URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
  HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 97564--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Who TF is ParkMaven
       By: Billy Butcher Date: November 10, 2025, 9:04 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Hi Mate, I only provided the one example that B789 provided. I
       am such an amateur at this. I got 7 days to reply to what their
       argument is, I was thinking if I should mention that it was
       indeed paid and I have proof of that on my bank statement or
       just not bother mention that at all. Not sure where to go from
       here with these crooks!
       #Post#: 97838--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Who TF is ParkMaven
       By: Billy Butcher Date: November 12, 2025, 6:16 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Hi lads, can you recommend anything that I could say back to
       ParkMavens reply to POPLA?
       #Post#: 97854--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Who TF is ParkMaven
       By: b789 Date: November 12, 2025, 6:59 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Just copy and paste the following as your response:
       [quote]POPLA should determine liability on law, not on
       Parkmaven’s generic narrative about signs, ANPR or non-payment.
       Keeper liability only arises if the NTK strictly complies with
       every “must” in PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2). It does not.
       1. PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) missing. Parkmaven repeatedly asserts “full
       compliance with PoFA” but nowhere in their evidence do they
       identify a sentence that invites the keeper to pay the unpaid
       parking charges. Their NTK talks to “the driver” when demanding
       payment and does not contain an invitation directed to “the
       keeper” to pay. PoFA 9(2)(e) has two limbs; limb (i) is an
       invitation to the keeper to pay. Without that exact invitation,
       keeper liability cannot arise. POPLA should require Parkmaven to
       point, verbatim, to the precise sentence within the NTK that
       invites the keeper to pay. If they cannot, the appeal must be
       allowed.
       2. No concept of substantial compliance. Parkmaven’s claims
       about signage, payment systems, and ANPR are irrelevant to the
       statutory gateway. The gateway never opens unless each element
       in 9(2) is present. A missing limb is fatal to keeper liability
       even if other matters are proven.
       3. Driver only. Parkmaven’s case is predicated on a driver
       breach. The driver has not been identified. In the absence of a
       PoFA-compliant NTK containing the mandatory keeper-payment
       invitation, only the driver could be liable and the keeper
       cannot be.
       4. Period of parking. POPLA should also scrutinise 9(2)(a). If
       the NTK merely states ANPR entry/exit times or a “duration of
       stay” rather than specifying a period of parking, it fails
       9(2)(a). ANPR timestamps record vehicle movement, not a period
       parked. If the NTK lacks an actual stated period of parking,
       that is a separate PoFA failure and again prevents keeper
       liability.
       5. Irrelevance of BPA Code assertions. Whether Parkmaven say
       they complied with a trade association code does not cure a PoFA
       omission. Trade codes cannot create keeper liability where
       Parliament has not.
       Conclusion: Parkmaven have not rebutted the single determinative
       point. They have not shown any NTK wording that invites the
       keeper to pay as required by 9(2)(e)(i). On that ground alone
       the appeal must be allowed. If POPLA takes a different view,
       please identify the exact NTK sentence that constitutes the
       9(2)(e)(i) keeper-payment invitation. Absent that, the keeper is
       not liable in law.[/quote]
       #Post#: 97939--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Who TF is ParkMaven
       By: Billy Butcher Date: November 13, 2025, 3:16 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Top man, I’ve seen in recent posts of yours that POPLA will
       always reject appeals lol
       #Post#: 106212--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Who TF is ParkMaven
       By: Billy Butcher Date: January 16, 2026, 12:04 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Hi, I have just received a reply from POPLA and of course my
       appeal was unsuccessful and “I must pay” which I refuse to as I
       know I am not in the wrong here. Am I screwed now ? What happens
       from this point on as I have never gone through popla before ?
       Thanks
       #Post#: 106215--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Who TF is ParkMaven
       By: jfollows Date: January 16, 2026, 12:13 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       The POPLA decision is in no way binding on you, but please post
       it here for us to see.
       You will get letters from debt collectors which we don’t need to
       see and you can ignore other than telling us who they are from.
       When you get a Letter of Claim please post it and we can advise.
       #Post#: 106217--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Who TF is ParkMaven
       By: Billy Butcher Date: January 16, 2026, 12:28 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Hi, thanks for the reply. I am unsure how i send the email I
       received from popla as there is no option to download it as a
       pdf ( only print ) and I can copy and paste the link to here but
       it will just ask you for the login details of mine for you to
       view, so im not quite sure how I can show what was said
       #Post#: 106219--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Who TF is ParkMaven
       By: jfollows Date: January 16, 2026, 12:39 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
  HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/
  HTML https://www.ftla.uk/announcements/posting-images/#new
       #Post#: 106223--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Who TF is ParkMaven
       By: Billy Butcher Date: January 16, 2026, 12:58 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
  HTML https://ibb.co/0V93LWx8
       (This should work )
       *****************************************************
   DIR Previous Page
   DIR Next Page