3. Parkmaven 17&Central Walthamstow - Unfair PCN After Machine Error – Proof of Payment Ignored
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic: Parkmaven 17&Central Walthamstow - Unfair PCN After Machine Error – Proof of Payment Ignored  (Read 3416 times)

0 Members and 482 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Parkmaven 17&Central Walthamstow - Unfair PCN After Machine Error – Proof of Payment Ignored
« Reply #15 on: »
So they still will not answer the elephant in the room question, namely; what VRM was actually registered against my payment?

Lead POPLA by the nose; point out that the machine will not allow payment if no VRM is registered - hence why the answer to your question is so important. Point out that you have challenged PM on this same point several times but they refuse to provide you with the details of the VRM recorded against your payment. This is deliberate behaviour on the part of PM because they know that there was a payment error on their machine which they are now making you responsible for.

It is not the client's role to mitigate against failure of the firm's payment machine and any term or condition which suggests this is unlawful.
Logged
Like Like x 1 View List
Re: Parkmaven 17&Central Walthamstow - Unfair PCN After Machine Error – Proof of Payment Ignored
« Reply #16 on: »
You can copy and paste this response to the operators evidence in their webform:

Quote
POPLA COMMENTS (KEEPER)

1. Payment WAS made. Operator has NOT provided the required PPSCoP §9.2 audit logs.

The operator states there is “no evidence of payment”. This is misleading. Bank evidence shows that a payment to ParkMaven was processed at approximately 14:19 on 14/08/2025. PPSCoP §9.2 requires operators to maintain complete and accurate payment and VRM records and to be able to produce them for audit. The operator has NOT supplied:
- authorisation code/ARN
- masked PAN
- payment gateway logs
- timestamped success/error codes
- raw VRM input
- VRM–to–payment linkage tables
- orphan-payment reports

Without these, the operator has not demonstrated that the 14:19 payment was NOT received, or that it did not relate to this vehicle. They have simply asserted it.

2. Operator has NOT shown the VRM that WAS linked to the 14:19 payment.

The operator claims no payment was found for VRM E20OMG but completely ignores the key question:

Which VRM WAS associated with the payment they processed at 14:19?

PPSCoP §§7.2, 7.3 and 9.2 require the operator to reconcile payments. The operator has not produced their end-of-day payment records to show where that payment went. They have not shown that the payment belongs to any other VRM.

This failure alone means they cannot evidence a contravention under PPSCoP §10.2.

3. Machine/system unreliability admitted by operator – direct PPSCoP breach.

In previous correspondence, ParkMaven expressly admitted:

“The machine will accept any VRM entered, whether correct or incorrect, without alerting the user.”

This is a direct breach of PPSCoP §§7.2 and 7.3 which require accurate payment processing and reliable VRM recording. A system designed to silently accept incorrect VRMs cannot be relied upon to prove non-payment.

POPLA cannot assume the system recorded the VRM correctly when the operator openly admits that the system is designed NOT to validate VRMs.

4. Operator has not produced evidence of correct system functioning on the material date.

PPSCoP §7.3 requires operators to keep equipment in good working order and ensure that records are accurate. No evidence has been produced to show:
- terminal health checks
- maintenance logs
- error reports
- software validation
- reconciliations for 14/08/2025

The operator merely asserts that the “payment facilities were operational”. Assertion is not evidence.
NTK is NOT PoFA-compliant – no keeper liability.

5. The operator asserts PoFA compliance but the NTK fails Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(e)(i), which requires the NTK to “invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges”.

The NTK demands payment from “the driver” and contains no invitation to “the keeper” to pay.

PoFA 9(2) is binary: “The notice MUST—(a)…(b)…(c)…(e)…”. If even one limb is missing, the notice is NOT a PoFA notice. Partial or substantial compliance does not exist.

The operator therefore cannot transfer liability to the keeper. As the driver is not identified, the keeper is not liable.

6. Operator’s contract is NOT landowner authority as required by PPSCoP §14.

The operator has not produced a contract that meets mandatory requirements under PPSCoP §14.1(a)–(j): identity of landowner, boundary map, any applicable byelaws, scope, duration, detailed terms, exemptions, responsibility for planning consent, and the operator’s obligations under the Code.

Any document that omits these elements fails §14 and cannot authorise enforcement.

The operator’s “Enforcement Agreement” is therefore irrelevant unless it meets §14.1 in full. It does not.

7. Operator’s “payment logs” do NOT contain the mandatory PPSCoP data.

The so-called “payment system logs” provided are incomplete and do not satisfy §9.2. They do not contain:
- VRM inputs
- card authorisation codes
- time-sequenced transaction data
- orphan payment listings

Without that evidence, the operator cannot demonstrate that the 14:19 payment does not relate to this session.

8. Signage photographs are irrelevant if payment was made.

Whether signage is “clear” is irrelevant where the tariff was paid and the operator’s own system mishandled the VRM or reconciliation. PPSCoP §10.2 requires evidence of a breach. There is none.

9. Operator incorrectly claims “no evidence of payment was provided”.

Bank evidence of a card transaction to ParkMaven for the exact date/time has already been provided and is undisputed. The operator’s refusal to reconcile their logs breaches PPSCoP §§7.2, 7.3 and 9.2.

10. Burden of proof is on the operator – they have not discharged it.

POPLA must assess whether the operator has proven a contravention. They have not:
- no VRM linkage evidence
- no orphan-payment reconciliation
- no system-integrity records
- no valid NTK under PoFA
- no compliant landowner contract

The operator’s evidence is assertion, not proof.
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Like Like x 1 Agree Agree x 1 View List
Re: Parkmaven 17&Central Walthamstow - Unfair PCN After Machine Error – Proof of Payment Ignored
« Reply #17 on: »
Quote
POPLA assessment and decision
13/01/2026

Verification Code
5752755356

Decision
Successful
Assessor Name
Heidi Brown
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the motorist failed to make a valid payment.

Assessor summary of your case
- The appellant states the PCN fails to meet the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. - The appellant states a card payment was made at the machine, the funds were taken even though an error displayed. They state no receipt was provided but on the balance of probability, the payment was made. The appellant requests evidence of the payment logs. They state the operator confirms that the system will accept any VRM but this involves risk as a contravention can occur if the system does not check the VRM. - The appellant requests evidence of landowner authorisation. Upon reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has reiterated their grounds. The appellant provided evidence of a payment.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
I am allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: When assessing an appeal, the burden of proof begins with the operator to evidence that the PCN has been issued correctly. - The appellant states a card payment was made at the machine, the funds were taken even though an error displayed. They state no receipt was provided but on the balance of probability, the payment was made. The appellant requests evidence of the payment logs. They state the operator confirms that the system will accept any VRM but this involves risk as a contravention can occur if the system does not check the VRM. Although I acknowledge the operator has provided a transaction record to show no payment against the vehicle registration in question, it has failed to provide evidence to show other payments were made against full and correct registration on this date. Due to this, I am unable to conclude that the fault did not lie with the payment system and I am not satisfied that the operator has sufficiently rebutted the appellant’s grounds. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal. I note the appellant has raised grounds of appeal and evidence, however I have not considered these, as they do not have any bearing on my decision.

A big, big thank you to b789 & InterCity125 :)
Logged
Winner Winner x 2 View List
Re: Parkmaven 17&Central Walthamstow - Unfair PCN After Machine Error – Proof of Payment Ignored
« Reply #18 on: »
Good result, well done!

It's good (if somewhat surprising) to see the assessor correctly applying the burden of proof.
Logged
Like Like x 1 View List
Re: Parkmaven 17&Central Walthamstow - Unfair PCN After Machine Error – Proof of Payment Ignored
« Reply #19 on: »
It looks like the parking operator maintained their 'strategy' of not revealing the VRM attached to the OP's payment even when it was at POPLA.

This will almost certainly be because no VRM was recorded against the payment (rather than a short or incorrect VRM).

An admission that no VRM was recorded would basically acknowledge a machine fault so we basically forced them into excluding that evidence.

The POPLA Assessor must have immediately realised that especially given the number of requests which the OP made for that specific info.



Well done the OP.
Logged
Like Like x 1 View List
Pages: 1 [2]
« previous next »
  3. Parkmaven 17&Central Walthamstow - Unfair PCN After Machine Error – Proof of Payment Ignored