Free Traffic Legal Advice

I just felt like if I was to they would just say “ you have to appeal it, there’s nothing we can do”. 

If you don't contact them, there's definitely nothing they can do. It costs nothing to try, and the worst outcome is that they say no, and you are back where you already are.

Yes, the next step is to appeal to POPLA, but as stated on the notice, there's 28 days to do that, so plenty of time to try your luck with the landowners in the meantime.

Ahh yes, as I thought. After explaining the whole situation and the position I am in now, I spoke to the manager and apparently there is nothing they can do. I even asked him if he can go back and retrieve some sort of proof for me that shows payment was made upon leaving the shopping centre, he says that there is no way to do that and my best option is to appeal which I obviously told him I done and they rejected it.. he then tells me “private parking companies ain’t got much power just ignore them”..  so yeah that’s Mr managers solution

Any suggestions where I go from this point forward?

Cheers guys

I guess I’ll go there again this weekend and try another route..

Thanks I’ll have a look at the POPLA replies on the forum

You are appealing the fact that as the driver has not been identified and there can be no Keeper liability because their NtK is not fully compliant with ALL the requirements of PoFA, then, irrespective of anything else, they are chasing the wrong person. On top of that, you put them to strict proof that all their signs are compliant with the BPA CoP and also, you put them to strict proof that they hold a valid contract flowinging from the landowner to operate and issue PCNs in their own name at the location.

For example, this is how you child argue the point that their NtK has failed to fully comply with PoFA:

Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2) is binary (“MUST” means all or nothing) and this NtK omits the mandatory invitation to the keeper to pay under 9(2)(e)(i)

Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2) does not say the notice should include certain things. It says: “The notice must — (a)… (b)… (c)… (d)… (e)… (f)… (g)… (h)… (i)…”. “Must” is compulsory. PoFA 9(2) is a statutory gateway to keeper liability: either every required element is present or the gateway never opens. There is no such thing as “partial” or even “substantial compliance” with 9(2). Like pregnancy, it is binary: a notice is either PoFA-compliant or it is not. If one required limb is missing, the operator cannot use PoFA to pursue the keeper. End of.

Here the missing limb is 9(2)(e)(i). That sub-paragraph requires the NtK to invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges. The law is explicit that the invitation must be directed to “the keeper”. It is not enough to tell “the driver” to pay; it must invite “the keeper” to pay if the creditor wants keeper liability.

What this NtK actually does is talk only to “the driver” when demanding payment, and nowhere invites “the keeper” to pay. The demand section of the NtK is framed in driver terms (e.g. language such as “the driver is required to pay within 28 days” / “payment is due from the driver”), and there is no sentence that invites “the keeper” to pay the unpaid parking charges. The word “keeper” (if used at all) appears only in neutral data/disclosure paragraphs or generic definitions, not in any invitation to pay. That omission is precisely what 9(2)(e)(i) forbids.

For the avoidance of doubt, 9(2)(e) contains two limbs: (i) an invitation to the keeper to pay, and (ii) an invitation to either identify and serve the driver and to pass the notice to the driver. Even setting aside 9(2)(e)(ii), the absence of the 9(2)(e)(i) keeper-payment invitation alone is fatal to PoFA compliance. The statute makes keeper liability contingent on strict satisfaction of every “must” in 9(2). Where a notice invites only “the driver” to pay, it fails 9(2)(e)(i), so it is not a PoFA notice. The operator therefore cannot transfer liability from an unidentified driver to the registered keeper. Only the driver could ever be liable; the driver is not identified. The keeper is not liable in law.

So, I got a response back and ParkMaven’s response to my appeal to POPLA was this.. ( I apologise for the long message )

 We submit this statement in response to the appeal lodged by *** concerning the Parking Charge Notice *** issued at 17¢ral Walthamstow on [Insert Date].

After reviewing the details of this case, we confirm that the Parking Charge was issued correctly due to the motorist’s failure to pay for their parking session as required under the clearly stated terms and conditions of the car park.

The signage at 17¢ral Walthamstow is prominently displayed and clearly communicates the terms and conditions for using the car park, including the requirement to pay for parking. These signs are positioned at the car park entrance and at multiple locations throughout the site to ensure visibility for all motorists. The signage includes information on available payment methods—such as kiosks, app, and phone—and specifies that failure to comply with the terms will result in a Parking Charge Notice. To ensure clarity, the signs are designed with large fonts and contrasting colours to maximise readability. Photographs of the signage are attached as evidence, demonstrating their visibility, content, and placement.

Our records show no evidence of payment being made for the vehicle registration number *** on the date in question. The vehicle entered the car park at 14:01:55 and exited at 15:56:11, as confirmed by our ANPR system or observation logs, for a total stay of 1 hour and 54 minutes—within the chargeable period. Despite the payment facilities being clearly indicated and fully operational, the motorist did not make the required payment, constituting a breach of the displayed terms and conditions.

The Notice to Keeper (NTK) was issued in full compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 and the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. The NTK clearly sets out the reason for the charge and includes instructions for payment and the appeals process, ensuring complete transparency.

The parking charge is a reasonable and proportionate measure designed to ensure compliance with the car park’s terms of use. Despite the motorist’s claims, no evidence has been presented to show that payment was made or that any mitigating circumstances prevented compliance with the terms and conditions.

In conclusion, the motorist failed to meet their obligation to pay for their parking session, despite clear and sufficient signage throughout the car park detailing the terms of use and payment requirements. As such, the Parking Charge was issued correctly. We respectfully request that POPLA dismiss the appeal and uphold the Parking Charge, as the evidence provided supports our position.

Enclosed with this statement are the Enforcement Agreement, the Signage Plan, photographs of the signage, ANPR entry and exit records, payment system logs, the motorist’s appeal, our appeal decision, and a copy of the NTK for your review.

I now have 7 days to give a reply to that rubbish

I sent the argue point you sent to me earlier