Parkmaven PCN Appeals help

Doingmybest2015

Hi 
My husband and I recently had a courtesy car from a garage. We handed the car back but received a call from the garage saying there had received a pcn during the time we had the car. This is for a car park where we have auto pay set up for our usual car. 

The garage informed Parkmaven that I had the car at time of incident and about approx 28 days after the incident I received a notice to hirer. 

Following advice on the newbies sticky 2 days before the PCN was due I followed the operators appeal process and submitted the following…

I refer to the above-detailed Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”) issued to me by ParkMaven Limited (“ParkMaven”) as a Notice to Hirer. I confirm that as the hirer of this vehicle, I am its keeper for the purpose of the corresponding definition under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”) and I write to formally challenge the validity of this PCN. You will no doubt be familiar with the strict requirements of Schedule 4 of POFA to be followed in order for a parking operator to be able to invoke keeper liability for a Parking Charge. There are a number of reasons why ParkMaven’s Notice to Hirer did not comply with POFA; in order that you may understand why, I suggest that you carefully study the details of Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 in particular. Given that ParkMaven has forfeited its right to keeper liability, please confirm that you shall now cancel this charge. Alternatively, should you choose to reject my challenge, please provide me with details of the Independent Appeals Service (POPLA), their contact details and a unique POPLA appeal reference so that I may escalate the matter to POPLA. Thank you for your cooperation and I look forward to receiving your response within the relevant timescales specified under the British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice.

Please note that my NTH didn’t include the paperwork required as per 13 & 14. 

I have received the fill response today. 

Thank you for your appeal against the above Parking Charge Notice (PCN). In order to make a decision on the appeal, we require more information. Kindly state your grounds for appeal so we can review your case.

You have until 31.07.2023 to provide us with more information via email.

Please can those in the know give me some help on how to respond?

Fruitcake

Either ignore it and await your PoPLA code, or reply and say the grounds for appeal are (as previously stated in the appeal) that the NTH failed to comply with paras 13 and 14 of the PoFA 2012 and is incapable of holding the hirer liable.
Either cancel now to save yourselves money or issue a PoPLA code as required by the BPA.

Love and Kisses

Doingmybest2015 (The Hirer).

Grizebeck

Go back to them and simply state your appeal grounds have already been made out and you will automatically win at popla

Doingmybest2015

Thanks 

So this as a reply?

My appeal grounds have already been stated  in the appeal I submitted on 17th July. But to state again the notice to hirer failed to comply with paragraphs 13 and 14 of the POFA 2012.

Please cancel now or issue a POPLA appeal reference as required by the BPA.

Fruitcake

That will do, or ignore it and await your PoPLA code.

Doingmybest2015

Thanks I have sent and will await their reply.

Doingmybest2015

So I have received an email from ParkMaven. They have rejected my appeal and provided a POPLA code. 

“Thank you for your appeal against the above Parking Charge Notice (PCN). We have carefully considered your appeal, however, on this occasion, the appeal has been rejected.

On DD/MM/2023 we emailed to request additional evidence to support your appeal. Your response offered no evidence at all to support your appeal. As such, your appeal has been rejected based on insufficient evidence.

You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure and therefore you now have two options; you can either pay or appeal to POPLA - you cannot do both.”

Below is my suggested POPLA appeal (after searching forum for guidance) - please can someone take a look at tell me if this is ok?



I, the hirer of this vehicle, received a letter dated DD/MM/2023 acting as a PCN Notice to Hirer. My appeal to the operator – ParkMaven Ltd – was submitted and acknowledged by the operator on DD/MM/2023 and rejected via an email dated DD/MM/2023. I contend that I, as the hirer of the vehicle, am not liable for the alleged parking charge as it has been both unfairly and unlawfully issued and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds:

1) The Notice to Hirer failed to meet the obligations of Schedule 4 of the POFA Act 2012 as stated in paragraph 14, sub-paragraph 2 and 3, along with paragraph 13 (2).

2) No Evidence of Period Parked - Notice to Hirer does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements

3) The ANPR system is neither reliable nor accurate

4) Vehicle Images contained in PCN are non-compliant of BPA Code of Practice

5) No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice



1) Notice to Hirer failed to meet the obligations of Schedule 4 of the POFA Act 2012 as stated in paragraph 14, sub-paragraph 2 and 3, along with paragraph 13 (2). whereby the creditor/parking operator must meet the conditions of Schedule 4 of POFA in order for them to be able to invoke keeper liability for a Parking Charge. This involves providing a Notice to Hirer, along with a Notice to Keeper as well as:

a) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement;

b) a copy of the hire agreement; and

c) a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement.

These documents have not been supplied to me at all and within the ‘relevant period’ of 21 days beginning on the day after that on which the documents required by 13 (2) are given to the creditor - as per PoFA.

Therefore, under the obligations of Schedule 4 of the POFA Act 2012, the claim for parking fees is no longer valid.


2) No Evidence of Period Parked – Notice to Hirer does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements

The Notice to Hirer states:

Contravention: No valid parking session
Location: XXX
Arrival Time: DD/MM/2023 at 07:51:00
Departure Time: DD/MM/2023 at 08:29:00

Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the BPA Code of Practice, there is no record to show that the vehicle was parked versus the time it took to enter the busy car park, wait for an available car parking space, attempt to read the terms and conditions before deciding against parking/entering into a contract.

Furthermore, PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9 refers at numerous times to the “period of parking”. Most notably, paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the NtK to: specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;”

ParkMaven Ltd’s NtH simply claims the vehicle was at “Location: xx.” The NtH separately states that the vehicle “entered at HH:MM:SS and departed at HH:MM:SS ”. At no stage do ParkMaven Ltd explicitly specify the “period of parking to which the notice relates”, as required by PoFA 2012.

It is not in the gift of ParkMaven Ltd to substitute “entry/exit or arrival/departure” in place of the POFA requirement - “period of parking” - and hold the keeper liable as a result.

By virtue of the nature of an ANPR system recording only entry and exit times, ParkMaven Ltd are not able to definitively state the period of parking. I require ParkMaven Ltd to provide evidence to show the vehicle in question was parked on the date/time (for the duration claimed) and at the location stated in the NtH.


3) The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate

The ParkMaven Ltd Parking Notice to Hirer (NtH) shows no parking time, merely two images of a number plate corresponding with that of the vehicle in question and two unclear black and white images of the front of the car. There is no connection demonstrated whatsoever with the car park in question.

These times do not equate to any single evidenced period of parking. By ParkMaven Ltd's own admission on their NtH, these times are claimed to be the entry and exit time of the vehicle. There is no evidence of a single period of parking and this cannot reasonably be assumed. Since there is no evidence to actual parking times this would fail the requirements of POFA 2012, paragraph 9(2)(a), which states; “Specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates.”

Paragraph 21.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states that parking companies are required to ensure ANPR equipment is maintained and is in correct working order. I require ParkMaven Ltd to provide records with the location of the cameras used in this instance, together with dates and times of when the equipment was checked, calibrated, maintained and synchronised with the timer which stamps the photo images to ensure the accuracy of the ANPR images.

As ‘grace periods’ (specifically the time taken to locate any signs, observe the signs, comprehend the terms and conditions, decide whether or not to purchase a ticket and either pay or leave) are of significant importance in this case (it is strongly suggested the time periods in question are de minimis from a legal perspective), and the parking charge is founded entirely on two images of the vehicle number plate allegedly entering and leaving the car park at specific times, it is vital that ParkMaven Ltd produces the evidence requested in the previous paragraph.

In addition, contrary to the BPA CoP clause 21, no signage at the entrance of the car park makes it clear to the driver that ANPR cameras are being used to record entry to the car park as evidence of the drivers intention to park on the land and there is no way of the company proving evidence of the exact times the car was actually parked in a parking space, only its entry and exit times.

4) Vehicle Images contained in PCN are non-compliant with the BPA Code of Practice

The BPA Code of Practice point 20.5a stipulates that:
"When issuing a parking charge notice you may use photographs as evidence that a vehicle was parked in an unauthorised way. The photographs must refer to and confirm the incident which you claim was unauthorised. A date and time stamp should be included on the photograph. All photographs used for evidence should be clear and legible and must not be retouched or digitally altered."

The PCN in question contains two cropped and unclear images of the vehicle with unclear surroundings showing locations and two close-up images of the vehicle number plate. None of these images contains a date and time stamp “on the photograph” nor do they clearly identify the vehicle entering or leaving this car park (which is also not identifiable in the photos as of any particular location at all).

The time and date stamp has been included within the PCN but not part of the images. The images have also been cropped to only display the number plate. As these are not the original images, I require ParkMaven Ltd to produce evidence of the original "un-cropped" images containing the required date and time stamp and to evidence where the photographs show the car to be when there is a lack of any marker or sign to indisputably relate these photos to the location stated.


5) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner.

The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights, and of course all enforcement dates/times/days, and the boundary of the site - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do, and when/where.

It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is authorised on the material date, to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic but crucial information such as the site boundary and any bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the only restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge, as well as the date that the parking contract began, and when it runs to, or whether it runs in perpetuity, and of course, who the signatories are: name/job title/employer company, and whether they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal agreement.

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

a- the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b - any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c - any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d - who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e - the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement


Based on all the points laid out above, I appeal to POPLA to rule that this parking charge is invalid.

Yours faithfully,

Doingmybest2015

P.S does it matter that all I referred to in my appeal to ParkMaven is point 1, which I understand is the crucial point? 

Coupon-mad

Get rid of points 2, 3 and 4.

Replace with the two appeal points you missed in the third post of the NEWBIES thread.

Remove the awful, ungrammatical intro (I know it's not your work!) completely.

1505grandad

And make sure you are using/quoting the BPA CoP version 8 dated January 2020 (latest so far published)  -  some para numbers have changed from those quoted above.

Doingmybest2015

Thanks @1505grandad with @Coupon-mad 's advice I will remove points 2, 3 & 4 which refer to BPA CoP. I have checked and paragraph 7 remains the same as my draft appeal.

@Coupon-mad - can I clarify that the two appeal points I missed are 1) Signage 2) The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who was liable for the charge

And yes you are right I should not just copy & paste but read the introductory paragraph, as it's not the best!!

Thanks in advance.