Free Traffic Legal Advice

POPLA should determine liability on law, not on Parkmaven’s generic narrative about signs, ANPR or non-payment. Keeper liability only arises if the NTK strictly complies with every “must” in PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2). It does not.

1. PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) missing. Parkmaven repeatedly asserts “full compliance with PoFA” but nowhere in their evidence do they identify a sentence that invites the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges. Their NTK talks to “the driver” when demanding payment and does not contain an invitation directed to “the keeper” to pay. PoFA 9(2)(e) has two limbs; limb (i) is an invitation to the keeper to pay. Without that exact invitation, keeper liability cannot arise. POPLA should require Parkmaven to point, verbatim, to the precise sentence within the NTK that invites the keeper to pay. If they cannot, the appeal must be allowed.

2. No concept of substantial compliance. Parkmaven’s claims about signage, payment systems, and ANPR are irrelevant to the statutory gateway. The gateway never opens unless each element in 9(2) is present. A missing limb is fatal to keeper liability even if other matters are proven.

3. Driver only. Parkmaven’s case is predicated on a driver breach. The driver has not been identified. In the absence of a PoFA-compliant NTK containing the mandatory keeper-payment invitation, only the driver could be liable and the keeper cannot be.

4. Period of parking. POPLA should also scrutinise 9(2)(a). If the NTK merely states ANPR entry/exit times or a “duration of stay” rather than specifying a period of parking, it fails 9(2)(a). ANPR timestamps record vehicle movement, not a period parked. If the NTK lacks an actual stated period of parking, that is a separate PoFA failure and again prevents keeper liability.

5. Irrelevance of BPA Code assertions. Whether Parkmaven say they complied with a trade association code does not cure a PoFA omission. Trade codes cannot create keeper liability where Parliament has not.

Conclusion: Parkmaven have not rebutted the single determinative point. They have not shown any NTK wording that invites the keeper to pay as required by 9(2)(e)(i). On that ground alone the appeal must be allowed. If POPLA takes a different view, please identify the exact NTK sentence that constitutes the 9(2)(e)(i) keeper-payment invitation. Absent that, the keeper is not liable in law.

In the meantime, you could write a complaint to POPLA outlining their assessors 'procedural error' in applying PoFA in a situation where the requirements of PoFA weren't met. Their response could help you if the matter were progressed.