Do not call them, block their number, hang up if you answer.
There is nothing you can say which will be to your advantage, and quite likely you will say something which does not help you. All communication needs to be in writing so you have a record.
For the mediation call, the only requirement is for you "attend" the call. It is not part of the judicial process and no judge is involved.
This is what I advise you to say when you receive the call from the mediator:
“Before I set out my position, please confirm from the claimant’s side:• the full name of the person attending for them;
• their role/position at their legal representative’s firm; and
• whether they hold written authority to negotiate and settle today.
Please relay that back to me before we continue.”
After the mediator calls back...
If identified and authority confirmed:“Thank you. I’m content to proceed on that basis. My settlement offer is £0, or I invite the claimant to discontinue with no order as to costs.”
If no/unclear authority:“Please record that the claimant’s attendee has not confirmed settlement authority. My position remains that liability is denied and my offer is £0, subject to prompt approval by an authorised solicitor if they choose to discontinue.”
If the mediator probes your defence:”In what capacity are you asking that question? Are you legally trained? If not, please refrain from offering opinions. I will be reporting any attempt to do so as inappropriate.”
All you need to know is the name and the position of the person acting for the claimant and report that back to us. It will be over within minutes. Complete waste of time otherwise.
Indeed,
I've received the following letter dated 27 Oct from HMCTS
"I acknowledge receipt of your defence. A copy is being served on the claimant (or the claimant's solicitor).
The claimant may contact you direct to attempt to resolve any dispute. If the dispute cannot be resolved
informally, the claimant will inform the court that he wishes to proceed. The court will then inform you of
what will happen.
Where he wishes to proceed, the claimant must contact the court within 28 days after receiving a copy of
your defence. After that period has elapsed, the claim will be stayed. The only action the claimant can then
take will be to apply to a judge for an order lifting the stay."
(can't post images for some reason)
Deleting previous uploads made most existing threads pointless.We haven't deleted anything. A lot of images from previous threads are unavailable for 2 main reasons:
7.3 Where a claim is based upon a written agreement –
(1) a copy (or copies) of the contract or documents constituting the agreement should be attached to or served with the particulars of claim and the original(s) should be available at the hearing, and
1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not adequately disclose any comprehensible cause of action.
2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the Defendant such that the PoC do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4.
3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:
(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with PD 16, para 7.3(1);
(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on;
(c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or contracts);
(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;
(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges;
(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;
(g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.
4. The Defendant submits that courts have previously struck out materially similar claims of their own initiative for failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4, particularly where the Particulars of Claim failed to specify the contractual terms relied upon or explain the alleged breach with sufficient clarity.
5. In comparable cases involving modest sums, judges have found that requiring further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective. Accordingly, strike-out was deemed appropriate. The Defendant submits that the same reasoning applies in this case and invites the court to adopt a similar approach by striking out the claim due to the Claimant’s failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4, rather than permitting an amendment. The Defendant proposes that the following Order be made:
Draft Order:
Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars of claim and the defence.
AND the court being of the view that the particulars of claim do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) because: (a) they do not set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract which is (or are) relied on; and (b) they do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts that the defendant was in breach of contract.
AND the claimant could have complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a) had it served separate detailed particulars of claim, as it could have done pursuant to PD 7C, para 5.2, but chose not to do so.
AND upon the Court determining, having regard to the overriding objective (CPR 1.1), that it would be disproportionate to direct further pleadings or to allot any further share of the Court’s resources to this claim (for example by ordering further particulars of claim and a further defence, with consequent case management).
ORDER:
1. The claim is struck out.
2. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or stay this order by application on notice, which must be filed at this Court not more than 7 days after service of this order, failing which no such application may be made.
They huff and puff, and to be honest so do we.Sadly we've not quite managed to blow their house down, just yet ;D
The invitation for the keeper to pay could be seen in the words 'you[the addressee and registered keeper] may pay or appeal'. The NTK also states 'the driver of the motor vehicle is required to pay this parking charge'.
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:"The recipient can appeal within 28 days of receiving the parking charge."
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:• 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
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:• 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)
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:• 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
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:• 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
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]
Only clause 17 applies from Oct 2024.Where have you read that?
ParkMaven has not explained why they relied on an obsolete document rather than the correct and current PPSCoP.Even more than that - they've doubled down and continued to reference the BPA Code of Practice in their evidence pack.
The operator has completely failed to address the first point raised in my POPLA appeal regarding the contradiction in payment deadlines within the NtK. This is a fundamental issue, as the inconsistency highlights a failure to comply with PoFA.
The front of the NtK states the payment deadline is 28 days from the issue date, setting it to 21/01/2025. However, PoFA 9(2)(f) requires the 28-day period to begin from the day after the notice is given, which in this case would be 30/12/2024. The correct deadline is therefore 27/01/2025. The back of the NtK appears to follow the correct timeframe, creating a direct contradiction within the document.
This contradiction is misleading and legally significant. It can confuse the recipient and potentially shorten their legal rights under PoFA. PoFA requires clarity in all mandatory information provided in the NtK, and the operator’s failure to provide this undermines their claim.
The operator has not addressed this issue in their evidence pack. If they believed their NtK was compliant, they would have rebutted this argument and justified the wording. Their silence on this point indicates they have no valid defense. POPLA should treat their failure to engage with this issue as a concession that their NtK does not comply with PoFA, and that keeper liability cannot be enforced.
The operator has also failed to respond to the second key point raised in my POPLA appeal regarding the failure of their NtK to comply with PoFA, specifically the lack of a clear invitation to the keeper to pay, as required under PoFA 9(2)(e)(i).
PoFA requires that a NtK must clearly and explicitly invite the keeper to either pay the charge or provide the name and address of the driver. This is a legal requirement, not an optional inclusion. The operator cannot rely on implied obligation—the wording must be clear and unambiguous.
ParkMaven’s NtK states that the driver is required to pay the charge and tells the keeper to provide the driver’s details if they were not the driver. However, there is no legal obligation on the keeper to identify the driver.
PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) specifically requires the NtK to invite the keeper to pay the charge. It does not attach any conditions to that invitation, such as stating that the keeper must have been the driver. However, this NtK only explains what happens if the keeper was not the driver, without a direct invitation for the keeper to pay. This omission makes the NtK non-compliant with PoFA, meaning the operator cannot transfer liability to the keeper.
My appeal pointed out that ParkMaven’s NtK fails to include this required invitation. Rather than addressing this clear legal failure, the operator has entirely ignored the issue in their evidence pack. If ParkMaven believed their NtK was compliant, they would have provided direct evidence that their notice contains the required wording. Their silence on this point confirms that their NtK does not comply with PoFA.
The burden of proof lies with the operator to demonstrate that they have met all the necessary conditions to hold the keeper liable under PoFA. PoFA does not offer a selection of requirements from which an operator may pick and choose; it is a strict statutory framework that demands full compliance with every requirement set out in the Act. Partial compliance does not satisfy PoFA, and as a result, the keeper cannot be held liable.
The operator was required to provide strict proof that their NtK fully complies with all the requirements of PoFA, allowing them to lawfully transfer liability to the registered keeper. As already demonstrated, their NtK fails to meet the statutory requirements in several key areas. It does not correctly specify the statutory 28-day period for payment, as required under Paragraph 9(2)(f), and it also fails to include the mandatory invitation for the keeper to pay the charge, as required under Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i). Since full compliance with PoFA is an absolute requirement for transferring liability, these failures render the NtK non-compliant, and liability cannot pass to the keeper.
Furthermore, if the operator wished to hold the registered keeper liable, they were required to provide strict proof that the person they are pursuing was, in fact, the driver on the date of the alleged contravention. The law does not allow inference that the registered keeper was the driver, and the burden rests entirely on the operator to provide evidence proving this. In VCS v Edward [2023], the court ruled that an operator must provide sufficient evidence to prove that the registered keeper and the driver are the same person. The operator has failed to provide any such evidence in their response pack.
The operator’s failure to rebut the specific PoFA non-compliance issues raised in my appeal, coupled with their failure to provide strict proof of the driver’s identity, means they have no lawful basis to pursue me, the keeper, for this charge. The absence of any meaningful response to these fundamental legal failures should be taken as a concession that their case is without merit. The appeal must be upheld, and the PCN must be cancelled.
The operator has completely failed to address Point 4 of my appeal, which highlights their clear breach of the PPSCoP. Instead of responding to this fundamental issue, they have remained silent, failing to justify or explain their non-compliance.
The NtK misleads by instructing to pay or appeal by 21/01/2025. However, under the PPSCoP, specifically Section 8.1.2(e) and Note 2, the correct appeal deadline is 27/01/2025, which is 28 days from the deemed receipt date of 30/12/2024. The PPSCoP makes it clear that a NtK sent by post is presumed to be delivered on the second working day after posting unless proven otherwise. By setting an incorrect deadline, the operator misrepresents the keeper’s rights and misleads them into believing they have less time to appeal than they actually do.
The operator’s failure to respond to this point means they implicitly accept that their NtK contains misleading information. They have not provided any explanation or justification for their failure to comply with the PPSCoP, nor have they attempted to correct the misrepresentation. Their silence on this matter should be taken as an admission that their demand was inaccurate and misleading.
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. The burden of proof lies with the operator to demonstrate compliance with the CoP and fairness in their communications. Their failure to do so means they have not discharged that burden, and the appeal should be allowed.
As this appeal point remains uncontested, the misleading NtK alone is sufficient to invalidate the PCN.
The operator has also failed to respond to my 5th appeal point regarding their misleading appeal rejection, which incorrectly referenced the outdated BPA CoP instead of the PPSCoP, which has been in force since October 2024. Rather than addressing this issue, they have remained silent, failing to justify their use of obsolete guidance.
The burden of proof is on the operator to demonstrate compliance with the relevant regulations. Their failure to respond suggests that they accept that their appeal rejection was based on an outdated and irrelevant CoP. The reference to §23.12 of the BPA CoP has no bearing on this case because the PPSCoP now governs all private parking operators. ParkMaven has not explained why they relied on an obsolete document rather than the correct and current PPSCoP.
The operator also failed to justify their misleading statement regarding Keeper liability. Their appeal rejection states that "if the keeper refuses to name the driver, we reserve the right to request payment from the keeper of the vehicle." This statement is incorrect and misleading because their NtK does not comply with PoFA, meaning they cannot transfer liability to the Keeper. The operator has provided no explanation or justification for making this false claim.
POPLA’s assessment must be based on the evidence presented. Since the operator has not refuted this key point, it remains unchallenged and uncontested. ParkMaven’s failure to adhere to the correct CoP and their misrepresentation of liability should be grounds to uphold this appeal. Given that this issue was raised in my appeal and ignored by the operator, I request that POPLA rule in my favour due to the operator’s failure to provide a legally compliant rejection and their misleading statements regarding Keeper liability.
I also challenged the operator to provide strict proof of landowner authority by means of a contemporaneous, unredacted contract showing their right to issue and enforce parking charges on the land in their own name. The operator has failed to do so, instead submitting contradictory submissions that raise serious concerns about the authenticity of their evidence.
The operator submitted an unsigned and undated witness statement, claiming that the Enforcement Agreement is confidential and "cannot be made public." However, they have provided the actual Enforcement Agreement, despite stating it could not be disclosed. This inconsistency suggests the operator may be fabricating or manipulating documents in an attempt to mislead the POPLA assessor.
The document provided as the Enforcement Agreement is not signed by the operator. The landowner or agent has only electronically signed it, with no mention of their position to verify their authority. The agreement allegedly started on 04/09/2023 and lasts for 4 years, yet the only signature is dated 27/02/2024—five months after the agreement allegedly came into force. This raises doubts about whether this agreement existed before the date of the signature. A properly executed contract would not contain such flaws, and without verified signatories, this document has no evidential value.
APPELLANT: [Your Name]
PARKING OPERATOR: ParkMaven
POPLA VERIFICATION CODE: [Your Code]
PCN NUMBER: [Your PCN Number]
GROUNDS OF APPEAL:
1. Contradiction in Payment Deadlines Renders the NtK Non-Compliant with PoFA
2. Further Notice to Keeper (NtK) Non-Compliance
3. The Operator Has Not Established Driver Liability and Cannot Hold the Keeper Liable
4. The NtK Contains Misleading Information, Contradicting the PPSCoP (Effective Since October 2024)
5. ParkMaven’s Appeal Rejection References a Defunct BPA Code of Practice
6. Inadequate Signage – No Contract Formed with the Driver
7. No evidence of landholder authority
1. Contradiction in Payment Deadlines Renders the NtK Non-Compliant with PoFA
The Notice to Keeper (NtK) issued by ParkMaven contains a fundamental flaw that renders it non-compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), Schedule 4. This flaw relates to the specified 28-day period for payment or providing the driver’s details, as mandated by PoFA Paragraph 9(2)(f).
a. Contradiction Between the Front and Back of the NtKThe front of the NtK prominently states:"PARKING CHARGE NOTICE AMOUNT: £100 PAYMENT TO BE MADE WITHIN 28 DAYS OF THE DATE ISSUED: BY 21/01/2025."
This instruction is legally incorrect under PoFA Schedule 4, which explicitly states that the 28-day period begins “from the day after the notice is given”. According to PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(6), the NtK is deemed to be “given” two working days after the date of posting, unless evidence shows otherwise. "Given" has the same meaning as "received" by or "delivered" to the Keeper.
The bold and most prominent wording on the front of the NtK is misleading and non-compliant with PoFA because the law requires the 28-day period to be calculated from when the notice is deemed given (received/delivered), not from the issue date.
PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(f) clearly states:"Warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given"
Since the NtK was issued on Tuesday 24th December 2024, the actual date it is deemed to have been given (i.e., received/delivered) is:Deemed delivery is Monday, 30th December 2024
The 28-day period must start from Tuesday, 31st December 2024, ending on Monday, 27th January 2025
By incorrectly starting the 28-day countdown from the issue date, Tuesday 24th December 2024, the NtK shortens the time legally afforded to the recipient. This misleading information is compounded by the fact that the back of the NtK, which references PoFA, appears to follow the correct timeframe. This results in a contradiction between the front and back of the notice, creating confusion and uncertainty for the recipient.
b. PoFA Requires Absolute ClarityUnder PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9, the NtK must provide all mandatory information in a clear and unambiguous manner. Contradictions within the NtK regarding such a fundamental matter as the payment deadline fail to meet this standard.
The wording on the front of the NtK, being the most prominent and immediately visible to the recipient, is misleading and does not comply with PoFA. This failure is critical because the keeper is entitled to understand exactly how long they have to respond to the notice, either by paying or providing the driver’s details.
c. Legal and Practical Significance of This ContradictionThis issue is not a trivial technicality—it is a critical compliance failure with significant legal consequences:• The front of the NtK, being the first and most prominent information presented to the recipient, creates a false impression of the deadline. A reasonable person would act based on the incorrect instruction, potentially cutting short their legal rights.
• By providing conflicting deadlines, the NtK fails to meet the transparency and accuracy requirements under PoFA.
• A PoFA-compliant NtK is a prerequisite for transferring liability to the registered keeper. If the NtK fails to meet the strict wording and procedural requirements of PoFA, the operator cannot pursue the registered keeper for the parking charge.
2. Further Notice to Keeper (NtK) Non-Compliance
Under Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), the Notice to Keeper (NtK) must include a specific invitation to the keeper to pay the charge. This requirement serves to ensure that the keeper understands their liability and has a clear course of action.
The operator cannot simply rely on the fact that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) is addressed to the Keeper to satisfy Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of Schedule 4 of PoFA. The law explicitly requires a clear and specific invitation for the keeper to either:• Pay the parking charge, or
• Provide the name and address of the driver.
This is not an "implied" requirement; it must be explicitly stated. Merely inferring that the keeper is invited to pay because the notice is addressed to them does not meet the strict wording requirements of PoFA.
PoFA compliance requires specific wording. The law’s intention is to make the responsibilities of the Keeper clear and unambiguous. Phrases like "you are invited to pay this parking charge" or "you are required to do X, Y, Z" are examples of wording that PoFA expects.
If the notice only says, for example, "the charge must be paid" or "payment is required" without directly inviting the keeper to pay, this is insufficient under PoFA. The wording must link the keeper directly to the payment obligation in an unambiguous way.
The operator cannot claim keeper liability under PoFA if they fail to meet the explicit requirements of 9(2)(e)(i). This is a valid appeal (and defence) point, as courts and independent adjudicators should not rely on implied obligations instead of explicit compliance with statutory requirements.
3. The Operator Has Not Established Driver Liability and Cannot Hold the Keeper Liable
Under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), the operator may only hold the registered keeper liable for an unpaid parking charge if they fully comply with all the requirements outlined in Paragraph 9. As demonstrated in Sections 1 and 2 above, the NtK issued by Parkmaven is non-compliant with PoFA in the following critical ways:• It fails to correctly specify the statutory 28-day period for payment or the provision of the driver’s details, as required under Paragraph 9(2)(f).
• It fails to include the mandatory invitation for the keeper to pay the charge, as required under Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i).
a. Keeper Liability Cannot Be Established Due to PoFA Failures
Since the operator has not complied with PoFA Schedule 4, they cannot transfer liability to the registered keeper.
b. The Operator Is Put to Strict Proof
I put the operator to strict proof that:• They have fully complied with all the requirements of PoFA Schedule 4, allowing them to transfer liability to the registered keeper.
• The person being pursued (the registered keeper) was, in fact, the driver of the vehicle on the date of the alleged contravention.
c. No Presumption of Driver Liability
There is no presumption in law that the registered keeper was the driver. In VCS v. Edward [2023], it was ruled that the operator must provide sufficient evidence to prove that the registered keeper and the driver are the same person. Without such evidence, the registered keeper cannot be held liable for the charge.
Without evidence of the driver’s identity and given the clear PoFA non-compliance, the operator has no lawful basis to pursue me, the registered keeper, for this charge.
4. The NtK Contains Misleading Information, Contradicting the PPSCoP (Effective Since October 2024)
In addition to non-compliance with PoFA, ParkMaven’s NtK fails to comply with the new BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), which replaced the BPA Code of Practice in October 2024.
Section 8.1.2(e) of the PPSCoP specifically states:"The recipient can appeal within 28 days of receiving the parking charge."
Furthermore, the PPSCoP clarifies in Note 2:"A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose, ‘working day’ means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday, or a public holiday in England and Wales."
Since the NtK was issued on Tuesday 24th December 2024, the actual 28-day appeal period must start from the deemed delivery date of Monday 30th December 2024.
However, ParkMaven’s incorrect instruction to pay or appeal by Tuesday 21st January 2025 directly contradicts the PPSCoP and misleads the Keeper into believing that they have fewer days than they are legally entitled to.
This is a clear breach of the PPSCoP, and POPLA must uphold this appeal.
5. ParkMaven’s Appeal Rejection References a Defunct BPA Code of Practice
In their appeal rejection, ParkMaven erroneously quoted Section 23.12 of the BPA Code of Practice, which is no longer in force. The relevant paragraph states:"As per section 23.12 of The BPA Code of Practice, the only information that is required of us when rejecting an appeal is to give clear direction on how to appeal to POPLA and to allow a reasonable amount of time for the motorist to pay."
However, the BPA Code of Practice was superseded by the PPSCoP in October 2024. Therefore, any reference to it is irrelevant.
ParkMaven’s rejection also falsely asserts:"If the keeper refuses to name the driver, we reserve the right to request payment from the keeper of the vehicle."
This statement is misleading because ParkMaven’s own NtK fails to comply with PoFA. Since Keeper liability does not apply, they have no legal basis to demand payment from the Keeper.
6. Inadequate Signage – No Contract Formed with the Driver
The signage at the car park is inadequate, unclear, and fails to meet the standards set by the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). For a contract to be formed, the terms and conditions must be prominently displayed, legible, and unambiguous. This is not the case here.
The operator has not provided evidence that the signage is clear enough to form a contract with the driver. The signs in this car park are not sufficiently prominent or legible, particularly near the location where the vehicle was parked and along the route taken by the driver when they exited and re-entered the car park.
I put the operator to strict proof of the following:• The specific location of all signage within the car park, including maps and photos.
• Evidence that signs near where the vehicle was parked are clearly visible and legible.
• Confirmation that the driver passed these signs and had the opportunity to read and agree to the terms.
• Evidence that the signs comply with the PPSCoP.
Without this evidence, it cannot be established that the driver was made aware of or agreed to any contractual terms.
7. No evidence of landholder authority
The operator is also put to strict proof, by means of contemporaneous and unredacted evidence, of a chain of authority flowing from the landholder of the "relevant land" to the operator. It is not accepted that the operator has adhered to the landholder's definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours of operation, etc. and any instructions to cancel charges due to complaints. There is no evidence that the freeholder authorises this operator to issue parking charges or what the land enforcement boundary and start/expiry dates are, nor whether this operator has standing to enforce such charges in their own name rather than a bare licence to act as an agent ‘on behalf of’ the landowner.
The operator is also put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice. As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the “relevant land” then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only). Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules.
A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.
For the reasons stated above, the Parking Charge Notice issued by Parkmaven is unenforceable
The operators NtK erroneously and unlawfully states very boldly on the front that the payment is to be made by Tuesday 21st January 2025 (21/01/2025).
In order to show why this date is wrong we need to determine when the Notice to Keeper (NtK) is deemed to have been given (received) and when the 28-day appeal or payment period begins, we follow these steps:
1. Issue Date:• The NtK was issued on Tuesday, 24th December 2024.
2. Deemed Delivery (PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(6))• The notice is deemed to be given two working days after the issue date.
• Non-working days (bank holidays and weekends) do not count.
• Wednesday, 25th December 2024 (Christmas Day) → Bank Holiday
• Thursday, 26th December 2024 (Boxing Day) → Bank Holiday
• Saturday, 28th December 2024 and Sunday, 29th December 2024 → Weekend (not working days)
The next working day is Friday, 27th December 2024 (counting as Day 1).
The following working day (Day 2) is Monday, 30th December 2024.
So, the NtK is deemed to be given on Monday, 30th December 2024.
3. Start of 28-day Period• The 28-day period to appeal or pay starts the day after the notice is deemed to be given.
• So, the period begins on Tuesday, 31st December 2024.
4. Deadline for Appeal or Payment (End of 28 Days)• Counting 28 days from 31st December 2024, the final day of the period is Monday, 27th January 2025.
Final Answer
The NtK is deemed to be received on Monday, 30th December 2024.
The 28-day appeal or payment period runs from Tuesday, 31st December 2024, to Monday, 27th January 2025 (inclusive).
I need to repeat what you've just wonderfully explained about the 28 day mistake.Ideally your POPLA appeal will be more detailed. The audience is not ParkMaven, but a POPLA assessor with no prior knowledge of the case. Although they should be well trained, assume they know nothing, and lead them to each point clearly, explaining exactly why ParkMaven cannot recover the charges from you as the keeper.
PS: I suppose eventually they'll get their NtKs right. What happens then ?They've had since 2012 so I'd be surprised if they get it right any time soon. We'll pass that bridge when we come to it.
Smart Parking has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. Smart Parking have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN."