Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: Billy Butcher on September 26, 2025, 10:39:34 am
-
https://ibb.co/0V93LWx8 (This should work )
-
https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/
https://www.ftla.uk/announcements/posting-images/#new
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
Top man, I’ve seen in recent posts of yours that POPLA will always reject appeals lol
-
Just copy and paste the following as your response:
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.
-
Hi lads, can you recommend anything that I could say back to ParkMavens reply to POPLA?
-
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!
-
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.
Did you include these two arguments too, or just the one example point that b789 provided?
-
I sent the argue point you sent to me earlier
-
What was the content of your POPLA appeal? You never showed it to us before submitting it.
-
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
-
Wow… you are these guys worst nightmare lol
-
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:
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
Ok cheers, I’ll have a word with them this week and see what happens and update on here if anything.. out of curiosity what is the success rate when appealing through POPLA I don’t think I have ever done that before
-
Yes, the next step is to appeal to POPLA, but as stated on the notice, there's 28 days to do that, so plenty of time to try your luck with the landowners in the meantime.
-
Isn’t it worth appealing to POPLA Now?, it says either pay or appeal to POPLA
-
I just felt like if I was to they would just say “ you have to appeal it, there’s nothing we can do”.
If you don't contact them, there's definitely nothing they can do. It costs nothing to try, and the worst outcome is that they say no, and you are back where you already are.
-
Unfortunately I have not contacted the shopping centre, I just felt like if I was to they would just say “ you have to appeal it, there’s nothing we can do”. Thing is, the fee of the parking was paid before leaving so this is just so frustrating, I don’t know where to go from here
-
Have you contacted the shopping centre to 'complain' their agents are pursuing you for a charge that is not valid? This should always be the first port of call before the matter progresses too far.
-
Well, as expected they have rejected my appeal
https://ibb.co/yBsc5xtx
-
Top Man, much appreciated.. luckily the last PCN I got from a different private company they cancelled it straight away from the appeal lol.. I hope these lot don’t play hard ball 😅
-
You can appeal about the fact that the Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not fully PoFA compliant, in which case they cannot pursue the Keeper, only the driver, whose identity they have no idea of, unless the Keeper blabs it to them.
As for this not going any further... you are having laugh aren't you? Unless you can convince a POPLA assessor that they are in breach of PoFA 9(2)(e)(i), the is going to go all the way to ta county court claim which is where it is usually won if you follow the advice and aren't low-hanging fruit on the gullible Tre who ends up paying out of ignorance and fear.
You should appeal initially with the following and then come back when that is rejected:
There is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.
The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.
Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:
I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.
As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. Parkmaven 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. Parkmaven have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
-
Received fine from ParkMaven in shopping centre, the parking fee was paid via machine (£2.50) before leaving the car park as it even shows on my bank statement, yet I have received a fine. Does anyone have a template I could send for my appeal so this does not go any further? Cheers
https://imgur.com/a/7m2BUEt
-
Any template I could send for my appeal ??
-
nor identification of the creditor
"The parking charge is now payable to Parkmaven Ltd as the Creditor"
Oops... couldn't see it for looking.
-
No barriers, it’s a machine you input your reg and then just pay and be on your way, I highly doubt the reg was put in incorrectly I’ve used it so many times but it is strange why all of a sudden I got a ticket. Have you got a template I could perhaps send it appeal this as I would rather not go to court lol
-
nor identification of the creditor
"The parking charge is now payable to Parkmaven Ltd as the Creditor"
-
Possibly the reg was input incorrectly, as it says 'no valid session' - is the exit barrier controlled? You can appeal, they will reject it - if they see a very similar reg at the appropriate time they may offer the £20 keying error charge. They are with POPLA, so you might have more luck there. If not it will end up in a court claim which can almost certainly be defended - there is no invitation to pay or name the driver, nor identification of the creditor, so it is not fully POFA compliant.
-
https://imgur.com/a/7m2BUEt
Thanks for that
-
We need to see the other side of the letter too.
-
https://imgur.com/a/7m2BUEt
Here is the pic of the letter. Cheers
-
It is generally better to engage than ignore - these firms have got a lot more litigious than they used to be, and it's better to at least try to head them off without the need for defending a court claim.
If you can take a look at the following guide and provide as much of the information it asks for as you are able to, we can advice accordingly. You'll need to use a third party such as Imgur to show us images, the guide includes advice on that: READ THIS FIRST - Private Parking Charges Forum guide (https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/)
-
So received this lovely letter in the post, which to my surprise says I owe £100 for a parking charge for parking 1hr 54mins in a shopping centre car park. Funniest thing is before leaving, the parking fee for the shopping centre was paid (£2.50). Now these bums ParkMaven are wasting paper sending me this letter stating I owe £100 for not paying, the only proof I have is it’s on my bank statement. I unfortunately don’t have a receipt or anything. Has anyone got a template or anything because usually I would just ignore these peasants but I might aswell have some fun. Thanks guys