Free Traffic Legal Advice

    Hello and happy new year to all,

I've received an NtK dated 24 Dec 2024 (see below) for failing to notice signs and pay at an ASDA. The driver was willing to pay the "discounted" £60 but, since the 14 days had just elapsed, I opted to appeal.

Compared to other NtKs seen on this forum, Parkmaven have added a PoFA paragraph on page 2 probably to address shortcomings of their previous NtKs.I was advised on another thread parkmaven-pcn-st-nicholas-tolentino-bristol-received-3-months-later that this additional paragraph did not change the fact that Parkmaven's NtKs are not fully PoFA compliant.

So I sent out on 13 Jan what seems to be the typical appeal:
"As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. Smart Parking has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. Smart Parking have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN."

Parkmaven acknowledged and I have received their reply this morning. It seems to be a standard rejection letter which ignores the grounds I have laid out:

"Dear Mr xxxx,
Re: Parking Charge Notice Number 2xxxxx (Vehicle: xxxxx)
Site: The Centre Feltham Surface
Issue date: 24/12/2024
POPLA Code: 57xxxxxxxx
Total amount due: (£60.00 until 29/01/2025)
(£100.00 until 12/02/2025)

Thank you for your appeal against the above Parking Charge Notice (PCN). We have carefully considered your
appeal; however, on this occasion, the appeal has been declined.

As you have failed to provide details of who was driving vehicle xxxxx at the time of the contravention, we will continue to pursue you for the outstanding parking charge as per Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Please note that PoFA is applicable in England and Wales so if the keeper refuses to name the driver, we reserve the right to request payment from the keeper of the vehicle.

As per section 23.12 of The BPA Code of Practice, the only information that is required of us when rejecting an appeal is to give clear direction on how to appeal to POPLA and to allow a reasonable amount of time for the motorist to pay.

Failure to notice parking signs clearly displayed both at the entrance and throughout the car park does not
authorise your vehicle to park.

As per the signage which is clearly displayed throughout the car park: By parking within the car park, you are
agreeing to abide by the terms and conditions of the Parking Contract. Failing to pay, or otherwise validate your vehicle for the full duration of your stay is therefore failing to comply with the Parking Contract, and as such means you accept liability to pay the fee for unauthorised parking.

You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure and therefore you now have two options; you can
either pay or appeal to POPLA - you cannot do both.

You can pay the total amount due as shown above via the following website:
       https://parkmaven.ec6pay.com

Or, you can appeal to an Independent Appeals Service, POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals) using the POPLA Reference code provided above.

Please note, should you decide to appeal to POPLA and your appeal is subsequently rejected, or you decide to
withdraw your appeal, the option to pay a discounted amount will no longer be available and the full amount of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) will become due.

If you decide to appeal to POPLA, you will need to visit their website, where further details of how to appeal (either online or by downloading the relevant forms) can be found. If you are unable to access their website, please call us for further information on how to obtain the forms. Please ensure that your POPLA reference number as noted above is quoted on all correspondence to POPLA.

POPLA WEBSITE:
www.popla.co.uk

You have 28 days from the date of this letter to submit an appeal to POPLA; if you appeal to POPLA we will
suspend recovery activity on the PCN and the charge will not increase past the full amount until the appeal
has been determined.

By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services provides an alternative dispute resolution
service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their
alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as
explained above.

OMBUDSMAN WEBSITE:
www.ombudsman-services.org

If you do not make payment or submit an appeal to POPLA within the relevant timeframe, the outstanding PCN
may be passed to our appointed debt collection agency for further action. All costs associated with this process will
be added to the outstanding amount.

Yours sincerely,
Appeals Department
ParkMaven Ltd"

Did I make a mistake ?
What can I do at this stage ?

[ Guests cannot view attachments ] [ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

            Hello,

OMG, I DID make a cut and paste mistake and left SmartParking ! That may explain the rejection although I have a feeling that the letter I received was almost automatic.

I'm not sure how POPLA appeals work but I suppose I need to repeat what you've just wonderfully explained about the 28 day mistake.

PS: I suppose eventually they'll get their NtKs right. What happens then ?

Hello,

Finally, I took the time to put together a draft for my POPLA appeal:

"I received a Notice to Keeper from Parkmaven who allege that my car registered xxxxx was parked without a valid parking session on 17 Dec 2024 at “The Centre Feltham Surface”, a site operated by Parkmaven.

The front of the Notice to Keeper prominently states:
             “PAYMENT TO BE MADE WITHIN 28 DAYS OF THE DATE ISSUED”.

This instruction contradicts the statutory requirement under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(f), which mandates that the keeper be informed that they have 28 days from the day after the notice is deemed to be given (served) to either pay the charge or provide the driver's details.

According to PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(6), a Notice to Keeper is deemed to be served two working days after posting, meaning the 28-day period must start after this deemed service date.

The instruction on the front of the Notice to Keeper, however, misleadingly demands payment within 28 days of the issue date, which shortens the legal timeframe available to the keeper.

As established in Excel Parking v. Smith [2017] and Brennan v. Premier Parking Logistics [2023], a Notice to Keeper must strictly comply with the wording and timeframes set out in PoFA. Any deviation from these requirements, particularly where it misleads the recipient, renders the notice non-compliant.

Therefore, Parkmaven cannot rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, paragraph 4 to transfer liability to me as the keeper of the vehicle."

Suggestions welcome before I send this to POPLA. Thanks in advance

OK. Thanks I didn't know they needed to be spoonfed the obvious, but I will.
So there's an issue with PPSCoP as well. What paragraph (couldn't find it) ? Should I even mention it ?

Updated draft:

"I’ve received a Notice to Keeper issued on 24/12/2024 by Parkmaven who allege that my car registered xxxxxx was parked without a valid parking session on 17/12/2024 at “The Centre Feltham Surface”, a site operated by Parkmaven.

The front of the Notice to Keeper prominently states:

        “PAYMENT TO BE MADE WITHIN 28 DAYS OF THE DATE ISSUED: BY 21/01/2025”.

This instruction contradicts the statutory requirement under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(f), which mandates that the keeper be informed that they have 28 days from the day after the notice is deemed to be given (served) to either pay the charge or provide the driver's details. According to PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(6), a Notice to Keeper is deemed to be served two working days after posting, meaning the 28-day period must start after this deemed service date.

The instruction on the front of the Notice to Keeper, however, misleadingly demands payment within 28 days of the issue date, which shortens the legal timeframe available to the keeper.

To prove this, we need to follow the legislation step-by-step:
the Notice to Keeper was issued on Tuesday 24/12/2024
Wednesday 25/12/2024 was a bank holiday (Christmas)
Thursday 26/12/2024 was a bank holiday (Boxing day)
Saturday, 28/12/2024 and Sunday, 29/12/2024 were a weekend (not working days)
Therefore, the next working day after the Notice to Keeper was issued was Friday, 27/12/2024 (counting as Day 1) and the following working day (Day 2) was Monday, 30/12/2024.

So, according to PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(6) the Notice to Keeper is deemed to have been given (served) on Monday, 30th December 2024.

The 28-day period to appeal or pay started the day after the notice is deemed to have been given. So, the 28-day period began on Tuesday, 31st December 2024. The deadline for Appeal or Payment was at the end of 28 days counting from 31st December 2024.

So the final day of the period was Monday, 27th January 2025 inclusive, not Tuesday 21st January as stated on the Notice to Keeper.

As established in Excel Parking v. Smith [2017] and Brennan v. Premier Parking Logistics [2023], a Notice to Keeper must strictly comply with the wording and timeframes set out in PoFA. Any deviation from these requirements, particularly where it misleads the recipient, renders the notice non-compliant.

Therefore, Parkmaven cannot rely on the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, paragraph 4 to transfer liability to me as the keeper of the vehicle.
"

Are you tempted to pay a speculative invoice from an unregulated company just because it offers a 40% discount? Why?

If a private company just sends you an invoice for anything, do you just pay it because it offers a discount?

It is known as the "mugs discount" because they expect most recipients to be "mugs" who are swayed by the discount rather than the reason they received a speculative invoice in the first place. A bit like the market seller who offers you something and then entrances you with how much of bargain you are getting as they reduce the original amount with a one off bargain discount.

Ignore the mugs discount.

Here is format for a POPLA appeal you can use:

APPELLANT: [Your Name]
PARKING OPERATOR: ParkMaven
POPLA VERIFICATION CODE: [Your Code]
PCN NUMBER: [Your PCN Number]

GROUNDS OF 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. The NtK Contains Misleading Information, Contradicting the PPSCoP (Effective Since October 2024)
5. ParkMaven’s Appeal Rejection References a Defunct BPA Code of Practice
6. Inadequate Signage – No Contract Formed with the Driver
7. 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:

"PARKING CHARGE NOTICE AMOUNT: £100 PAYMENT TO BE MADE WITHIN 28 DAYS OF THE DATE ISSUED: BY 21/01/2025."

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. "Given" has the same meaning as "received" by or "delivered" to the Keeper.

The bold and most prominent wording on the front of the NtK is misleading and non-compliant with PoFA because the law requires the 28-day period to be calculated from when the notice is deemed given (received/delivered), not from the issue date.

PoFA Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(f) clearly states:

"Warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given"

Since the NtK was issued on Tuesday 24th December 2024, the actual date it is deemed to have been given (i.e., received/delivered) is:

Deemed delivery is Monday, 30th December 2024

The 28-day period must start from Tuesday, 31st December 2024, ending on Monday, 27th January 2025

By incorrectly starting the 28-day countdown from the issue date, Tuesday 24th December 2024, 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.

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 Failures

Since the operator has not complied with PoFA Schedule 4, they cannot transfer liability to the registered keeper.

b. The Operator Is Put to Strict Proof

I 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 Liability

There 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.

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. The NtK Contains Misleading Information, Contradicting the PPSCoP (Effective Since October 2024)

In addition to non-compliance with PoFA, ParkMaven’s NtK fails to comply with the new BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), which replaced the BPA Code of Practice in October 2024.

Section 8.1.2(e) of the PPSCoP specifically states:

"The recipient can appeal within 28 days of receiving the parking charge."

Furthermore, the PPSCoP clarifies in Note 2:

"A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered on the second working day after the day on which it is posted; and for this purpose, ‘working day’ means any day other than a Saturday, Sunday, or a public holiday in England and Wales."

Since the NtK was issued on Tuesday 24th December 2024, the actual 28-day appeal period must start from the deemed delivery date of Monday 30th December 2024.

However, ParkMaven’s incorrect instruction to pay or appeal by Tuesday 21st January 2025 directly contradicts the PPSCoP and misleads the Keeper into believing that they have fewer days than they are legally entitled to.

This is a clear breach of the PPSCoP, and POPLA must uphold this appeal.

5. ParkMaven’s Appeal Rejection References a Defunct BPA Code of Practice

In their appeal rejection, ParkMaven erroneously quoted Section 23.12 of the BPA Code of Practice, which is no longer in force. The relevant paragraph states:

"As per section 23.12 of The BPA Code of Practice, the only information that is required of us when rejecting an appeal is to give clear direction on how to appeal to POPLA and to allow a reasonable amount of time for the motorist to pay."

However, the BPA Code of Practice was superseded by the PPSCoP in October 2024. Therefore, any reference to it is irrelevant.

ParkMaven’s rejection also falsely asserts:

"If the keeper refuses to name the driver, we reserve the right to request payment from the keeper of the vehicle."

This statement is misleading because ParkMaven’s own NtK fails to comply with PoFA. Since Keeper liability does not apply, they have no legal basis to demand payment from the Keeper.

6. 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.

The 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.

I 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 PPSCoP.

Without this evidence, it cannot be established that the driver was made aware of or agreed to any contractual terms.

7. 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 also 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.

For the reasons stated above, the Parking Charge Notice issued by Parkmaven is unenforceable

Don't overthink it at this stage. Let the POPLA assessor do their job. At some point, ParkMaven will submit an operators response/evidence pack which you will receive a copy of. The that is received, you can see whether they have rebutted your points.

They have to successfully rebut ALL the points. You only need to win on one of them. In their response pack, you will be able to see whether they have provided a valid response and you can then submit your own response, highlighting to the POPLA assessor where they have erred or failed to rebut your points.

Patience. POPLA are overloaded and the whole process can take several months.