Free Traffic Legal Advice

I take your point, and thank you for your knowledge on this case.

At this stage, I’m just a little concerned that if my case were to rely mainly on the wording “within 28 days”, this appears to be standard wording in their letters. That makes me wonder whether there would already be many cases where PCNs have been cancelled on that basis. I assume I cannot be the first person to raise this issue, but I’m not seeing many examples where people have taken this to London Tribunals and been successful on that point alone.

At the same time, may I ask why the faded red lines argument would not be considered particularly strong? When I revisited the location, the line appears to be extremely worn and, at the time of the alleged contravention, the clearer section of the marking was largely obscured by the vehicle in front of mine.

Also, would it be acceptable to raise both arguments when appealing to London Tribunals — namely the issue of the faded road markings and the wording regarding “within 28 days of the date of service”?

Any guidance would be much appreciated.
If this was your personal PCN, would you fold and pay at this point or  take this to London Tribunals?

Here is the NoR received from TFL
https://imgpile.com/p/M37Qlhq

I no longer have the original PCN from TfL. I did seek some advice on this forum earlier, and the general view seemed to be that there was not much obvious evidence as to why I would have been permitted to park on the red route.

Following that, it was suggested that I could submit an appeal anyway just to see what TfL said. I used ChatGPT to draft a representation, which I submitted, but that appeal has now been rejected.

After submitting that representation, I revisited the location. I originally relied on the TfL images and Google Maps, which show a clear red route line. However, when I went back to the location, I found that the red line on the road is now extremely faded.

In addition, looking again at TfL’s evidence photo, the vehicle in front of my Blue Tesla appears to cover the more prominent section of the red line.  https://imgpile.com/p/6uSmPaR     The road surface there is a two-tone brick surface, and the Other vehicle blocks the clearer portion of the marking. At the time (and at night), the only visible marking would have been a very small section of what appears to be a heavily faded red line.

Unfortunately, I did not raise this point in my original representation because I assumed the contravention was clear.

Given this, do I have any grounds to raise this argument now? Would the correct next step be to appeal to London Tribunals even though it wasn’t included in my original representation?

Also, am I still able to view the actual CCTV footage at this stage while the PCN is effectively paused so I can properly review the evidence and gather photographs of the location?

This incident was captured on CCTV and the PCN sent to my home address..
So any further correspondence will be sent to me..
I'm the owner and driver...

I sent a online appeal in accordance with the instructions on the PNC..
Can I send TFL this additional evidence "Faded red lines"....As an amendment to the appeal I've already submitted..?
I take onboard what you say about not this being in my favour. but surely its worth trying..

I'm the driver / owner....
I agree with you about the signage....
Wasn't the best decision to park there...
Exploring any way of not giving 80 quid to the mafia

Another win....
Thanks so much for your advice...

It could do with fleshing out. You must put yourself in the POPLA assessors shoes and imagine that they know as much about this as you do. Your appeal must lead the POPLA assessor by the nose to the conclusion you want them to reach.

Have a look at some of the longer POPLA appeals on the forum and use anything from those that is
relevant to your case.


I've added to my previous draft.
I've added case law and previous POPLA rulings
Any good>

POPLA Appeal: Response to Notice to Keeper from ParkMaven
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and I wish to appeal this Parking Charge Notice on the following grounds:
________________________________________
1. Failure to Include Mandatory Keeper Invitation under PoFA 2012 (Paragraph 9(2)(e))
ParkMaven claims that their Notice to Keeper (NtK) complies with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. However, the notice fails to meet a core statutory requirement under Paragraph 9(2)(e):
“...the notice must state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and must invite the keeper: (i) to pay the unpaid parking charges; or (ii) if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.”
The NtK does not contain this explicit invitation. Instead, it vaguely suggests the keeper "may be liable." This is legally insufficient. PoFA requires a specific and unambiguous invitation to pay or name the driver. Courts and POPLA have consistently ruled that liability cannot be transferred to the keeper without strict compliance with this requirement.
Additionally, the phrase "may be liable" misleads the keeper and does not comply with the mandatory language that must be present. The invitation to the keeper is a statutory obligation, not a courtesy. Without it, there is no lawful mechanism under PoFA for keeper liability to be established.
Furthermore, it is not enough that the NtK is addressed to the keeper. The statutory invitation must be explicitly stated in the body of the notice. Implied or vague references to liability fail to meet the legal threshold. This strict wording requirement exists to ensure that the keeper is fully informed of their rights and responsibilities.
This issue was highlighted in POP LA appeal reference 6061796103 where the assessor stated: “As the Notice to Keeper did not invite the registered keeper to pay the unpaid parking charge or provide the name and address of the driver, I find that the operator has failed to meet the requirements of PoFA.”
Similarly, in C6GF14F0 [Civil Enforcement v Chan, 2016], the court confirmed that full compliance with PoFA Schedule 4 is required for keeper liability to apply. Any omission of mandatory wording invalidates the transfer of liability.
By failing to include this critical element, ParkMaven has no lawful basis to pursue me as the keeper.
________________________________________
2. Unlawful Deadline – NtK Misstates the 28-Day Period Contrary to PoFA 2012
The NtK states:
"PAYMENT TO BE MADE WITHIN 28 DAYS OF THE DATE ISSUED: BY 28/05/2025"
This is a fundamental legal error that contradicts PoFA Schedule 4.
• Date Issued: 29/04/2025 (Tuesday)
• Under Paragraph 9(6), the NtK is deemed served two working days later: 01/05/2025 (Thursday)
• The 28-day statutory period begins the day after deemed service, i.e. 02/05/2025 (Friday)
• Day 28 falls on 29/05/2025 (Thursday)
Correct deadline: 29/05/2025
Incorrectly stated deadline: 28/05/2025
By misstating this date, ParkMaven unlawfully shortens the recipient's statutory rights under PoFA. This makes the NtK non-compliant and invalid for keeper liability.
This issue was recognised in Brennan v Premier Parking Logistics [2023], where it was ruled that confusing or incorrect timelines given in a Notice to Keeper undermine PoFA compliance and invalidate keeper liability.
________________________________________
3. No Keeper Liability – Driver Not Identified
Since the NtK fails PoFA compliance, ParkMaven cannot transfer liability to the registered keeper. I was not the driver and am under no legal obligation to identify the driver. Therefore, the operator has no lawful basis to pursue me for this charge.
In POPLA appeal 6061796103, the assessor confirmed that a lack of full PoFA compliance means the registered keeper cannot be held liable if the driver is not identified.
________________________________________
4. Vehicle Was Not Parked – Active Delivery/Unloading in Progress
The vehicle was engaged in a legitimate Amazon parcel delivery. Parking for which is adjacent to the Amazon delivery point.
At no point was the vehicle left unattended,  or occupy and designated parking bay
Under Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E, HHJ Harris held that unloading activity is not parking.
The judgment clearly distinguished between "parking" and temporary activities such as loading, which are normal incidents of the use of premises.
This operator has not shown that they accounted for or considered legitimate delivery use, and therefore cannot claim a valid contravention.
This operator fails to identify any actual loading (See attached picture of loading location) Which is not in a parking bay. The vehicle was in a designated area where vehicles cannot park.
________________________________________
5. No Invitation or Instruction to Register for a Whitelist
ParkMaven stated the vehicle was "not on the site’s whitelist." However, the signage:
• Does not mention any whitelist
• Provides no instruction on how to register

This omission renders the contract terms unclear and unenforceable. A motorist cannot comply with rules that are not communicated.
In Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 QB 163, Lord Denning held that terms must be made available before or at the time of contracting, especially if they are onerous.
________________________________________
6. Inconsistent with Industry Standards – Group Nexus contradictory signage
At Shop Stop, separate Group Nexus signage exists which:.
• Clearly instructs delivery drivers specifically for Shop Stop, how to register
• Grants a 20-minute delivery window
• There is one entrance to Shop Stop, confusing and conflicting signage from Parkmaven and Group Nexus are prominent at this location
• Clear guidance (from Group Nexus) for delivery to Shop Stop was followed and complied with.
Why Contradictory Signage Matters
• No meeting of minds
A parking contract requires a clear and unambiguous offer (signage) and acceptance (by parking). Conflicting terms from different operators make the “offer” unclear—so no valid contract exists.
• Unclear contractual terms
The POPLA Code of Practice and cases like Horizon Parking v Ms T make it clear that signage must be legible, consistent, and unambiguous

https://shopstopclaphamjunction.com/click-and-collect
ParkMaven’s signage fails to match this standard, creating confusion and inconsistency. It cannot be relied upon to form a valid contract.
This inconsistency also contradicts the transparency obligations under the BPA Code of Practice (Section 18).
________________________________________
7. Inadequate Signage – No Contract Formed with the Driver
The signage at the site is inadequate and fails to meet the standards set by the BPA/IPC Private Parking Code of Practice. The operator has provided no evidence that:
• Signs were visible at the entry point and throughout the car park
• The signs near where the vehicle was parked were legible
• The signage clearly informed the driver of any whitelist requirement
A valid contract cannot be formed under such unclear conditions.
In ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the Supreme Court acknowledged that for a charge to be enforceable, signage must be prominent and bring the charge to the attention of the motorist. If signage is inadequate, there can be no contract.
Following receipt of the charge, I have personally visited the site in question. I believe the signs and any core parking terms that the parking company is relying upon were too small for any driver to see, read and understand when driving into this car park.
There is one sign at the entrance which indicates that there are parking restrictions - but this information is not specific or definitive. And does not state the full terms and conditions of entry, parking, loading or waiting.
Any driver must enter the ANPR controlled area, exit the vehicle and read the terms and conditions, which as stated previously are in very small print and incredibly difficult to read.
I believe the signs failed to properly and clearly warn/inform the driver of the terms in this car park as they failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice appendix B.
I require the operator to provide photographic evidence that proves otherwise.
The parking company needs to prove that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms, which means that I and the POPLA adjudicator would be led to believe that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the extortionate fixed amount the Operator is now demanding, rather than simply the nominal amount presumably due in a machine on site.

The idea that any driver would accept these terms knowingly is perverse and beyond credibility.

ANPR Accuracy and Compliance is questionable and needs to be proven as accurate and in compliance.

So I require the Operator to present records which prove:


- the Manufacturers' stated % reliability of the exact ANPR system used here.


- the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images.


This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times and this Operator is are expecting me to believe their system has a zero failure rate and zero buffering delay.


The Operator must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence from the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.

I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image.

Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped accurately. Therefore I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from this Operator in this car park is just as unreliable as the ParkingEye system in the Fox-Jones case and I put this Operator to strict proof to the contrary.

In addition, the unreliable/unsynchronised ANPR system used, and lack of information about the use of data, is not compliant with the BPA Code of Practice, which contains the following:

''21 Automatic number plate recognition (ANPR)
21.1 You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.
21.2 Quality checks: before you issue a parking charge notice you must carry out a manual quality check of the ANPR images to reduce errors and make sure that it is appropriate to take action. Full details of the items you should check are listed in the Operators’ Handbook.
21.3 You must keep any ANPR equipment you use in your car parks in good working order. You need to make sure the data you are collecting is accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with.
21.4 It is also a condition of the Code that, if you receive and process vehicle or registered keeper data, you must:
• be registered with the Information Commissioner
• keep to the Data Protection Act
• follow the DVLA requirements concerning the data
• follow the guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office on the use of CCTV and ANPR cameras, and on keeping and sharing personal data such as vehicle registration marks.''

At this location, there are merely a couple of secret small cameras up high on a pole. The signs at the car park are not clear about how this technology is employed nor how the data captured by ANPR cameras will be used.
As such, this means the system does not operate in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner, and I have reason to believe that, potentially, every section of paragraph 21 is breached here. Unless the Operator can show documentary evidence otherwise, then this BPA Cop breach would also point to a failure to comply with the ICO terms of registration and a breach of the CPUTR 2008 (claiming to comply with the BPA Code of Practice when I believe it is not the case).

This Operator is put to strict proof to the contrary.
________________________________________
8. No Evidence of Landholder Authority
The operator has failed to provide contemporaneous, unredacted evidence of their contractual authority to issue and enforce parking charges at the location.
It is widely known that some contracts between landowner and parking company have ”authority limit clauses” that specify that parking companies are limited in the extent to which they may pursue motorists. One example from a case in the appeal court is Parking Eye –v- Somerfield Stores (2012) where Somerfield attempted to end the contract with Parking Eye as Parking Eye had exceeded the limit of action allowed under their contract.
In view of this, and the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice section 7 that demands that valid contract with mandatory clauses specifying the extent of the parking company’s authority:  I request that Park maven produce a copy of the contract with the landowner that shows POPLA that they have, indeed been granted such authority.
I put ParkMaven to strict proof of:
• A full contract with the landowner
• The dates, boundaries, and scope of enforcement
• Any clauses concerning exemptions, cancellations, or user instructions
•
• It has also been widely reported that some parking companies have provided “witness statements” instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory on behalf of the landowner has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. I request that if such a witness statement is submitted, that it is accompanied by a letter, on landowner’s headed notepaper, and signed by a director or equivalent of the landowner, confirming that the signatory is, indeed, authorised to act on behalf of the landowner, has read and the relevant terms of the contract and is qualified to attest to the full limit of authority of the parking company
. For example, in POPLA appeal 6060784002, the assessor found that a lack of direct evidence of landowner authority was sufficient to uphold the appeal.








________________________________________
9. Unfair and Disproportionate Charge
The driver was delivering under time pressure. No effort was made by the operator to consider the real-world context. This charge is excessive and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.
It is contrary to:
• The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008
• The fairness principles in Beavis v ParkingEye [2015] UKSC 67, which only upheld charges that were clearly signposted and proportionate
In this case, the charge is neither clearly signposted nor proportionate to any legitimate interest.
________________________________________
10. ICO Data Processing Concern – No Legal Basis for Keeper Data Use
Because ParkMaven’s NtK is PoFA-noncompliant and no contract was formed, there was no lawful basis to request my data from the DVLA.
This constitutes a breach of:
• UK GDPR
• Data Protection Act 2018
This concern was also highlighted in Parking Control Management v Christopher Bull (Cardiff County Court, 2021), where the judge found misuse of DVLA data in cases involving invalid or misleading notices.
A complaint has been submitted to the Information Commissioner's Office.
________________________________________
Conclusion
This Parking Charge Notice is unenforceable due to:
• Failure to comply with PoFA 2012
• No contract being formed
• No keeper liability
• Unfair, disproportionate, and misleading practices
I respectfully request that this appeal be upheld and the charge cancelled in full.

Hello
Would you please let me know if my POPLA appeal is sufficient.
Advice welcome on how to improve it
Regards

 Grounds of Appeal
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and I wish to appeal this Parking Charge Notice on the following grounds:
________________________________________
1. Notice to Keeper Does Not Comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 Schedule 4 – False Claim of Compliance
ParkMaven claims that their Notice to Keeper includes the "required statutory wording" under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. However, this is demonstrably false.
📌 What PoFA Requires (Paragraph 9(2)(e)):
“...the notice must state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and must invite the keeper:
(i) to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
(ii) if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.”
This explicit invitation is not optional — it is a statutory requirement.
❌ What ParkMaven Actually Said:
Their notice did not include this required wording. They merely stated that the keeper “may be liable” without including the statutory invitation as required. This is insufficient to comply with PoFA, and mere mention of liability without the formal invitation renders the notice non-compliant.
⚖️ Why This Matters:
As per Schedule 4, unless the notice fully complies with all required elements, the keeper cannot be held liable for the actions of the driver. By failing to include this key element, ParkMaven cannot lawfully pursue me — the keeper — for the charge, since the identity of the driver has not been established.
Their claim that they complied with the statutory requirements is false, and the burden is on them to prove otherwise. A vague or misleading reference to “liability” does not satisfy the specific language mandated by the law.
________________________________________
2. No Keeper Liability – Driver Not Identified
Because the PCN does not comply with PoFA 2012, ParkMaven cannot transfer liability to the keeper. I was not the driver and I am under no legal obligation to identify the driver. Therefore, the operator has no lawful basis to pursue me for this charge.
________________________________________
3. Vehicle Was Not Parked – Active Delivery/Unloading in Progress
The vehicle was engaged in legitimate Amazon parcel delivery, which constitutes a period of unloading/loading, not “parking.”
In Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E, HHJ Harris ruled that delivery activity is not parking. ParkMaven has not accounted for this in their system, signage, or PCN issuance, and have failed to consider legitimate use of the premises for delivery.
________________________________________
4. No Invitation or Instruction to Register for a Whitelist
In ParkMaven’s response, they state that my vehicle was “not on the site’s whitelist.” However, their signage does not mention:
•   The existence of such a list,
•   Any requirement to register, or
•   Any instructions on how to do so.
This is a critical failure in transparency. Without clear instruction, the motorist has no opportunity to comply, and thus no enforceable contract exists.


5. No Evidence of Landowner Authority
ParkMaven has not provided a contract with the landowner that:
•   Authorises them to issue charges,
•   Grants the legal right to pursue motorists, or
•   Covers the date and terms in question.
This lack of evidence undermines their legal standing and means the charge cannot be enforced.
________________________________________

6. Unfair and Disproportionate Charge – No Consideration of Circumstances
The driver was engaged in a lawful, essential delivery task under strict time constraints. No consideration was given to the real-world context or reasonableness of the charge.
This is against the spirit of fair trading under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and demonstrates a disproportionate penalty for a non-contractual technicality.
________________________________________
7. Inconsistent with Industry Standards – Failure to Match Group Nexus Signage
Contradictory Group Nexus signage at this location, specifically mentions Shop Stop, clear signage is provided for delivery drivers explaining:
•   How to register their vehicles,
•   Whitelist instructions, and
•   How to avoid charges.
•   Allows 20 minutes for delivery at Shop Stop
No such guidance is available on the signage provided by Parkmaven. This inconsistency shows that the current signage is below the expected standard and cannot form the basis of a valid or fair contract.
________________________________________
8. ICO Data Processing Concerns – No Legal Basis for DVLA Data Use
Since the PCN fails PoFA compliance and the signage does not form a valid contract, ParkMaven has no legitimate interest in processing or retaining the registered keeper’s data obtained from the DVLA.
This is a breach of the UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018, and a complaint has been logged with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
________________________________________
Conclusion
This Parking Charge Notice is unenforceable due to:
•   Statutory non-compliance,
•   No contract being formed,
•   No keeper liability, and
•   Unfair and misleading practices.
I respectfully request that this appeal be upheld and the charge cancelled in full.

Reply from Parkmaven re appeal
Advice please.

Site: Shop Stop Clapham Junction
Issue date: 29/04/2025
Thank you for your appeal against the above Parking Charge. You mentioned that you were not the driver at the time of
the Parking Charge.
As you are the registered keeper, you remain liable for this charge under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. In order to
transfer liability to the driver, we require more details.
Please reply to this email with the following:
(a) The full name and serviceable address of the driver.
We have now placed your parking charge on hold until 05/06/2025 to allow you time to respond. If we do not receive this
information by this date, we will have to reject your appeal. Kindly submit your documents to [support@parkmaven.com]
for faster correspondence.
Yours sincerely,
Appeals Department
ParkMaven Ltd