DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 71077--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
By: DWMB2 Date: May 12, 2025, 11:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I think the significant discussion arising from this is
indicative of the fact that there's a fair chance that different
judges could reach different conclusions on the point.
Regardless of whether or not they should, different judges have
a tendency to differ as to how prescriptively they interpret the
provisions of PoFA. (Frankly the whole of Schedule 4 is clumsily
worded in my view, to the extent that it has caused much
needless confusion, but that's another matter)
You've now heard in detail two different views on the matter -
I'm not sure your case would be benefitted by an overly
protracted further debate rehashing the same points. If you're
up for a fight, which it seems like you are, we can see how the
case progresses.
#Post#: 71080--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
By: b789 Date: May 12, 2025, 11:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
But is there a "warning" in ParkMaven's NtK? In this respect,
the factual the notice must "warn" the Keeper, could be
interpreted as directory, not mandatory. However, it falls
within paragraph 9(2), which means that all those sub-points (a
to i) are mandatory.
The Notice 'MUST WARN' the Keeper... but it doesn't. It simply
'advises'. Wecoiuld go on about this forever. For now, it will
only be POPLA who have to be persuaded and they are usually
fairly thick when it comes to analysing the nuances of PoFA, to
the point of absurdity.
If it is ever litigated, the odds of it ever going as far as a
hearing in front of a judge are probably less than 1%. If it
ever does, then these points could be argued in the Witness
Statement.
The only way this could ever be determined, once and for all, is
if an appeal is made on these points and even then, it would
only be persuasive, not binding unless it went to a higher
court.
#Post#: 71089--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
By: H C Andersen Date: May 12, 2025, 12:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
For b789:
With respect:
From the Traffic Management Act 2004 General Regs:
Notice to Owner
.l(3) A notice to owner must, in addition to the matters
required to be included in it under regulation 3(2) of the 2022
Appeals Regulations, state—
Another statute using the expression 'must state'.
There is case law that 'must state' does not impose a verbatim
requirement. If authorities(or in this case a PPC) depart from
the wording then they do so at the risk that the alternative
might not be substantially compliant. But as long as the same
meaning is conveyed and the alternative does not mislead then
taking the document as a whole the courts have held that
compliance has been achieved.
HTML https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/keycases/R%20on%20the%20application%20of%20Hackney%20Drivers%20Association%20Ltd%20v%20The%20Parking%20Adjudiactor%20Lancashire%20County%20Council.pdf
I believe that PoFA is subject to the same analysis.
#Post#: 71092--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
By: b789 Date: May 12, 2025, 12:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The phrase "must state" does not appear in Schedule 4 of the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). Instead, paragraph 9(2)
opens with the phrase "The notice must—" followed by a list of
specific requirements at sub-paragraphs (a) to (i).
Several of these sub-paragraphs then use the words "state that"
or similar phrasing to describe what the notice must contain.
This distinction matters because the legal framework of PoFA is
not the same as that under the Traffic Management Act 2004
(TMA).
Under the TMA, local authorities issue penalty charge notices
using statutory powers, and courts have accepted substantial
compliance with requirements like “must state” so long as the
notice is not misleading and conveys the necessary information.
However, PoFA operates in a contractual law context.
There is no automatic liability for the keeper; liability can
only be transferred if the parking operator strictly complies
with each of the requirements listed under paragraph 9(2). PoFA
is a statutory gateway, and each condition is a mandatory
precondition.
While some flexibility in language may be acceptable—such as
using a synonym for “invite”—the meaning must still be clear,
and ambiguity or implication is not enough. A notice that merely
implies the keeper may pay, without clearly and directly
inviting them to do so, does not satisfy paragraph 9(2)(e)(i).
Courts are less tolerant of ambiguity under PoFA because it
governs the creation of liability where none previously existed.
Therefore, comparisons to statutory law enforcement under the
TMA are not applicable, and the threshold for compliance under
PoFA remains strict.
#Post#: 71097--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
By: kgw Date: May 12, 2025, 12:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I don't see myself arguing semantics in court, eg that
"advising" is different from "warning". If you search "advising
vs warning" on the web, there are many hits, indicating to me
that if there's a difference it's subtle.
On the other hand, I can see arguing the substantial failures of
the NtK in regards to other paragraphs of 9(2).
Imho (e) and (f) are not clumsily worded and I feel pretty
comfortable proving non-compliance with (e) (see my earlier
posts).
Could I have please have your opinion about NtK compliance with
other paragraphs, especially the (b)(c)(d) group and (i) ?
I feel this debate is worthwhile because a lot of threads I see
on the "private parking tickets" section of this forum deal with
PoFA compliance.
We'll see if there are any next steps but I'd rather not be the
guinea pig. FYI, the only reason I started this whole kerkuffle
is because I have a mail redirection and received the NtK one
day after the end of the "discount" period (as stated on the
NtK). This was a carshare deal and I can't charge more than the
discounted amount to the driver.
#Post#: 72620--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
By: kgw Date: May 21, 2025, 1:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Got an answer from POPLA. Pretty much as expected and carefully
written ... but they don't address the 9(2)(e) non-compliance:
Your complaint about POPLA decision xxxxx
Thank you for your contact outlining the reasons why you are
unhappy with the decision that has been reached by the assessor
in your appeal. This was passed to me by the POPLA team as I am
responsible for investigating complaints.
It is worth pointing out that before submitting an appeal, our
website informs appellants that POPLA is a one-stage appeal
service and we cannot reconsider your appeal if you disagree
with our decision.
Clearly, the crux of your complaint is that you are unhappy with
the outcome reached in the assessment of your appeal. I have
noted the following points and I will address each one
separately below:
You have stated that the assessor has misinterpreted the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012).
I refer to section 9(2)(f) of PoFA 2012, which states that the
notice to keeper must: “warn the keeper that if, at the end of
the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which
the notice to keeper is given:
(i) The amount of the unpaid parking charges has not
been paid in full, and
(ii) The creditor does not know both the name of the
driver and a current address for service for the driver,
(iii)
the creditor will have the right to recover from the keeper so
much of the amount that remains unpaid”.
The notice to keeper states:
[attach=3]
The assessor was therefore satisfied that it is compliant.
Although the notice to keeper requests payment within 28 days,
this is assuming that the keeper is the driver. For the
avoidance of doubt, the purpose of PoFA 2012 is to ensure that
liability is transferred to the correct, liable party;
requesting payment from the driver within 28 days is not a
breach of PoFA 2012. Having reviewed the assessor’s response, I
can see that this is clearly explained.
You have stated that the assessor dismissed your claim that the
notice to keeper is in breach of the Private Parking Sector
Single Code of Practice (the Code).
Within your appeal, you made reference to Section 8.1.2.e of the
Code, which states: “that if the recipient appeals within 28
days of receiving the parking charge, 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”.
This section of the Code makes reference to the amount of the
charge due when an appeal response is issued. While the notice
asks motorists to pay within 28 days from the date of issue, the
notice is not in breach of this section. In this case, I can see
that you appealed on 13 January 2025, 19 days after the date of
issue. In accordance with Section 8.1.2.e of the Code, the
amount due should have been Ł100. However, the operator held the
charge at the discounted rate. Please note that this ground of
appeal does not affect the validity of the parking charge
notice.
You have stated the assessor has incorrectly claimed that the
Code only applies to signage until 2026.
I refer to the assessor’s rationale, which explains:
“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.”
I refer to the Code, which states:
[attach=2]
The assessor therefore correctly considered the applicable
British Parking Association Code of Practice when assessing the
adequacy of the signage. Having reviewed the assessor’s
rationale, I am satisfied that their assessment of the signage
is appropriate based on the available evidence.
You have stated that the assessor failed to uphold POPLA’s own
standards regarding operator rebuttals.
It is important to explain that POPLA’s role is solely to assess
whether a parking charge notice was issued correctly in the
first instance. While the parking operator is responsible for
rebutting the appellant’s claims and demonstrating that the
charge was issued correctly, it is not within POPLA’s remit to
address any shortfalls in its internal appeals procedure.
You are unhappy that the assessor accepted the operator’s
landowner contract as evidence of the operator’s authority to
issue parking charge notices on the land.
When assessing appeals, POPLA must consider the evidence
provided by both parties.
I refer to the assessor’s rationale, which explains:
“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.”
In the absence of evidence to suggest otherwise, the assessor
could only be satisfied that the operator had the relevant
authority at the time.
Overall, having reviewed both the appeal and your complaint, I
am satisfied the decision reached is appropriate based on the
evidence presented.
In terms of POPLA’s role in the parking industry, I refer to the
FAQs section of our website, which explains:
[attach=1]
In closing, I am sorry that your experience of using our service
has not been positive. However, POPLA’s involvement in your
appeal has now ended and this response concludes our complaints
process. It will not be appropriate for us to correspond further
on this matter and all further correspondence will be noted on
your case, but not responded to.
You are of course, free to pursue this matter further through
other means, such as the Courts. For independent advice, you may
wish to contact Citizens Advice at: www.citizensadvice.org.uk or
call 0345 404 05 06 (English) or 0345 404 0505 (Welsh).
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 72670--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
By: b789 Date: May 21, 2025, 8:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Just goes to show how useless and incestuously involved with the
very companies they are supposed to adjudicate on. I wouldn't
worry. A POPLA decision is not binding on the appellant and has
absolutely no bearing on anything going forward.
#Post#: 77591--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
By: kgw Date: June 22, 2025, 12:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
FYI, Parkmaven have sent a payment reminder
[attachimg=1]
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 77633--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
By: b789 Date: June 23, 2025, 1:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So what?
You ignore all reminders and subsequent debt recovery letters.
Debt collectors are powerless to do anything except to try and
persuade the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to pay up
out of ignorance and fear.
Come back when you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC).
#Post#: 83047--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven NtK and unsuccessful appeal
By: kgw Date: July 28, 2025, 3:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As expected, here's the first debt recovery letter.
They call themselves bailiffs but there's a note at the bottom
that says "this case is not subject to High Court or bailiff
action"
No LOC yet.
[attachment deleted by admin]
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page