Grounds for Appeal
1. Contradiction in Payment Deadlines Renders the NtK Non-Compliant with PoFA
2. Further Notice to Keeper (NtK) Non-Compliance
3. The Operator Has Not Established Driver Liability and Cannot Hold the Keeper Liable
4. Inadequate Signage – No Contract Formed with the Driver
5. No evidence of landholder authority
1. Contradiction in Payment Deadlines Renders the NtK Non-Compliant with PoFA
The Notice to Keeper (NtK) issued by ParkMaven contains a fundamental flaw that renders it non-compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), Schedule 4. This flaw relates to the specified 28-day period for payment or providing the driver’s details, as mandated by PoFA Paragraph 9(2)(f).
a. Contradiction Between the Front and Back of the NtK
The front of the NtK prominently states:
“Payment to be made within 28 days of the date issued.”
This instruction is legally incorrect under PoFA Schedule 4, which explicitly states that the 28-day period begins “from the day after the notice is given”. According to PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(6), the NtK is deemed to be “given” two working days after the date of posting, unless evidence shows otherwise.
By incorrectly starting the 28-day countdown from the issue date, the NtK shortens the time legally afforded to the recipient. This misleading information is compounded by the fact that the back of the NtK, which references PoFA, appears to follow the correct timeframe. This results in a contradiction between the front and back of the notice, creating confusion and uncertainty for the recipient.
b. PoFA Requires Absolute Clarity
Under PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9, the NtK must provide all mandatory information in a clear and unambiguous manner. Contradictions within the NtK regarding such a fundamental matter as the payment deadline fail to meet this standard.
The wording on the front of the NtK, being the most prominent and immediately visible to the recipient, is misleading and does not comply with PoFA. This failure is critical because the keeper is entitled to understand exactly how long they have to respond to the notice, either by paying or providing the driver’s details.
c. Legal and Practical Significance of This Contradiction
This issue is not a trivial technicality—it is a critical compliance failure with significant legal consequences:
• The front of the NtK, being the first and most prominent information presented to the recipient, creates a false impression of the deadline. A reasonable person would act based on the incorrect instruction, potentially cutting short their legal rights.
• By providing conflicting deadlines, the NtK fails to meet the transparency and accuracy requirements under PoFA.
• A PoFA-compliant NtK is a prerequisite for transferring liability to the registered keeper. If the NtK fails to meet the strict wording and procedural requirements of PoFA, the operator cannot pursue the registered keeper for the parking charge.
2. Further Notice to Keeper (NtK) Non-Compliance
Under Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), the Notice to Keeper (NtK) must include a specific invitation to the keeper to pay the charge. This requirement serves to ensure that the keeper understands their liability and has a clear course of action.
The operator cannot simply rely on the fact that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) is addressed to the Keeper to satisfy Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i) of Schedule 4 of PoFA. The law explicitly requires a clear and specific invitation for the keeper to either:
• Pay the parking charge, or
• Provide the name and address of the driver (if the keeper was not the driver).
This is not an "implied" requirement; it must be explicitly stated. Merely inferring that the keeper is invited to pay because the notice is addressed to them does not meet the strict wording requirements of PoFA.
PoFA compliance requires specific wording. The law’s intention is to make the responsibilities of the Keeper clear and unambiguous. Phrases like "you are invited to pay this parking charge" or "you are required to do X, Y, Z" are examples of wording that PoFA expects.
If the notice only says, for example, "the charge must be paid" or "payment is required" without directly inviting the keeper to pay, this is insufficient under PoFA. The wording must link the keeper directly to the payment obligation in an unambiguous way.
The operator cannot claim keeper liability under PoFA if they fail to meet the explicit requirements of 9(2)(e)(i). This is a valid appeal (and defence) point, as courts and independent adjudicators should not rely on implied obligations instead of explicit compliance with statutory requirements.
3. The Operator Has Not Established Driver Liability and Cannot Hold the Keeper Liable
Under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), the operator may only hold the registered keeper liable for an unpaid parking charge if they fully comply with all the requirements outlined in Paragraph 9. As demonstrated in Sections 1 and 2 above, the NtK issued by Parkmaven is non-compliant with PoFA in the following critical ways:
• It fails to correctly specify the statutory 28-day period for payment or the provision of the driver’s details, as required under Paragraph 9(2)(f).
• It fails to include the mandatory invitation for the keeper to pay the charge, as required under Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i).
a. Keeper Liability Cannot Be Established Due to PoFA FailuresSince the operator has not complied with PoFA Schedule 4, they cannot transfer liability to the registered keeper. In this case, liability rests solely with the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention. However:
• I, as the registered keeper, am under no legal obligation to identify the driver.
• Parkmaven has failed to provide any evidence to identify the driver.
b. The Operator Is Put to Strict ProofI put the operator to strict proof that:
• They have fully complied with all the requirements of PoFA Schedule 4, allowing them to transfer liability to the registered keeper.
• The person being pursued (the registered keeper) was, in fact, the driver of the vehicle on the date of the alleged contravention.
c. No Presumption of Driver LiabilityThere is no presumption in law that the registered keeper was the driver. In
VCS v. Edward [2023], it was ruled that the operator must provide sufficient evidence to prove that the registered keeper and the driver are the same person. Without such evidence, the registered keeper cannot be held liable for the charge.
In this case:
•The operator has presented no evidence to prove the identity of the driver.
•The NtK fails to comply with PoFA, meaning the operator cannot rely on the keeper liability provisions under the Act.
Without evidence of the driver’s identity and given the clear PoFA non-compliance, the operator has no lawful basis to pursue me, the registered keeper, for this charge.
4. Inadequate Signage – No Contract Formed with the Driver
The signage at the car park is inadequate, unclear, and fails to meet the standards set by the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). For a contract to be formed, the terms and conditions must be prominently displayed, legible, and unambiguous. This is not the case here.
a. Poor Visibility of TermsThe operator has not provided evidence that the signage is clear enough to form a contract with the driver. The signs in this car park are not sufficiently prominent or legible, particularly near the location where the vehicle was parked and along the route taken by the driver when they exited and re-entered the car park via the lower-level pedestrian exit.
b. Operator to Strict ProofI put the operator to strict proof of the following:
• The specific location of all signage within the car park, including maps and photos.
• Evidence that signs near where the vehicle was parked are clearly visible and legible.
• Confirmation that the driver passed these signs and had the opportunity to read and agree to the terms.
• Evidence that the signs comply with the BPA Code of Practice.
Without this evidence, it cannot be established that the driver was made aware of or agreed to any contractual terms.
5. No evidence of landholder authority
The operator is also put to strict proof, by means of contemporaneous and unredacted evidence, of a chain of authority flowing from the landholder of the "relevant land" to the operator. It is not accepted that the operator has adhered to the landholder's definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours of operation, etc. and any instructions to cancel charges due to complaints. There is no evidence that the freeholder authorises this operator to issue parking charges or what the land enforcement boundary and start/expiry dates are, nor whether this operator has standing to enforce such charges in their own name rather than a bare licence to act as an agent ‘on behalf of’ the landowner.
The operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice. As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the “relevant land” then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only). Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules.
A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement. Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply.
Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and, of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).
Paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:
• 7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.
• 7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:
(a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined
(b) any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation
(c) any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement
(d) who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs
(e) the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the Parking Charge Notice issued by Parkmaven is unenforceable:
• The NtK fails to comply with the strict requirements of PoFA, particularly Paragraphs 9(2)(e) and 9(2)(f), meaning liability cannot be transferred to me as the registered keeper.
• The signage in the car park is inadequate and does not form a valid contract with the driver.
• The operator has not demonstrated that they have the authority from the landowner to issue and enforce PCNs.
I therefore request that POPLA upholds this appeal and instructs ParkMaven to cancel the Parking Charge Notice
