DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 59572--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
By: kgw Date: February 24, 2025, 5:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[attachimg=1]
[attachimg=2]
[attachimg=3]
[attachimg=4]
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 59573--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
By: kgw Date: February 24, 2025, 5:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[attachimg=1]
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 59575--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
By: kgw Date: February 24, 2025, 5:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It seems Parkmaven is busy listing the provisions of PoFA and
the code of practice they comply rahter than addressing the
on-compliances raised in the appeal.
Also, they refer to the BPA code, not PPSCoP.
#Post#: 59578--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
By: b789 Date: February 24, 2025, 7:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Is the agreement they’ve shown, signed and dated? Can you host
the documents they’ve sent and provide a link to them?
#Post#: 59595--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
By: kgw Date: February 25, 2025, 3:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello,
These were screenshots so no signature save for one.
Here's a link to the pdf: Evidence pack
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lP9yzQIJ_5GzQkJ-8ZUq0pqtRRrlZxQF/view?usp=drive_link
#Post#: 59633--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
By: b789 Date: February 25, 2025, 8:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Copy and paste the following response to the operators evidence
into the POPLA webform. I tis under the 10,000 character limit
and points out ParkMavens failure to rebut your appeal points
and highlights the flaws in their evidence:
[quote]The operator has completely failed to address the first
point raised in my POPLA appeal regarding the contradiction in
payment deadlines within the NtK. This is a fundamental issue,
as the inconsistency highlights a failure to comply with PoFA.
The front of the NtK states the payment deadline is 28 days from
the issue date, setting it to 21/01/2025. However, PoFA 9(2)(f)
requires the 28-day period to begin from the day after the
notice is given, which in this case would be 30/12/2024. The
correct deadline is therefore 27/01/2025. The back of the NtK
appears to follow the correct timeframe, creating a direct
contradiction within the document.
This contradiction is misleading and legally significant. It can
confuse the recipient and potentially shorten their legal rights
under PoFA. PoFA requires clarity in all mandatory information
provided in the NtK, and the operator’s failure to provide this
undermines their claim.
The operator has not addressed this issue in their evidence
pack. If they believed their NtK was compliant, they would have
rebutted this argument and justified the wording. Their silence
on this point indicates they have no valid defense. POPLA should
treat their failure to engage with this issue as a concession
that their NtK does not comply with PoFA, and that keeper
liability cannot be enforced.
The operator has also failed to respond to the second key point
raised in my POPLA appeal regarding the failure of their NtK to
comply with PoFA, specifically the lack of a clear invitation to
the keeper to pay, as required under PoFA 9(2)(e)(i).
PoFA requires that a NtK must clearly and explicitly invite the
keeper to either pay the charge or provide the name and address
of the driver. This is a legal requirement, not an optional
inclusion. The operator cannot rely on implied obligation—the
wording must be clear and unambiguous.
ParkMaven’s NtK states that the driver is required to pay the
charge and tells the keeper to provide the driver’s details if
they were not the driver. However, there is no legal obligation
on the keeper to identify the driver.
PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) specifically requires the NtK to invite the
keeper to pay the charge. It does not attach any conditions to
that invitation, such as stating that the keeper must have been
the driver. However, this NtK only explains what happens if the
keeper was not the driver, without a direct invitation for the
keeper to pay. This omission makes the NtK non-compliant with
PoFA, meaning the operator cannot transfer liability to the
keeper.
My appeal pointed out that ParkMaven’s NtK fails to include this
required invitation. Rather than addressing this clear legal
failure, the operator has entirely ignored the issue in their
evidence pack. If ParkMaven believed their NtK was compliant,
they would have provided direct evidence that their notice
contains the required wording. Their silence on this point
confirms that their NtK does not comply with PoFA.
The burden of proof lies with the operator to demonstrate that
they have met all the necessary conditions to hold the keeper
liable under PoFA. PoFA does not offer a selection of
requirements from which an operator may pick and choose; it is a
strict statutory framework that demands full compliance with
every requirement set out in the Act. Partial compliance does
not satisfy PoFA, and as a result, the keeper cannot be held
liable.
The operator was required to provide strict proof that their NtK
fully complies with all the requirements of PoFA, allowing them
to lawfully transfer liability to the registered keeper. As
already demonstrated, their NtK fails to meet the statutory
requirements in several key areas. It does not correctly specify
the statutory 28-day period for payment, as required under
Paragraph 9(2)(f), and it also fails to include the mandatory
invitation for the keeper to pay the charge, as required under
Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i). Since full compliance with PoFA is an
absolute requirement for transferring liability, these failures
render the NtK non-compliant, and liability cannot pass to the
keeper.
Furthermore, if the operator wished to hold the registered
keeper liable, they were required to provide strict proof that
the person they are pursuing was, in fact, the driver on the
date of the alleged contravention. The law does not allow
inference that the registered keeper was the driver, and the
burden rests entirely on the operator to provide evidence
proving this. In VCS v Edward [2023], the court ruled that an
operator must provide sufficient evidence to prove that the
registered keeper and the driver are the same person. The
operator has failed to provide any such evidence in their
response pack.
The operator’s failure to rebut the specific PoFA non-compliance
issues raised in my appeal, coupled with their failure to
provide strict proof of the driver’s identity, means they have
no lawful basis to pursue me, the keeper, for this charge. The
absence of any meaningful response to these fundamental legal
failures should be taken as a concession that their case is
without merit. The appeal must be upheld, and the PCN must be
cancelled.
The operator has completely failed to address Point 4 of my
appeal, which highlights their clear breach of the PPSCoP.
Instead of responding to this fundamental issue, they have
remained silent, failing to justify or explain their
non-compliance.
The NtK misleads by instructing to pay or appeal by 21/01/2025.
However, under the PPSCoP, specifically Section 8.1.2(e) and
Note 2, the correct appeal deadline is 27/01/2025, which is 28
days from the deemed receipt date of 30/12/2024. The PPSCoP
makes it clear that a NtK sent by post is presumed to be
delivered on the second working day after posting unless proven
otherwise. By setting an incorrect deadline, the operator
misrepresents the keeper’s rights and misleads them into
believing they have less time to appeal than they actually do.
The operator’s failure to respond to this point means they
implicitly accept that their NtK contains misleading
information. They have not provided any explanation or
justification for their failure to comply with the PPSCoP, nor
have they attempted to correct the misrepresentation. Their
silence on this matter should be taken as an admission that
their demand was inaccurate and misleading.
Under POPLA’s own appeal assessment principles, if an appellant
raises a valid challenge and the operator does not respond to
it, the appeal must be upheld. The burden of proof lies with the
operator to demonstrate compliance with the CoP and fairness in
their communications. Their failure to do so means they have not
discharged that burden, and the appeal should be allowed.
As this appeal point remains uncontested, the misleading NtK
alone is sufficient to invalidate the PCN.
The operator has also failed to respond to my 5th appeal point
regarding their misleading appeal rejection, which incorrectly
referenced the outdated BPA CoP instead of the PPSCoP, which has
been in force since October 2024. Rather than addressing this
issue, they have remained silent, failing to justify their use
of obsolete guidance.
The burden of proof is on the operator to demonstrate compliance
with the relevant regulations. Their failure to respond suggests
that they accept that their appeal rejection was based on an
outdated and irrelevant CoP. The reference to §23.12 of the BPA
CoP has no bearing on this case because the PPSCoP now governs
all private parking operators. ParkMaven has not explained why
they relied on an obsolete document rather than the correct and
current PPSCoP.
The operator also failed to justify their misleading statement
regarding Keeper liability. Their appeal rejection states that
"if the keeper refuses to name the driver, we reserve the right
to request payment from the keeper of the vehicle." This
statement is incorrect and misleading because their NtK does not
comply with PoFA, meaning they cannot transfer liability to the
Keeper. The operator has provided no explanation or
justification for making this false claim.
POPLA’s assessment must be based on the evidence presented.
Since the operator has not refuted this key point, it remains
unchallenged and uncontested. ParkMaven’s failure to adhere to
the correct CoP and their misrepresentation of liability should
be grounds to uphold this appeal. Given that this issue was
raised in my appeal and ignored by the operator, I request that
POPLA rule in my favour due to the operator’s failure to provide
a legally compliant rejection and their misleading statements
regarding Keeper liability.
I also challenged the operator to provide strict proof of
landowner authority by means of a contemporaneous, unredacted
contract showing their right to issue and enforce parking
charges on the land in their own name. The operator has failed
to do so, instead submitting contradictory submissions that
raise serious concerns about the authenticity of their evidence.
The operator submitted an unsigned and undated witness
statement, claiming that the Enforcement Agreement is
confidential and "cannot be made public." However, they have
provided the actual Enforcement Agreement, despite stating it
could not be disclosed. This inconsistency suggests the operator
may be fabricating or manipulating documents in an attempt to
mislead the POPLA assessor.
The document provided as the Enforcement Agreement is not signed
by the operator. The landowner or agent has only electronically
signed it, with no mention of their position to verify their
authority. The agreement allegedly started on 04/09/2023 and
lasts for 4 years, yet the only signature is dated
27/02/2024—five months after the agreement allegedly came into
force. This raises doubts about whether this agreement existed
before the date of the signature. A properly executed contract
would not contain such flaws, and without verified signatories,
this document has no evidential value.[/quote]
#Post#: 59634--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
By: DWMB2 Date: February 25, 2025, 8:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]ParkMaven has not explained why they relied on an
obsolete document rather than the correct and current
PPSCoP.[/quote]
Even more than that - they've doubled down and continued to
reference the BPA Code of Practice in their evidence pack.
#Post#: 59638--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
By: kgw Date: February 25, 2025, 9:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OK but I read on the BPA website on their PPSCoP page: "The Code
permits a period of transition where ATA members will be
required to meet the new standards in full by December 2026.".
Only clause 17 applies from Oct 2024.
#Post#: 59640--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
By: DWMB2 Date: February 25, 2025, 9:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=kgw link=topic=4677.msg59638#msg59638
date=1740496516]
Only clause 17 applies from Oct 2024.
[/quote]
Where have you read that?
The BPA outlines that all aspects of the code must be complied
with now, except for signage or other related clauses applicable
to existing sites (source:
HTML https://www.britishparking.co.uk/Code-of-Practice-and-Compliance-Monitoring
HTML https://www.britishparking.co.uk/Code-of-Practice-and-Compliance-Monitoring)
[img width=810 height=582]
HTML https://i.imgur.com/H1eVUW5.png[/img]
#Post#: 59672--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
By: b789 Date: February 25, 2025, 11:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Everything except signs in existing car parks must fully comply
with all the requirements of the PPSCoP from October 2024. The
signage compliance is required for all new car parks from
October 2024.
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page