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.
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.
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
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:• 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.
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:• 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.
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.