3. Parkmaven NTK
« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Parkmaven NTK  (Read 460 times)

0 Members and 80 Guests are viewing this topic.

Parkmaven NTK
« on: »
Morning all, new here.

Received the following letter few days ago as registered keeper.
Was bank holiday.
There are two enterances to this carpark and the one the driver entered from has no signage.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/hvS5zsm9Z4hii9bc7?g_st=ac

The main entrance has signage as per photo's.

Apparently it was only 2 hours free and driver overstayed.

Anything can be done to appeal it? 

Any assitance is much appreciated.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
« Last Edit: May 11, 2025, 08:00:13 am by G33 »
Logged

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook

Re: Parkmaven NTK
« Reply #1 on: »
Quote
There are two enterances to this carpark and the one the driver entered from has no signage.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/hvS5zsm9Z4hii9bc7?g_st=ac
 
Those Google Street View images are 2 years old, and appear to have been taken before the green on site signs you have shown us were installed.

As of ten months ago there would appear to be some signage on the approach from that side:


Link

There's a fair chance that entrance signage is insufficient, but that's a different argument to saying there's no entrance signage at all. If one of the points you're going to rely on to defend the matter is poor entrance signage, it would be sensible to get your own photos.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2025, 12:00:13 pm by DWMB2 »
Logged
Re: Parkmaven NTK
« Reply #2 on: »
Thank you for your response. At present getting own signage will be difficult.

Maybe best i settle the penalty charge before it increases to full price.

Thanks

Logged
Re: Parkmaven NTK
« Reply #3 on: »
That NtK is not PoFA compliant with paragraphs 9(2)(a) or 9(2)(e)(i). Only the driver can be liable and as long as the Keeper does not blab that information, there would be nothing they could do to hold the Keeper liable.

Also, the NtK is not compliant with the PPSCoP section 8.1.2(e).

Whilst the Keeper may be aware of the location, the location of the relevant land is not sufficiently identified. By providing a GSV link to the location, you are doing the operators dirty work for them.

A search on Google Maps does not reveal any single location known as “Stourbridge Estate”.

What “penalty” charge? £100 to you for every occurrence of the word “penalty” or “fine” you can show us in that speculative invoice.

The gullible tree is heavy with low hanging fruit and it would appear that ParkMaven are licking their lips at the thought of another profitable bounty.
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Re: Parkmaven NTK
« Reply #4 on: »
Indeed - signage is one of the grounds on which the notice can be challenged, but not the only one, if you're up for a fight.
Logged
Re: Parkmaven NTK
« Reply #5 on: »
Thsnk you both for your responses.

Is there a template response i can use.

Thanks
Logged
Re: Parkmaven NTK
« Reply #6 on: »
For now... there is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.

The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.

Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:

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.

As with all initial appeals, this will be rejected but you will get a POPLA code where you can make a more detailed appeal.
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Re: Parkmaven NTK
« Reply #7 on: »
I sent the following response years ago when had a similar issue elsewhere.
The company sent me a response that the matter was settled with no further pursuance.

Is it ok to use that in this current case?
I am unsure if there have been a change in regulations since then.
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
« Last Edit: May 11, 2025, 07:05:38 pm by G33 »
Logged
Re: Parkmaven NTK
« Reply #8 on: »
It really doesn't matter what you send at this stage because it will be rejected. Send them a nursery rhyme for all it matters. The point is to get a POPLA code.
Logged
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain
Agree Agree x 1 View List
Pages: [1]
« previous next »
  3. Parkmaven NTK