Free Traffic Legal Advice

The operator has completely failed to address the first point raised in my POPLA appeal regarding the contradiction in payment deadlines within the NtK. This is a fundamental issue, as the inconsistency highlights a failure to comply with PoFA.

The front of the NtK states the payment deadline is 28 days from the issue date, setting it to 21/01/2025. However, PoFA 9(2)(f) requires the 28-day period to begin from the day after the notice is given, which in this case would be 30/12/2024. The correct deadline is therefore 27/01/2025. The back of the NtK appears to follow the correct timeframe, creating a direct contradiction within the document.

This contradiction is misleading and legally significant. It can confuse the recipient and potentially shorten their legal rights under PoFA. PoFA requires clarity in all mandatory information provided in the NtK, and the operator’s failure to provide this undermines their claim.

The operator has not addressed this issue in their evidence pack. If they believed their NtK was compliant, they would have rebutted this argument and justified the wording. Their silence on this point indicates they have no valid defense. POPLA should treat their failure to engage with this issue as a concession that their NtK does not comply with PoFA, and that keeper liability cannot be enforced.

The operator has also failed to respond to the second key point raised in my POPLA appeal regarding the failure of their NtK to comply with PoFA, specifically the lack of a clear invitation to the keeper to pay, as required under PoFA 9(2)(e)(i).

PoFA requires that a NtK must clearly and explicitly invite the keeper to either pay the charge or provide the name and address of the driver. This is a legal requirement, not an optional inclusion. The operator cannot rely on implied obligation—the wording must be clear and unambiguous.

ParkMaven’s NtK states that the driver is required to pay the charge and tells the keeper to provide the driver’s details if they were not the driver. However, there is no legal obligation on the keeper to identify the driver.

PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) specifically requires the NtK to invite the keeper to pay the charge. It does not attach any conditions to that invitation, such as stating that the keeper must have been the driver. However, this NtK only explains what happens if the keeper was not the driver, without a direct invitation for the keeper to pay. This omission makes the NtK non-compliant with PoFA, meaning the operator cannot transfer liability to the keeper.

My appeal pointed out that ParkMaven’s NtK fails to include this required invitation. Rather than addressing this clear legal failure, the operator has entirely ignored the issue in their evidence pack. If ParkMaven believed their NtK was compliant, they would have provided direct evidence that their notice contains the required wording. Their silence on this point confirms that their NtK does not comply with PoFA.

The burden of proof lies with the operator to demonstrate that they have met all the necessary conditions to hold the keeper liable under PoFA. PoFA does not offer a selection of requirements from which an operator may pick and choose; it is a strict statutory framework that demands full compliance with every requirement set out in the Act. Partial compliance does not satisfy PoFA, and as a result, the keeper cannot be held liable.

The operator was required to provide strict proof that their NtK fully complies with all the requirements of PoFA, allowing them to lawfully transfer liability to the registered keeper. As already demonstrated, their NtK fails to meet the statutory requirements in several key areas. It does not correctly specify the statutory 28-day period for payment, as required under Paragraph 9(2)(f), and it also fails to include the mandatory invitation for the keeper to pay the charge, as required under Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i). Since full compliance with PoFA is an absolute requirement for transferring liability, these failures render the NtK non-compliant, and liability cannot pass to the keeper.

Furthermore, if the operator wished to hold the registered keeper liable, they were required to provide strict proof that the person they are pursuing was, in fact, the driver on the date of the alleged contravention. The law does not allow inference that the registered keeper was the driver, and the burden rests entirely on the operator to provide evidence proving this. In VCS v Edward [2023], the court ruled that an operator must provide sufficient evidence to prove that the registered keeper and the driver are the same person. The operator has failed to provide any such evidence in their response pack.

The operator’s failure to rebut the specific PoFA non-compliance issues raised in my appeal, coupled with their failure to provide strict proof of the driver’s identity, means they have no lawful basis to pursue me, the keeper, for this charge. The absence of any meaningful response to these fundamental legal failures should be taken as a concession that their case is without merit. The appeal must be upheld, and the PCN must be cancelled.

The operator has completely failed to address Point 4 of my appeal, which highlights their clear breach of the PPSCoP. Instead of responding to this fundamental issue, they have remained silent, failing to justify or explain their non-compliance.

The NtK misleads by instructing to pay or appeal by 21/01/2025. However, under the PPSCoP, specifically Section 8.1.2(e) and Note 2, the correct appeal deadline is 27/01/2025, which is 28 days from the deemed receipt date of 30/12/2024. The PPSCoP makes it clear that a NtK sent by post is presumed to be delivered on the second working day after posting unless proven otherwise. By setting an incorrect deadline, the operator misrepresents the keeper’s rights and misleads them into believing they have less time to appeal than they actually do.

The operator’s failure to respond to this point means they implicitly accept that their NtK contains misleading information. They have not provided any explanation or justification for their failure to comply with the PPSCoP, nor have they attempted to correct the misrepresentation. Their silence on this matter should be taken as an admission that their demand was inaccurate and misleading.

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. The burden of proof lies with the operator to demonstrate compliance with the CoP and fairness in their communications. Their failure to do so means they have not discharged that burden, and the appeal should be allowed.

As this appeal point remains uncontested, the misleading NtK alone is sufficient to invalidate the PCN.

The operator has also failed to respond to my 5th appeal point regarding their misleading appeal rejection, which incorrectly referenced the outdated BPA CoP instead of the PPSCoP, which has been in force since October 2024. Rather than addressing this issue, they have remained silent, failing to justify their use of obsolete guidance.

The burden of proof is on the operator to demonstrate compliance with the relevant regulations. Their failure to respond suggests that they accept that their appeal rejection was based on an outdated and irrelevant CoP. The reference to §23.12 of the BPA CoP has no bearing on this case because the PPSCoP now governs all private parking operators. ParkMaven has not explained why they relied on an obsolete document rather than the correct and current PPSCoP.

The operator also failed to justify their misleading statement regarding Keeper liability. Their appeal rejection states that "if the keeper refuses to name the driver, we reserve the right to request payment from the keeper of the vehicle." This statement is incorrect and misleading because their NtK does not comply with PoFA, meaning they cannot transfer liability to the Keeper. The operator has provided no explanation or justification for making this false claim.

POPLA’s assessment must be based on the evidence presented. Since the operator has not refuted this key point, it remains unchallenged and uncontested. ParkMaven’s failure to adhere to the correct CoP and their misrepresentation of liability should be grounds to uphold this appeal. Given that this issue was raised in my appeal and ignored by the operator, I request that POPLA rule in my favour due to the operator’s failure to provide a legally compliant rejection and their misleading statements regarding Keeper liability.

I also challenged the operator to provide strict proof of landowner authority by means of a contemporaneous, unredacted contract showing their right to issue and enforce parking charges on the land in their own name. The operator has failed to do so, instead submitting contradictory submissions that raise serious concerns about the authenticity of their evidence.

The operator submitted an unsigned and undated witness statement, claiming that the Enforcement Agreement is confidential and "cannot be made public." However, they have provided the actual Enforcement Agreement, despite stating it could not be disclosed. This inconsistency suggests the operator may be fabricating or manipulating documents in an attempt to mislead the POPLA assessor.

The document provided as the Enforcement Agreement is not signed by the operator. The landowner or agent has only electronically signed it, with no mention of their position to verify their authority. The agreement allegedly started on 04/09/2023 and lasts for 4 years, yet the only signature is dated 27/02/2024—five months after the agreement allegedly came into force. This raises doubts about whether this agreement existed before the date of the signature. A properly executed contract would not contain such flaws, and without verified signatories, this document has no evidential value.