DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 59687--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
By: kgw Date: February 25, 2025, 1:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Oops, I read too quickly.
So their defence is very lousy.
I've posted the comments nd got this:
"Your appeal is now ready to be assessed and is currently in a
queue waiting to be allocated. We expect to make a decision on
your appeal 6-8 weeks from the point that the appeal was first
submitted. The next communication that you will receive from us
will be the decision on your appeal."
Thanks.
#Post#: 70544--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
By: kgw Date: May 8, 2025, 8:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
The POPLA appeal has been unsuccessful. They consider the NtK to
be PoFA, PPSCoP compliant.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal: • The
contradiction in payment deadlines renders the Notice to Keeper
Non-Compliant with Protection of Freedom Act 2012. • There is
further Notice to Keeper Non-Compliance and the operator has not
established driver liability and cannot hold the keeper Liable.
• The Notice to Keeper contains misleading information,
contradicting the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of
Practice (Effective Since October 2024). • ParkMaven’s appeal
rejection references a defunct BPA Code of Practice. • There is
inadequate signage – No Contract Formed with the Driver. • There
is no evidence of landholder authority. The appellant has
expanded on their grounds of appeal in the comments and they say
that the operator has not rebutted their grounds of appeal
regarding PoFA compliance. They say that the evidence provided
regarding landowner authority is not sufficient. The appellant
has provided a document with their full grounds of appeal.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the operator has
issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has
complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car
park. The operator has provided evidence of the vehicle parked
on the site for one hour and 22 minutes on the day in question.
The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows
parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered
keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified.
Parking operators have to follow certain rules including warning
the registered keeper that they will be liable if the parking
operator is not provided with the name and address of the
driver. In this case, the PCN in question has the necessary
information and the parking operator has therefore successfully
transferred the liability onto the registered keeper. In this
case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant’s vehicle
is, so I must consider the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA)
2012, as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to
the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided me with a
copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have
reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of
PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant. I will
therefore be assessing keeper liability. I note that the
appellant has mentioned that the timelines on the PCN are not
PoFA compliant however it is important to be aware that there
will be a reference to the dates the operator expects payment to
be made. This is in the event the motorist does not wish to
appeal the PCN and pays it. The timescales referred to in the
PoFA paragraph are to transfer liability in the event the driver
is not identified and are not for making payment. The appellant
has advised that the operator has mentioned a defunct code of
practice in the evidence pack. Whilst I understand what the
appellant means this does not invalidate the reason for issuing
the PCN. The appellant will need to contact the operator
directly to discuss this. The sector Code of Practice has been
jointly created by the British Parking Association (BPA) and the
International Parking Community (IPC). It is largely based on
the Government’s Private Parking Code of Practice, which was
published in February 2022, and subsequently withdrawn in June
2022. The new Code came into force on the 1 October 2024. It is
stipulated in the Code that the parking operator needs to comply
with all elements relating to signage by 31 December 2026.
Therefore, for any aspects of this case relating to signage, I
will be referring to version 9 of the BPA Code of Practice. This
is applicable for parking events that occurred from 1 February
2024. The British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of
Practice which set the standards its parking operators need to
comply with. Section 19.3 of the code states that signs must be
placed throughout the car park so that drivers have the chance
to review the terms and conditions. The code confirms that these
signs must be conspicuous and legible and written in
intelligible language so that they are easy to see read and
understand. The operator has provided a site map and multiple
images of the signs within the car park and after reviewing
these, I am satisfied that there are plenty of signs located
within the car park and that these signs meet the requirements
of section 19.3 of the Code of Practice. These signs advise that
payment is required and that failing to pay will result in a PCN
being issued. I note that the appellant states that they were
unaware of the terms and conditions, however, it is important to
note that the driver of the vehicle does not need to have read
the terms and conditions of the contract to accept it. There is
only the requirement that the driver is afforded the opportunity
to read and understand the terms and conditions of the contract
before accepting it. It is the driver’s responsibility to seek
out the terms and conditions, and ensure they understand them,
before agreeing to the contract and parking. Reviewing the
photographic evidence of the signage on display at the site and
the site map, I am satisfied that the driver would have walked
or driven past at least one of the operator’s signs and as such,
was afforded this opportunity. The appellant states that there
is no landowner authority and to address this I will be
referring to The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice
(The Code) which sets the standards its parking operators need
to comply with. Section 14.1 of the Code states that where
controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner,
written confirmation must be obtained before a parking charge
can be issued. In this case the operator has provided a witness
statement and an enforcement agreement and I am satisfied that
the operator has the authority to issue PCN’s on this site. The
operator does not need to provide a full copy of the full
contract as it may contain commercially sensitive information.
While I note the appellant’s comments, from the information
provided from the operator I am satisfied therefore, that the
operator had sufficient authority on the date of the
contravention. Furthermore, if authority had since been removed,
it is likely that the landowner would remove the signage at the
same time. Not many landowners would look on quietly while
someone operates on their land without their permission. The
evidence provided in relation to this appeal meets the criteria
POPLA requires, and therefore I am satisfied that the operator
has sufficient authority at the site on the date of the parking
event. After considering the evidence from both parties the
driver had parked on the site and did not obtain a valid parking
session and therefore did not comply with the terms and
conditions of the site. Based on the evidence provided, I am
satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly
therefore, I must refuse the appeal. This means the appellant is
required to pay the full parking charge to the operator.
Was this to be expected ? I guess the next step is in court...
:(
#Post#: 70593--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
By: b789 Date: May 8, 2025, 2:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Court is not the most likely outcome. Whilst they will probably
issue a claim, in due course, the odds of it actually ever
reaching hearing are slim and even if it did, your case is
strong.
Do not pay this. The POPLA decision is not binding on you. Which
POPLA assessor came up with this tripe? It is not a secret and
their names are in the public domain.
I would suggest a formal complaint to POPLA about this assessors
utter lack of competence. It won't change the decision but it
does establish a paper trail for formal complaints which can
later be relied on as evidence of their failings.
There are five obvious failings by this assessor:
1. Misunderstanding of PoFA 9(2)(f)
The assessor wrongly asserts:
[indent]"The timescales referred to in the PoFA paragraph are to
transfer liability… and are not for making payment."[/indent]
This is incorrect. PoFA 9(2)(f) expressly governs the 28-day
period within which the Keeper is liable unless the driver is
named. That period starts the day after the NtK is given, as per
9(2)(f):
[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]
A statement on the front of the NtK demanding payment by a date
calculated from the issue date, not the day after the date of
deemed delivery, is not PoFA-compliant. This is not about
operator preference or flexibility—PoFA compliance is strict.
The assessor erred in law by implying the misleading payment
deadline has no bearing on keeper liability.
2. Total Ignorance of PoFA 9(2)(e)(i)
It was clearly explained that the NtK:
[indent]• Does not invite the Keeper to pay the charge.
• Merely demands that the driver pay and requests the Keeper to
name them.[/indent]
PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) requires an explicit invitation to the Keeper:
[indent]“State that the creditor does not know both the name of
the driver and a current address for service and invite the
keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges.”[/indent]
The assessor ignored this completely. There is no lawful basis
for transferring liability if this required element is missing.
POPLA failed to assess the core condition for keeper liability.
3. Dismissal of PPSCoP Breach as Irrelevant
PPSCoP 8.1.2(e) was referenced, which says:
[indent]“The recipient can appeal within 28 days of receiving
the parking charge.”[/indent]
And its Note 2 clarifies:
[indent]“…presumed to have been delivered on the second working
day…”[/indent]
Again, the assessor missed the point: The NtK’s deadline
shortens the Keeper’s rights under the PPSCoP, a breach of the
operative Code. Their statement that operators “may refer to
payment dates” misses the central issue: the NtK actively
contradicts the statutory wording, misleading the recipient.
POPLA’s own remit includes enforcing the current Code of
Practice, and they failed to uphold this.
4. Failure to Require Landowner Contract With Sufficient Proof
ParkMaven’s evidence was challenged:
[indent]• Undated, unsigned, or post-dated signatures.
• Contradictory claims about confidentiality.
• Absence of confirmation that the signatory is the landowner or
authorised agent.[/indent]
The assessor ignored all this and instead relied on a generic
“witness statement”, despite DVLA guidance and case law
confirming that the contract must be current, valid, and
sufficiently prove the operator’s legal standing.
Their logic that "the signage would have been removed if the
contract wasn’t in force" is a laughable assumption not based on
evidence.
5. POPLA Breached its Own Principles
The appeal stated:
[indent]"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."[/indent]
That is a long-standing principle, repeated by assessors in
countless past decisions. In this case:
[indent]• The operator did not address PoFA 9(2)(f)
• The operator did not rebut 9(2)(e)(i)
• The operator did not address the PPSCoP deadline breach
• The operator did not refute the BPA CoP error in their appeal
response[/indent]
The burden is on the operator to respond to every point. POPLA’s
failure to apply this basic standard is a dereliction of duty.
Send the following complaint to POPLA:
[quote]Subject: Formal Complaint Regarding Failed Appeal –
Verification Code [INSERT CODE] – Escalation Required
To whom it may concern,
This is a formal complaint regarding the decision issued by
POPLA under verification code [INSERT CODE] for a Parking Charge
Notice issued by ParkMaven. This complaint must be escalated to
the most senior level of POPLA management. I also confirm that
it is being forwarded to my Member of Parliament due to the
systemic failings this decision exposes.
Let me be clear: I am not writing this complaint in the
expectation that the decision will be overturned. I am fully
aware that POPLA does not permit assessors to reverse an appeal
decision, no matter how legally flawed it is. That is itself
part of the problem and will be raised with the relevant
government department and Parliament.
I expect this complaint to be logged, responded to in writing,
and used to review the training and competence of the assessor
involved, who has demonstrated a complete inability to apply
basic statutory requirements or read the appeal they were tasked
to assess.
1. Blatant misinterpretation of PoFA 2012 – Paragraph 9(2)(f)
My appeal detailed that ParkMaven's Notice to Keeper (NtK)
contradicts the statutory wording of PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph
9(2)(f) by demanding payment "within 28 days of the date issued"
– a full six days earlier than legally allowed. This is not a
minor technicality. It is a material legal failure.
PoFA is clear: the 28-day period begins "with the day after that
on which the notice is given." "Given" means delivered, and PoFA
9(6) deems it to be two working days after posting. The NtK in
this case was issued on 24/12/2024, with deemed delivery on
30/12/2024. The front of the NtK misleadingly sets the deadline
as 21/01/2025 instead of the correct 27/01/2025.
This is an outright breach of PoFA. The assessor waved it away
with the astonishing claim that payment deadlines "are just for
those who do not wish to appeal" – as if the statutory
provisions are optional. This statement is legally indefensible
and demonstrates a lack of basic understanding of how liability
is created under Schedule 4.
2. Ignoring the absence of PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) wording
I highlighted that the NtK does not contain the required
invitation for the keeper to pay the charge, as mandated by PoFA
9(2)(e)(i). Instead, the NtK only demands payment from the
driver and asks the keeper to name the driver if not them.
PoFA requires an express invitation to the keeper to pay the
charge. The assessor completely ignored this point, made no
reference to paragraph 9(2)(e)(i), and failed to engage with the
most basic requirement for keeper liability.
This is not an oversight. It is a gross failure of professional
standards by someone apparently untrained or unwilling to read
and apply the law they are tasked with assessing.
3. Dismissal of PPSCoP breach and misrepresentation of
transitional arrangements
I explained in my appeal that the NtK breaches the Private
Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), which has been in
force since October 2024. Section 8.1.2(e) makes it crystal
clear:
[indent]"The recipient can appeal within 28 days of receiving
the parking charge."[/indent]
The word "receiving" is not open to interpretation. The
accompanying note defines it clearly as two working days after
posting. Despite this, the operator falsely shortened the
deadline to 21/01/2025. This is a material misrepresentation of
the keeper's rights and a direct breach of the Code.
The assessor showed either ignorance or laziness by brushing
this aside and claiming the PPSCoP only applies to signage until
2026. That is completely wrong. The signage deadline relates
only to physical compliance by operators, not to the immediate
obligations concerning transparency, wording, and deadlines in
written communications.
This failure to understand the Code and apply its provisions
brings POPLA’s own credibility into question.
4. Failure to uphold POPLA’s own standards regarding operator
rebuttals
In at least five distinct areas of my appeal, the operator
failed to respond:
[indent]• No rebuttal of PoFA 9(2)(f) or 9(2)(e)(i) points
• No response to the PPSCoP breach
• No defence of the use of the defunct BPA Code of Practice in
the rejection letter
• No evidence justifying the misleading keeper liability claim
•No explanation for the flawed and post-dated contract provided
as landowner authority[/indent]
POPLA has long held that if an operator does not rebut a
specific appeal point, the appeal should be upheld. Yet in this
case, the assessor simply pretended that none of these failures
occurred. That is dishonest, unacceptable, and contrary to
POPLA’s own published assessment standards.
5. Acceptance of dubious “contract” evidence
I challenged the validity of the landowner authority. ParkMaven
submitted a document:
[indent]• Signed five months after the contract was supposedly
in force
• With no signature by ParkMaven
• With no verification of the signatory’s position
• While simultaneously claiming the contract was “too
confidential” to disclose (and then disclosing it
anyway)[/indent]
The assessor accepted this without comment, justification, or
applying a basic evidential standard. This undermines the
fairness of the process and renders it a tick-box exercise
unworthy of public trust.
Request for POPLA Management Action
This complaint must be passed to POPLA senior management. I
expect:
[indent]• A written response explaining what went wrong in this
case
• An explanation of what additional training or disciplinary
review the assessor will undergo
• A confirmation that these failures will be raised internally
and used to prevent recurrence[/indent]
This complaint is being escalated to my Member of Parliament,
not because POPLA has any regulatory or statutory function (you
don’t), but because the public is entitled to expect basic
competence from bodies purporting to offer an independent appeal
service. This appeal was handled with a level of carelessness
and legal illiteracy that is unacceptable, and it is important
that decision-makers at a national level are made aware of the
standards being applied behind the curtain of POPLA's
“independence”.
POPLA is a private contractor, funded by the BPA, with no legal
authority, no accountability mechanism, and no appeals process
once a decision is issued. That makes it all the more important
that decisions are made accurately, transparently, and lawfully
the first time—none of which occurred here.
This complaint is not about overturning the outcome. I know how
your process works. It is being made for the record, and to
require a formal written explanation of:
[indent]• Why key appeal points were ignored or dismissed
without engagement
• What corrective action, training, or accountability will
follow
•Confirmation that this complaint is being reviewed by senior
management, not just closed out by a front-line team[/indent]
A copy of this email has been retained and will be used to
inform others, including the press and advocacy groups, who are
increasingly concerned about the quality, independence, and
legal competence of POPLA’s decision-making.
Sincerely,
[Your Full Name]
[Your PCN Reference Number]
POPLA Verification Code: [Insert Code]
Email: [Your Email]
Address: [Your Postal Address][/quote]
And make a complaint about this to your MP.
#Post#: 70599--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
By: kgw Date: May 8, 2025, 3:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks a lot for this.
The assessor is Gayle Stanton.
I agree with all your points and was amazed at none of the
arguments were upheld.
I find 5 to be the most damning. Maybe the assessor considered
that the points raised about PoFA 9(2)(f), 9(2)(e)(i), the
PPSCoP deadline breach and the BPA CoP error were ALL invalid...
Btw, I searched on the POPLA site but could not find reference
to the "if an appellant raises a valid challenge and the
operator does not respond to it, the appeal must be upheld"
policy.
My MP is busy promoting legislation banning kitchen knives so
not sure what he'll do here.
First time this happens to me. I'm learning.
#Post#: 70821--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
By: kgw Date: May 10, 2025, 1:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
POPLA sent a "how did we do ?" questionnaire. Lol
I did not use it as they have a complaint page on their website:
[attachimg=1]
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 70860--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
By: b789 Date: May 10, 2025, 5:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It is a standard and fair principle in any adjudication process
that if a party raises a prima facie valid point, and the
opposing party fails to respond or rebut it, that point is
ordinarily taken as conceded or accepted. POPLA's process is
based on the written representations of both parties.
Therefore, where an appellant raises a challenge—such as a
defect in the Notice to Keeper, lack of standing, or
insufficient signage—and the operator fails to address or refute
it in their evidence pack, the adjudicator must reasonably
accept the appellant’s position as unchallenged. The burden
rests with the operator to demonstrate the charge is valid and
enforceable. If they fail to engage with a relevant appeal
ground, they have failed to discharge that burden.
This aligns with general adjudicative practice and is reflected
in past POPLA decisions where appeals were upheld on the basis
that specific challenges went unanswered by the operator.
#Post#: 70863--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
By: kgw Date: May 10, 2025, 5:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks.
I thought this rule appeared explicitly in their literature, but
it does not.
They do say:
Assessors will make decisions based on:
- Relevant law
- The British Parking Association's code of practice
- Evidence provided by both parties
And further, they dare say: "Assessors have been trained on
these areas and our decision-making guidelines. They have also
passed an accreditation process following our training programme
and receive regular internal quality audits as well as coaching
and personal development."
Obviously very far from reality.
I've just written to my MP.
#Post#: 70873--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
By: H C Andersen Date: May 11, 2025, 4:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
?
PoFA para. 9 is often misunderstood.
IMO, as far as is relevant to the point trying to be made
regarding non-compliance:
Payment period less than the 9(2)(f) trigger date is OK;
Payment period equal to the 9(2)(f) trigger is OK;
Payment period more than the 9(2)(f) trigger is not compliant.
9(2)(f) is a statement regarding a legal power, it is not a
payment requirement as such. These are (b), (c) and (d).
That (f) is contingent upon, among other matters, full payment
not having been made does not mean that other requirements which
specify by when the creditor wants payment in accordance with
the on-site contractual requirements must align exactly with
this trigger but, as stated above, the payment period should not
exceed the 9(2)(f) trigger date.
And it doesn't.
#Post#: 70938--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
By: kgw Date: May 11, 2025, 12:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm no expert but I feel like I have to analyse this like a high
court judge.
Strictly speaking, the NtK complies with 9(2)(f) because, in the
fine print on the 2ᶮᵈ page, the PoFA paragraph
states exactly what it should:
You are advised that if, after the period of 28 days beginning
with the day after that on which the notice is given (which is
presumed to be the second working day after the Date Issued),
the parking charge has not been paid in full and we do not know
both the name and current address of the driver, we have the
right to recover any unpaid part of the parking charge from you.
The question is whether the prominent
[center]PAYMENT TO BE MADE WITHIN 28 DAYS OF THE DATE ISSUED: BY
21/01/2025[/center]
at the top of the 1ˢᵗ page renders the NtK
non-compliant, bearing in mind that the PoFA deadline was 6 days
later.
The assessor's reasoning:
"there will be a reference to the dates the operator expects
payment to be made. This is in the event the motorist does not
wish to appeal the PCN and pays it. The timescales referred to
in the PoFA paragraph are to transfer liability in the event the
driver is not identified and are not for making payment."
makes little sense.
The 1ˢᵗ page statement appears to be contradictory
but the law lists what the NtK must include, not what it must
not.
Asking the keeper to pay before the PoFA deadline (without
stating consequences) can't hurt. If on the other hand the
1ˢᵗ page had prominently mentioned a date beyond the
PoFA deadline, while still quoting 9(2)(f) in the fine print,
this could have tricked the keeper into unlawful territory. So I
can see how this would be non-compliant whereas the misleading
Parkmaven NtK complies.
On the other hand
9(2)(b) states that
The notice must (...) inform the keeper that (...) the parking
charges have not been paid in full
I don't see that on the NtK.
9(2)(e) states that:
"The notice (...) must (...) invite the keeper
(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify
the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for
service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver"
The NtK complies with 9(2)(e)(ii) bit, not (i) as far as I can
see. The alternative "pay or tell us who the driver was" is
nowhere to be seen. Incidentally, 9(2)(f) makes no sense without
the correct 9(2)(e) wording.
Finally, 9(2)(i) states that:
The notice (...) must (...) specify the date on which the notice
is sent (where it is sent by post)
and they only provide a date of issue (ie printing). On 24
December, this can make a difference. Maybe the whole Parkmaven
office was on holiday from 24 afternoon.
#Post#: 70945--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
By: b789 Date: May 11, 2025, 1:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The NtK in question technically complies with Paragraph 9(2)(f)
by including the correct statutory wording. However, it may
still be non-compliant with PoFA as a whole because the notice
introduces ambiguity by setting a prominent “payment deadline”
that contradicts the PoFA-prescribed timeline. This undermines
the effectiveness of the statutory warning and fails the test of
clarity required under PoFA, rendering the notice unsuitable for
transferring liability to the keeper.
Also, the NtK is misleading and non-compliant when judged
against the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) and
broader consumer protection principles. While it may quote the
statutory wording required by Paragraph 9(2)(f), it also
prominently demands payment “within 28 days of the date issued”,
which contradicts both PoFA’s own deemed service rule (the day
after two working days later) and Section 8.1.2(e) of the
PPSCoP, which requires that motorists be given a minimum of 28
days from the date of receipt. This inconsistency introduces
ambiguity as to the true deadline for payment and the point at
which liability may be transferred to the Keeper.
Such ambiguity undermines transparency, breaches the PPSCoP, and
renders the notice misleading in a manner likely to disadvantage
or confuse the average consumer. Therefore, the notice should
not be relied upon to establish keeper liability.
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page