DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 96172--------------------------------------------------
Re: Who TF is ParkMaven
By: Billy Butcher Date: October 30, 2025, 7:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ahh yes, as I thought. After explaining the whole situation and
the position I am in now, I spoke to the manager and apparently
there is nothing they can do. I even asked him if he can go back
and retrieve some sort of proof for me that shows payment was
made upon leaving the shopping centre, he says that there is no
way to do that and my best option is to appeal which I obviously
told him I done and they rejected it.. he then tells me
“private parking companies ain’t got much power just
ignore them”.. so yeah that’s Mr managers solution
Any suggestions where I go from this point forward?
Cheers guys
#Post#: 96186--------------------------------------------------
Re: Who TF is ParkMaven
By: b789 Date: October 30, 2025, 9:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If the manager you spoke to is employed by the company that
contracted Parkmaven, then you should have asked who is the
Monkey and who is the Organ Grinder in their contractual
relationship. Of course a lowly manager will fob you off with a
"appeal to Parkmaven" line.
You should always aim for the top of the management food chain.
You should also now be preparing your POPLA appeal. A quick
search of the forum for some recent POPLA appeals will give you
an idea of how you should put one together. When you're ready,
show us what you have prepared and we can advise on any
edits/changes before you send it.
You actually have 33 days from the date of the initial appeal
rejection to submit your POPLA appeal.
#Post#: 96189--------------------------------------------------
Re: Who TF is ParkMaven
By: Billy Butcher Date: October 30, 2025, 9:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I guess I’ll go there again this weekend and try another route..
Thanks I’ll have a look at the POPLA replies on the forum
#Post#: 96574--------------------------------------------------
Re: Who TF is ParkMaven ( 17& Central Walthamstow)
By: Billy Butcher Date: November 3, 2025, 3:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi, so I am a bit stuck on what to actually say for my POPLA
appeal, this is because in my first original appeal I did not
state that the parking charge fee was actually paid upon leaving
the shopping centre ( 17 & Central Walthamstow ) and the
machine is obviously messed up somewhere and did not record
payment even though I do have the payment proof in my online
banking ( it shows it came out 2 days later ). I also did not
state who was driving at the time. So because I did not state
this in the original appeal ( I instead used a template I was
sent off here ) I’m not sure what avenue to go down with the
appeal to POPLA if that makes sense
Sorry to be a nuisance lol
Kind regards
#Post#: 96618--------------------------------------------------
Re: Who TF is ParkMaven
By: b789 Date: November 3, 2025, 8:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You are appealing the fact that as the driver has not been
identified and there can be no Keeper liability because their
NtK is not fully compliant with ALL the requirements of PoFA,
then, irrespective of anything else, they are chasing the wrong
person. On top of that, you put them to strict proof that all
their signs are compliant with the BPA CoP and also, you put
them to strict proof that they hold a valid contract flowinging
from the landowner to operate and issue PCNs in their own name
at the location.
For example, this is how you child argue the point that their
NtK has failed to fully comply with PoFA:
[quote]Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2) is binary (“MUST” means all or
nothing) and this NtK omits the mandatory invitation to the
keeper to pay under 9(2)(e)(i)
Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2) does not say the notice should include
certain things. It says: “The notice must — (a)… (b)… (c)… (d)…
(e)… (f)… (g)… (h)… (i)…”. “Must” is compulsory. PoFA 9(2) is a
statutory gateway to keeper liability: either every required
element is present or the gateway never opens. There is no such
thing as “partial” or even “substantial compliance” with 9(2).
Like pregnancy, it is binary: a notice is either PoFA-compliant
or it is not. If one required limb is missing, the operator
cannot use PoFA to pursue the keeper. End of.
Here the missing limb is 9(2)(e)(i). That sub-paragraph requires
the NtK to invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges.
The law is explicit that the invitation must be directed to “the
keeper”. It is not enough to tell “the driver” to pay; it must
invite “the keeper” to pay if the creditor wants keeper
liability.
What this NtK actually does is talk only to “the driver” when
demanding payment, and nowhere invites “the keeper” to pay. The
demand section of the NtK is framed in driver terms (e.g.
language such as “the driver is required to pay within 28 days”
/ “payment is due from the driver”), and there is no sentence
that invites “the keeper” to pay the unpaid parking charges. The
word “keeper” (if used at all) appears only in neutral
data/disclosure paragraphs or generic definitions, not in any
invitation to pay. That omission is precisely what 9(2)(e)(i)
forbids.
For the avoidance of doubt, 9(2)(e) contains two limbs: (i) an
invitation to the keeper to pay, and (ii) an invitation to
either identify and serve the driver and to pass the notice to
the driver. Even setting aside 9(2)(e)(ii), the absence of the
9(2)(e)(i) keeper-payment invitation alone is fatal to PoFA
compliance. The statute makes keeper liability contingent on
strict satisfaction of every “must” in 9(2). Where a notice
invites only “the driver” to pay, it fails 9(2)(e)(i), so it is
not a PoFA notice. The operator therefore cannot transfer
liability from an unidentified driver to the registered keeper.
Only the driver could ever be liable; the driver is not
identified. The keeper is not liable in law.[/quote]
#Post#: 96842--------------------------------------------------
Re: Who TF is ParkMaven
By: Billy Butcher Date: November 4, 2025, 2:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Wow… you are these guys worst nightmare lol
#Post#: 97528--------------------------------------------------
Re: Who TF is ParkMaven
By: Billy Butcher Date: November 10, 2025, 5:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So, I got a response back and ParkMaven’s response to my appeal
to POPLA was this.. ( I apologise for the long message )
We submit this statement in response to the appeal lodged by
*** concerning the Parking Charge Notice *** issued at 17˘ral
Walthamstow on [Insert Date].
After reviewing the details of this case, we confirm that the
Parking Charge 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 17˘ral Walthamstow is prominently displayed and
clearly communicates the terms and conditions for using the car
park, including the requirement to pay for parking. These signs
are positioned at the car park entrance and at multiple
locations throughout the site to ensure visibility for all
motorists. The signage includes information on available payment
methods—such as kiosks, app, and phone—and specifies that
failure to comply with the terms will result in a Parking Charge
Notice. To ensure clarity, the signs are designed with large
fonts and contrasting colours to maximise readability.
Photographs of the signage are attached as evidence,
demonstrating their visibility, content, and placement.
Our records show no evidence of payment being made for the
vehicle registration number *** on the date in question. The
vehicle entered the car park at 14:01:55 and exited at 15:56:11,
as confirmed by our ANPR system or observation logs, for a total
stay of 1 hour and 54 minutes—within the chargeable period.
Despite the payment facilities being clearly indicated and fully
operational, the motorist did not make the required payment,
constituting 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 clearly sets
out the reason for the charge and includes instructions for
payment and the appeals process, ensuring complete transparency.
The parking charge is a reasonable and proportionate measure
designed to ensure compliance with the car park’s terms of use.
Despite the motorist’s claims, no evidence has been presented to
show that payment was made or that any mitigating circumstances
prevented compliance with the terms and conditions.
In conclusion, the motorist failed to meet their obligation to
pay for their parking session, despite clear and sufficient
signage throughout the car park detailing the terms of use and
payment requirements. As such, the Parking Charge was issued
correctly. We respectfully request that POPLA dismiss the appeal
and uphold the Parking Charge, 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.
I now have 7 days to give a reply to that rubbish
#Post#: 97543--------------------------------------------------
Re: Who TF is ParkMaven
By: b789 Date: November 10, 2025, 6:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
What was the content of your POPLA appeal? You never showed it
to us before submitting it.
#Post#: 97558--------------------------------------------------
Re: Who TF is ParkMaven
By: Billy Butcher Date: November 10, 2025, 8:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I sent the argue point you sent to me earlier
#Post#: 97563--------------------------------------------------
Re: Who TF is ParkMaven
By: DWMB2 Date: November 10, 2025, 8:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=b789 link=topic=8189.msg96618#msg96618
date=1762180423]
On top of that, you put them to strict proof that all their
signs are compliant with the BPA CoP and also, you put them to
strict proof that they hold a valid contract flowinging from the
landowner to operate and issue PCNs in their own name at the
location.
[/quote]
Did you include these two arguments too, or just the one example
point that b789 provided?
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page