT's amazing although you're almost giving them
instructions on how to make their NtKs better.
In 2, you say: "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)".
The header of the notice says:
[center]NOTICE TO KEEPER
THIS PARKING CHARGE NOTICE SERVES AS YOUR NOTICE TO
KEEPER[/center]
Poorly written but I gather that the notice is both a NtK and a
PCN
In 3 b "I put the operator to strict proof that:" I suppose it's
"either or" for the 2 items
In 4 I see that note 2 of PPSCoP says that:
"parking operators must retain a record of the date of posting
of a notice, not simply of that notice having been generated".
We don't know whether the NtK was indeed posted on the 24th and
there were a flurry of holidays so 27 Jan was the earliest
possible end-of-appeal-period date. But, Parkmaven should have
referred to proof of posting to substantiate their deadlines.
Furthermore, PPSCoP 8.1.2 e) states "the right to pay at the
rate applicable when the appeal was made must
stand for a further 14 days from the date (subject to 8.1.2d)
they receive notification that their appeal has been rejected"
but the rejection says that the discount was only open until 29
Jan, thereby breaching PPSCoP
6 I don't have pics from the site and I'm not sure Streetview is
up to date
I see in PPSCoP that compliance of signage will only be required
by 31/12/2026 so I guess they're OK if they comply with whatever
rules were in force before PPSCoP
7 interesting but we know nothing and I see nothing in PPSCoP
that requires Parkmaven to disclose anything
#Post#: 55830--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
By: b789 Date: January 30, 2025, 6:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Don't overthink it at this stage. Let the POPLA assessor do
their job. At some point, ParkMaven will submit an operators
response/evidence pack which you will receive a copy of. The
that is received, you can see whether they have rebutted your
points.
They have to successfully rebut ALL the points. You only need to
win on one of them. In their response pack, you will be able to
see whether they have provided a valid response and you can then
submit your own response, highlighting to the POPLA assessor
where they have erred or failed to rebut your points.
Patience. POPLA are overloaded and the whole process can take
several months.
#Post#: 55831--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
By: kgw Date: January 30, 2025, 6:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Got it.
So you would not add my point about PPSCoP 8.1.2 e) breach ?
#Post#: 55843--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
By: b789 Date: January 30, 2025, 7:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It's already covered in point 4 of the suggested appeal I
provided you. Re-read it!
#Post#: 57324--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
By: kgw Date: February 9, 2025, 2:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Appeal submitted....
#Post#: 59570--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
By: kgw Date: February 24, 2025, 5:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello,
Parkmaven did not drop the case. POPLA has sent me their
"Operator Information and Evidence".
Here's their summary:
"We submit this statement in response to the appeal lodged by Mr
(kgw) concerning the Parking Charge Notice (xxxx) issued at The
Centre Feltham Surfaceon 24-12-2024 . After reviewing the
details of this case, we confirm that the PCN was issued
correctly due to the motorist’s failure to pay for their parking
session as required under the clearly stated terms and
conditions of the car park. The signage at [Insert Car Park
Name] is prominently displayed and communicates the terms and
conditions for using the car park, including the requirement to
pay for parking. These signs are strategically placed at the car
park entrance and at multiple locations throughout the site to
ensure visibility for all motorists. The signage includes
details on the payment methods available, such as kiosks, app,
phone, and specifies that failure to comply with the terms will
result in the issuance of a Parking Charge Notice. To further
enhance clarity, these signs are designed with large fonts and
contrasting colours to ensure readability, even from a distance.
Photographs of the signage, are attached as evidence,
demonstrating their clarity, content, and placement. Our records
show no evidence of payment being made for the vehicle
registration number xxxx on the date in question. The vehicle
entered the car park at 13:29:30 and exited at 14:52:11, as
confirmed by our ANPR system or observation logs, with a total
duration of 1hr 22min 41sec. This demonstrates a stay within the
chargeable period. Despite the payment facilities being clearly
indicated and fully operational, the motorist did not make the
required payment, which constitutes a breach of the displayed
terms and conditions. The Notice to Keeper (NTK) was issued in
full compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012
and the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. The
NTK provides clear information about the reason for the charge
and includes instructions regarding payment and the appeals
process, ensuring complete transparency. The parking charge is a
reasonable and proportionate measure to ensure compliance with
the car park’s terms of use. Despite the motorist’s claims, no
evidence has been provided to show that payment was made or that
mitigating circumstances prevented adherence to the terms and
conditions. In conclusion, the motorist failed to meet their
obligation to pay for their parking session, despite the clear
and ample signage located throughout the car park detailing the
terms of use and payment requirements. As such, the PCN was
issued correctly. We respectfully request that POPLA dismiss the
appeal and uphold the PCN, as the evidence provided supports our
position. Enclosed with this statement are the Enforcement
Agreement, the Signage Plan, photographs of the signage, ANPR
entry and exit records, payment system logs, the motorist's
appeal, our appeal decision and a copy of the NTK for your
review."
The [Insert Car Park Name] shows that they use a standard
template."
There's a 41-page pdf attached, almost entirely focussed on
demonstrating the quality and density of the signeage on site.
It also addresses the contractual relationship with the
landlord. There's nothing really about PoFA compliance except a
few lines:
"After obtaining the keeper details from the DVLA using the
KADOE service, a Parking Charge Notice
(PCN) was issued on 24-12-2024 via post. In line with the BPA
Code of Practice paragraph 21.4a, a
notice sent by post is presumed, unless the contrary is proved,
to have been delivered and so "given"
on the second working day after the day on which it is posted.
The letter issued (attached) meet the requirements of PoFA 2012,
schedule 4, paragraph 9.
Given this, as the appellant has failed to provide the full name
and address for the Driver, we are
exercising our right to recover the unpaid parking charge from
the appellant as the Keeper."
I now have 7 days to post comments.
#Post#: 59571--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
By: DWMB2 Date: February 24, 2025, 5:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Does their evidence pack contain their agreement with the
landowner? If so, please show us those pages, unredacted.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page