Author Topic: Parkmaven pcn - Brighton - no ticket (Read 865 times)

mphall · « **on:** January 14, 2025, 09:32:49 am »

Hello

I, as registered keeper, received the attached PCN from parkmaven in relation to unpaid parking ticket at Brighton rugby club on the alleged date of 8 Dec. PCN was issued 16th Dec. The parking at the rugby club must have only recently changed from free parking to ticketed parking as last season, parking was free.

The driver was unaware of any change in parking rules. There were no obvious signs at the entrance nor at the parking area. I understand they have not returned to check what if any signage is in place. Is it worth doing this, noting that the driver understands others did buy tickets on that day so there must have been some notices somewhere.

The PCN was issued with no discount/early bird rate although I note that this isn't a legal requirement, more of a teaser.

As registered keeper, I think my only chance of appealing successfully against it is where it has been served incorrectly. Are there any grounds of appeal? The driver is unknown.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

b789 · « **Reply #1 on:** January 14, 2025, 01:10:17 pm »

Welcome. That is an interesting Notice to Keeper (NtK) from Parkmaven:

1. Confusing and Nonsensical Deadline:

• The NtK states that “PAYMENT TO BE MADE WITHIN 0 DAYS OF THE DATE ISSUED: BY 16/12/2024”.

• This is nonsensical and creates confusion for the recipient. It is impossible to comply with a deadline of "0 days," and the date provided (16/12/2024) is the same as the date of issue.

• Problem: The PoFA requires that the NtK provides clear, unambiguous deadlines for payment and liability transfer, which this fails to do.

2. Contradictory Discount Period:

• The NtK further states that "This parking charge is discounted to £60 if paid within 0 days of the date issued by 16/12/2024."

• Again, this makes no sense. A discount period cannot be "0 days", and providing the same date as both the issue date and payment deadline causes confusion. This should be viewed as misleading and unclear under consumer protection laws.

• Problem: The PoFA requires that the NtK clearly communicates the timeframes for payment and any applicable discounts. Confusing or contradictory timeframes may invalidate the notice.

Relevant Legal Standards:

1. Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012 requires that the NtK clearly specify the period within which payment is due.

• The confusing "0 days" statement is a failure to provide a clear payment period, breaching the requirement for clarity under PoFA.

2. Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008:

• Misleading or contradictory payment instructions may also fall foul of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, which prohibit businesses from providing information that could cause the consumer to make a transactional decision they would not otherwise have made.

Non-Compliant Wording under Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i):

• PoFA requires specific wording inviting the keeper to either pay the charge or provide the driver's details. The NtK fails to include this mandatory invitation in the precise form required.

You can argue that the contradictory payment instructions invalidate the NtK for the following reasons:

1. The NtK fails to comply with PoFA Schedule 4 due to unclear and nonsensical deadlines for payment and liability transfer.

2. The NtK contains contradictory and misleading information regarding the payment deadline and discount period, which may also be a breach of consumer protection law.

3. The NtK does not invite the Keeper to pay the charge, contrary to the requirements of PoFA 9(2)(e)(i).

As there is no legal obligation on the Keeper to identify the driver to Parkmaven, an unregulated private parking company, they should decline to do so and only appeal as the Keeper. Parkmaven have no idea who the driver is unless the Keeper blabs it to them, inadvertently or otherwise.

As Parkmave are too thick and greedy to accept any appeal, no matter how logical, they will reject but the Keeper will get a POPLA code and can then try the secondary appeal route. I suggest the following worded appeal to Parkmaven by the Keeper:

Quote

I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

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. Parkmaven 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. Parkmaven have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

mphall · « **Reply #2 on:** January 22, 2025, 07:15:54 pm »

Thank you very much. I had an initial response reiterating the penalty and rejection of the appeal. The following day I received a second response saying it was cancelled and apologies for the inconvenience. No too organised! Thank you so much!

Free Traffic Legal Advice

Author Topic: Parkmaven pcn - Brighton - no ticket (Read 865 times)

mphall

Parkmaven pcn - Brighton - no ticket

b789

Re: Parkmaven pcn - Brighton - no ticket

mphall

Re: Parkmaven pcn - Brighton - no ticket