Free Traffic Legal Advice

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.

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