DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 96270--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven 17&Central Walthamstow - Unfair PCN After
Machine Error – Proof of Payment Ignored
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: October 31, 2025, 2:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Once again they refuse to specify the VRN, partial or otherwise,
which WAS connected with your payment.
Onto POPLA then.
#Post#: 96336--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven 17&Central Walthamstow - Unfair PCN After
Machine Error – Proof of Payment Ignored
DIR By: b789
Date: October 31, 2025, 10:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is enough to throw at POPLA...
--- Quote ---
> Appellant: Registered Keeper
> VRM: E20OMG
> PCN: [reference]
> Site: 17&Central Walthamstow
> Date: 14/08/2025
> Operator: ParkMaven Ltd
> POPLA code: 5752755356
>
> Ground 1 – Payment made; contravention denied
> Documentary evidence confirms a card payment to ParkMaven was
processed at approximately 14:19 on 14/08/2025. The terminal
accepted a VRM, displayed an error, yet the funds were taken.
The operator has not denied receipt. On the balance of
probabilities the payment corresponds to the period of parking.
>
> Ground 2 – Strict proof of payment logs and reconciliation
data
> The operator is put to strict proof of its full payment and
machine logs for the material period (14:10 to 14:30 on 14
August 2025).
> PPSCoP § 9.2 requires operators to maintain and be able to
produce “accurate, complete and contemporaneous records” linking
payments to vehicle registration marks (VRMs) for at least 36
months.
>
> The operator must therefore disclose:
> [indent]• terminal ID, authorisation code (ARN) and masked
PAN;
> • time-stamped success/error codes;
> • raw VRM strings entered;
> • VRM-to-payment linkage tables; and
> • exception/orphan-payment reports for the relevant
window.[/indent]
>
> If such records exist, they will show whether a payment was
recorded at ≈14:19 and to which VRM (if any) it was
allocated.
>
> Failure to provide these records would confirm that the
operator cannot evidence a contravention and is therefore in
breach of PPSCoP § 10.2 (requiring sufficient evidence before
issuing a charge).
>
> Ground 3 – System reliability and evidential burden
> The operator admits its terminals accept any VRM, correct or
incorrect, without user warning. That design risk lies entirely
within operator control. A system configured to take money
without validating the VRM cannot be relied upon to prove a
parking breach. Unless the operator provides technical logs
establishing that the system was functioning correctly and that
no software or data error occurred, the evidence is unreliable
and the PCN cannot stand.
>
> Ground 4 – PoFA keeper liability fails
> 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.
>
> Ground 5 – The operator is put to strict proof of standing
flowing from the landowner
> I require strict proof of a valid, contemporaneous contract or
lease flowing from the landowner that authorises the operator to
manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue legal action in its own
name. I refer the operator and the POPLA assessor to Section 14
of the PPSCoP, which clearly sets out mandatory minimum
requirements that must be evidenced before any parking charge
may be issued on controlled land.
> In particular, Section 14.1(a)–(j) requires the operator to
have in place written confirmation from the landowner which
includes:
> [indent]• the identity of the landowner,
> • a boundary map of the land to be managed,
> • applicable byelaws,
> • the duration and scope of authority granted,
> • detailed parking terms and conditions including any specific
permissions or exemptions,
> • the means of issuing PCNs,
> • responsibility for obtaining planning and advertising
consents,
> • and the operator’s obligations and appeal procedure under
the Code.[/indent]
>
> These requirements are not optional. They are a condition
precedent to issuing a PCN and bringing any associated action.
Accordingly, the operator is put to strict proof of compliance
with the entirety of Section 14 of the PPSCoP. Any document that
contains redactions must not obscure the above conditions. The
document must also be dated and signed by identifiable persons
with evidence of their authority to act for the parties to the
agreement. The operator must provide an agreement showing clear
authorisation from the landowner for this specific site.
>
> Ground 6 – Breach of PPSCoP §§ 7.2, 7.3, 9.2, 10.2 and 12.2:
tariff paid, unreliable system, improper charge
> The operator admits its machines “accept any VRM, correct or
incorrect, without alerting the user”.
>
> That admission alone breaches §7.2 (payment systems – clear
instructions and accurate processing) and §7.3 (system
reliability – equipment must record payments against the correct
VRM).
>
> Under §9.2 (record-keeping) the operator must maintain
audit-ready logs enabling reconciliation of every payment,
including “orphan” payments. No such reconciliation has been
demonstrated.
>
> Issuing a PCN without reconciling these records breaches §10.2
(issue of charges – must have evidence of a contravention).
Further, §12.2 (customer service and communication) requires
effective contact routes for motorists to resolve machine or
payment issues. No such contact route was available at the site,
again breaching the Code.
>
> A charge issued where the tariff was paid, the system design
is admittedly flawed, and reconciliation was not undertaken is
contrary to the PPSCoP and cannot stand. POPLA should therefore
allow the appeal on the basis that the operator’s conduct and
evidence fail to meet mandatory requirements under §§ 7.2, 7.3,
9.2, 10.2 and 12.2 of the Private Parking Single Code of
Practice v1.1 (17 February 2025).
>
> Conclusion
> The driver is not identified. The operator has failed to
establish keeper liability, failed to produce strict proof of
payment logs and system integrity, and failed to evidence
standing under the PPSCoP. POPLA is invited to require full
audit disclosure and cancel the PCN.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 96391--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven 17&Central Walthamstow - Unfair PCN After
Machine Error – Proof of Payment Ignored
DIR By: zexx
Date: October 31, 2025, 7:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Wow! Thank you.
#Post#: 98030--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven 17&Central Walthamstow - Unfair PCN After
Machine Error – Proof of Payment Ignored
DIR By: zexx
Date: November 13, 2025, 11:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> Dear M** ****,
>
> Your parking charge appeal against ParkMaven Limited - EW.
>
> ParkMaven Limited - EW has now uploaded its evidence to your
appeal. This will be available for you to view by clicking here
>
> Please note: some evidence may not show immediately, if it is
not currently available on your account please check back later
before contacting us.
>
> You have seven days from the date of this correspondence to
provide comments on the evidence uploaded by ParkMaven Limited -
EW.
>
> Please note that these comments must relate to the grounds of
appeal you submitted when first lodging your appeal with POPLA,
we do not accept new grounds of appeal or evidence at this stage
>
> Any comments received after the period of seven days has ended
will not be considered and we will progress your appeal for
assessment. Therefore, if you have any issues with the evidence
uploaded by ParkMaven Limited - EW such as being unable to view
it online, please contact POPLA immediately via phone - 0330
1596 126, or email - info@popla.co.uk, so that we can look to
rectify this as soon as possible.
>
> After this period has ended, we will aim to issue our decision
as quickly as possible. The decision we reach is final and
binding. When the decision is reached there is no further option
for appeal.
>
> Yours sincerely
>
> POPLA Team
--- End Quote ---
[img]
HTML https://lemicess.sirv.com/parkmaven/popla-evidence%20-%20Copy.PNG[/img]
#Post#: 98034--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven 17&Central Walthamstow - Unfair PCN After
Machine Error – Proof of Payment Ignored
DIR By: zexx
Date: November 13, 2025, 12:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://lemicess.sirv.com/parkmaven/Screenshot%2B2025-11-13%2Bat%2B13.26.55.png
#Post#: 98035--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven 17&Central Walthamstow - Unfair PCN After
Machine Error – Proof of Payment Ignored
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: November 13, 2025, 12:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
So they still will not answer the elephant in the room question,
namely; what VRM was actually registered against my payment?
Lead POPLA by the nose; point out that the machine will not
allow payment if no VRM is registered - hence why the answer to
your question is so important. Point out that you have
challenged PM on this same point several times but they refuse
to provide you with the details of the VRM recorded against your
payment. This is deliberate behaviour on the part of PM because
they know that there was a payment error on their machine which
they are now making you responsible for.
It is not the client's role to mitigate against failure of the
firm's payment machine and any term or condition which suggests
this is unlawful.
#Post#: 98049--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven 17&Central Walthamstow - Unfair PCN After
Machine Error – Proof of Payment Ignored
DIR By: b789
Date: November 13, 2025, 2:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You can copy and paste this response to the operators evidence
in their webform:
--- Quote ---
> POPLA COMMENTS (KEEPER)
>
> 1. Payment WAS made. Operator has NOT provided the required
PPSCoP §9.2 audit logs.
>
> The operator states there is “no evidence of payment”. This is
misleading. Bank evidence shows that a payment to ParkMaven was
processed at approximately 14:19 on 14/08/2025. PPSCoP §9.2
requires operators to maintain complete and accurate payment and
VRM records and to be able to produce them for audit. The
operator has NOT supplied:
> - authorisation code/ARN
> - masked PAN
> - payment gateway logs
> - timestamped success/error codes
> - raw VRM input
> - VRM–to–payment linkage tables
> - orphan-payment reports
>
> Without these, the operator has not demonstrated that the
14:19 payment was NOT received, or that it did not relate to
this vehicle. They have simply asserted it.
>
> 2. Operator has NOT shown the VRM that WAS linked to the 14:19
payment.
>
> The operator claims no payment was found for VRM E20OMG but
completely ignores the key question:
>
> Which VRM WAS associated with the payment they processed at
14:19?
>
> PPSCoP §§7.2, 7.3 and 9.2 require the operator to reconcile
payments. The operator has not produced their end-of-day payment
records to show where that payment went. They have not shown
that the payment belongs to any other VRM.
>
> This failure alone means they cannot evidence a contravention
under PPSCoP §10.2.
>
> 3. Machine/system unreliability admitted by operator – direct
PPSCoP breach.
>
> In previous correspondence, ParkMaven expressly admitted:
>
> “The machine will accept any VRM entered, whether correct or
incorrect, without alerting the user.”
>
> This is a direct breach of PPSCoP §§7.2 and 7.3 which require
accurate payment processing and reliable VRM recording. A system
designed to silently accept incorrect VRMs cannot be relied upon
to prove non-payment.
>
> POPLA cannot assume the system recorded the VRM correctly when
the operator openly admits that the system is designed NOT to
validate VRMs.
>
> 4. Operator has not produced evidence of correct system
functioning on the material date.
>
> PPSCoP §7.3 requires operators to keep equipment in good
working order and ensure that records are accurate. No evidence
has been produced to show:
> - terminal health checks
> - maintenance logs
> - error reports
> - software validation
> - reconciliations for 14/08/2025
>
> The operator merely asserts that the “payment facilities were
operational”. Assertion is not evidence.
> NTK is NOT PoFA-compliant – no keeper liability.
>
> 5. The operator asserts PoFA compliance but the NTK fails
Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(e)(i), which requires the NTK to
“invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges”.
>
> The NTK demands payment from “the driver” and contains no
invitation to “the keeper” to pay.
>
> PoFA 9(2) is binary: “The notice MUST—(a)…(b)…(c)…(e)…”. If
even one limb is missing, the notice is NOT a PoFA notice.
Partial or substantial compliance does not exist.
>
> The operator therefore cannot transfer liability to the
keeper. As the driver is not identified, the keeper is not
liable.
>
> 6. Operator’s contract is NOT landowner authority as required
by PPSCoP §14.
>
> The operator has not produced a contract that meets mandatory
requirements under PPSCoP §14.1(a)–(j): identity of landowner,
boundary map, any applicable byelaws, scope, duration, detailed
terms, exemptions, responsibility for planning consent, and the
operator’s obligations under the Code.
>
> Any document that omits these elements fails §14 and cannot
authorise enforcement.
>
> The operator’s “Enforcement Agreement” is therefore irrelevant
unless it meets §14.1 in full. It does not.
>
> 7. Operator’s “payment logs” do NOT contain the mandatory
PPSCoP data.
>
> The so-called “payment system logs” provided are incomplete
and do not satisfy §9.2. They do not contain:
> - VRM inputs
> - card authorisation codes
> - time-sequenced transaction data
> - orphan payment listings
>
> Without that evidence, the operator cannot demonstrate that
the 14:19 payment does not relate to this session.
>
> 8. Signage photographs are irrelevant if payment was made.
>
> Whether signage is “clear” is irrelevant where the tariff was
paid and the operator’s own system mishandled the VRM or
reconciliation. PPSCoP §10.2 requires evidence of a breach.
There is none.
>
> 9. Operator incorrectly claims “no evidence of payment was
provided”.
>
> Bank evidence of a card transaction to ParkMaven for the exact
date/time has already been provided and is undisputed. The
operator’s refusal to reconcile their logs breaches PPSCoP
§§7.2, 7.3 and 9.2.
>
> 10. Burden of proof is on the operator – they have not
discharged it.
>
> POPLA must assess whether the operator has proven a
contravention. They have not:
> - no VRM linkage evidence
> - no orphan-payment reconciliation
> - no system-integrity records
> - no valid NTK under PoFA
> - no compliant landowner contract
>
> The operator’s evidence is assertion, not proof.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 105675--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven 17&Central Walthamstow - Unfair PCN After
Machine Error – Proof of Payment Ignored
DIR By: zexx
Date: January 13, 2026, 7:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> POPLA assessment and decision
> 13/01/2026
>
> Verification Code
> 5752755356
>
> Decision
> Successful
> Assessor Name
> Heidi Brown
> Assessor summary of operator case
> The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the
motorist failed to make a valid payment.
>
> Assessor summary of your case
> - The appellant states the PCN fails to meet the requirements
of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. - The appellant
states a card payment was made at the machine, the funds were
taken even though an error displayed. They state no receipt was
provided but on the balance of probability, the payment was
made. The appellant requests evidence of the payment logs. They
state the operator confirms that the system will accept any VRM
but this involves risk as a contravention can occur if the
system does not check the VRM. - The appellant requests evidence
of landowner authorisation. Upon reviewing the operator’s
evidence, the appellant has reiterated their grounds. The
appellant provided evidence of a payment.
>
> Assessor supporting rational for decision
> I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below:
When assessing an appeal, the burden of proof begins with the
operator to evidence that the PCN has been issued correctly. -
The appellant states a card payment was made at the machine, the
funds were taken even though an error displayed. They state no
receipt was provided but on the balance of probability, the
payment was made. The appellant requests evidence of the payment
logs. They state the operator confirms that the system will
accept any VRM but this involves risk as a contravention can
occur if the system does not check the VRM. Although I
acknowledge the operator has provided a transaction record to
show no payment against the vehicle registration in question, it
has failed to provide evidence to show other payments were made
against full and correct registration on this date. Due to this,
I am unable to conclude that the fault did not lie with the
payment system and I am not satisfied that the operator has
sufficiently rebutted the appellant’s grounds. Accordingly, I
must allow this appeal. I note the appellant has raised grounds
of appeal and evidence, however I have not considered these, as
they do not have any bearing on my decision.
--- End Quote ---
A big, big thank you to b789 & InterCity125 :)
#Post#: 105680--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven 17&Central Walthamstow - Unfair PCN After
Machine Error – Proof of Payment Ignored
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: January 13, 2026, 7:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Good result, well done!
It's good (if somewhat surprising) to see the assessor correctly
applying the burden of proof.
#Post#: 105715--------------------------------------------------
Re: Parkmaven 17&Central Walthamstow - Unfair PCN After
Machine Error – Proof of Payment Ignored
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: January 13, 2026, 10:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It looks like the parking operator maintained their 'strategy'
of not revealing the VRM attached to the OP's payment even when
it was at POPLA.
This will almost certainly be because no VRM was recorded
against the payment (rather than a short or incorrect VRM).
An admission that no VRM was recorded would basically
acknowledge a machine fault so we basically forced them into
excluding that evidence.
The POPLA Assessor must have immediately realised that
especially given the number of requests which the OP made for
that specific info.
Well done the OP.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page