Court is not the most likely outcome. Whilst they will probably issue a claim, in due course, the odds of it actually ever reaching hearing are slim and even if it did, your case is strong.
Do not pay this. The POPLA decision is not binding on you. Which POPLA assessor came up with this tripe? It is not a secret and their names are in the public domain.
I would suggest a formal complaint to POPLA about this assessors utter lack of competence. It won't change the decision but it does establish a paper trail for formal complaints which can later be relied on as evidence of their failings.
There are five obvious failings by this assessor:
1. Misunderstanding of PoFA 9(2)(f)The assessor wrongly asserts:
"The timescales referred to in the PoFA paragraph are to transfer liability… and are not for making payment."
This is incorrect. PoFA 9(2)(f) expressly governs the 28-day period within which the Keeper is liable unless the driver is named. That period starts the day after the NtK is given, as per 9(2)(f):
"Warn the keeper that if… after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given…"
A statement on the front of the NtK demanding payment by a date calculated from the issue date, not the day after the date of deemed delivery, is not PoFA-compliant. This is not about operator preference or flexibility—PoFA compliance is strict. The assessor erred in law by implying the misleading payment deadline has no bearing on keeper liability.
2. Total Ignorance of PoFA 9(2)(e)(i)It was clearly explained that the NtK:
• Does not invite the Keeper to pay the charge.
• Merely demands that the driver pay and requests the Keeper to name them.
PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) requires an explicit invitation to the Keeper:
“State that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service and invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges.”
The assessor ignored this completely. There is no lawful basis for transferring liability if this required element is missing. POPLA failed to assess the core condition for keeper liability.
3. Dismissal of PPSCoP Breach as IrrelevantPPSCoP 8.1.2(e) was referenced, which says:
“The recipient can appeal within 28 days of receiving the parking charge.”
And its Note 2 clarifies:
“…presumed to have been delivered on the second working day…”
Again, the assessor missed the point: The NtK’s deadline shortens the Keeper’s rights under the PPSCoP, a breach of the operative Code. Their statement that operators “
may refer to payment dates” misses the central issue: the NtK actively contradicts the statutory wording, misleading the recipient.
POPLA’s own remit includes enforcing the current Code of Practice, and they failed to uphold this.
4. Failure to Require Landowner Contract With Sufficient ProofParkMaven’s evidence was challenged:
• Undated, unsigned, or post-dated signatures.
• Contradictory claims about confidentiality.
• Absence of confirmation that the signatory is the landowner or authorised agent.
The assessor ignored all this and instead relied on a generic “witness statement”, despite DVLA guidance and case law confirming that the contract must be current, valid, and sufficiently prove the operator’s legal standing.
Their logic that "
the signage would have been removed if the contract wasn’t in force" is a laughable assumption not based on evidence.
5. POPLA Breached its Own PrinciplesThe appeal stated:
"Under POPLA’s own appeal assessment principles, if an appellant raises a valid challenge and the operator does not respond to it, the appeal must be upheld."
That is a long-standing principle, repeated by assessors in countless past decisions. In this case:
• The operator did not address PoFA 9(2)(f)
• The operator did not rebut 9(2)(e)(i)
• The operator did not address the PPSCoP deadline breach
• The operator did not refute the BPA CoP error in their appeal response
The burden is on the operator to respond to every point. POPLA’s failure to apply this basic standard is a dereliction of duty.
Send the following complaint to POPLA:
Subject: Formal Complaint Regarding Failed Appeal – Verification Code [INSERT CODE] – Escalation Required
To whom it may concern,
This is a formal complaint regarding the decision issued by POPLA under verification code [INSERT CODE] for a Parking Charge Notice issued by ParkMaven. This complaint must be escalated to the most senior level of POPLA management. I also confirm that it is being forwarded to my Member of Parliament due to the systemic failings this decision exposes.
Let me be clear: I am not writing this complaint in the expectation that the decision will be overturned. I am fully aware that POPLA does not permit assessors to reverse an appeal decision, no matter how legally flawed it is. That is itself part of the problem and will be raised with the relevant government department and Parliament.
I expect this complaint to be logged, responded to in writing, and used to review the training and competence of the assessor involved, who has demonstrated a complete inability to apply basic statutory requirements or read the appeal they were tasked to assess.
1. Blatant misinterpretation of PoFA 2012 – Paragraph 9(2)(f)
My appeal detailed that ParkMaven's Notice to Keeper (NtK) contradicts the statutory wording of PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(f) by demanding payment "within 28 days of the date issued" – a full six days earlier than legally allowed. This is not a minor technicality. It is a material legal failure.
PoFA is clear: the 28-day period begins "with the day after that on which the notice is given." "Given" means delivered, and PoFA 9(6) deems it to be two working days after posting. The NtK in this case was issued on 24/12/2024, with deemed delivery on 30/12/2024. The front of the NtK misleadingly sets the deadline as 21/01/2025 instead of the correct 27/01/2025.
This is an outright breach of PoFA. The assessor waved it away with the astonishing claim that payment deadlines "are just for those who do not wish to appeal" – as if the statutory provisions are optional. This statement is legally indefensible and demonstrates a lack of basic understanding of how liability is created under Schedule 4.
2. Ignoring the absence of PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) wording
I highlighted that the NtK does not contain the required invitation for the keeper to pay the charge, as mandated by PoFA 9(2)(e)(i). Instead, the NtK only demands payment from the driver and asks the keeper to name the driver if not them.
PoFA requires an express invitation to the keeper to pay the charge. The assessor completely ignored this point, made no reference to paragraph 9(2)(e)(i), and failed to engage with the most basic requirement for keeper liability.
This is not an oversight. It is a gross failure of professional standards by someone apparently untrained or unwilling to read and apply the law they are tasked with assessing.
3. Dismissal of PPSCoP breach and misrepresentation of transitional arrangements
I explained in my appeal that the NtK breaches the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), which has been in force since October 2024. Section 8.1.2(e) makes it crystal clear:
"The recipient can appeal within 28 days of receiving the parking charge."
The word "receiving" is not open to interpretation. The accompanying note defines it clearly as two working days after posting. Despite this, the operator falsely shortened the deadline to 21/01/2025. This is a material misrepresentation of the keeper's rights and a direct breach of the Code.
The assessor showed either ignorance or laziness by brushing this aside and claiming the PPSCoP only applies to signage until 2026. That is completely wrong. The signage deadline relates only to physical compliance by operators, not to the immediate obligations concerning transparency, wording, and deadlines in written communications.
This failure to understand the Code and apply its provisions brings POPLA’s own credibility into question.
4. Failure to uphold POPLA’s own standards regarding operator rebuttals
In at least five distinct areas of my appeal, the operator failed to respond:
• No rebuttal of PoFA 9(2)(f) or 9(2)(e)(i) points
• No response to the PPSCoP breach
• No defence of the use of the defunct BPA Code of Practice in the rejection letter
• No evidence justifying the misleading keeper liability claim
•No explanation for the flawed and post-dated contract provided as landowner authority
POPLA has long held that if an operator does not rebut a specific appeal point, the appeal should be upheld. Yet in this case, the assessor simply pretended that none of these failures occurred. That is dishonest, unacceptable, and contrary to POPLA’s own published assessment standards.
5. Acceptance of dubious “contract” evidence
I challenged the validity of the landowner authority. ParkMaven submitted a document:
• Signed five months after the contract was supposedly in force
• With no signature by ParkMaven
• With no verification of the signatory’s position
• While simultaneously claiming the contract was “too confidential” to disclose (and then disclosing it anyway)
The assessor accepted this without comment, justification, or applying a basic evidential standard. This undermines the fairness of the process and renders it a tick-box exercise unworthy of public trust.
Request for POPLA Management Action
This complaint must be passed to POPLA senior management. I expect:
• A written response explaining what went wrong in this case
• An explanation of what additional training or disciplinary review the assessor will undergo
• A confirmation that these failures will be raised internally and used to prevent recurrence
This complaint is being escalated to my Member of Parliament, not because POPLA has any regulatory or statutory function (you don’t), but because the public is entitled to expect basic competence from bodies purporting to offer an independent appeal service. This appeal was handled with a level of carelessness and legal illiteracy that is unacceptable, and it is important that decision-makers at a national level are made aware of the standards being applied behind the curtain of POPLA's “independence”.
POPLA is a private contractor, funded by the BPA, with no legal authority, no accountability mechanism, and no appeals process once a decision is issued. That makes it all the more important that decisions are made accurately, transparently, and lawfully the first time—none of which occurred here.
This complaint is not about overturning the outcome. I know how your process works. It is being made for the record, and to require a formal written explanation of:
• Why key appeal points were ignored or dismissed without engagement
• What corrective action, training, or accountability will follow
•Confirmation that this complaint is being reviewed by senior management, not just closed out by a front-line team
A copy of this email has been retained and will be used to inform others, including the press and advocacy groups, who are increasingly concerned about the quality, independence, and legal competence of POPLA’s decision-making.
Sincerely,
[Your Full Name]
[Your PCN Reference Number]
POPLA Verification Code: [Insert Code]
Email: [Your Email]
Address: [Your Postal Address]
And make a complaint about this to your MP.
