Parking Charge

redray99

On 18/10/25 I received a parking charge. They sent me a NTH as the car is leased. I received this on 4/11/25. The NTH did not include any other documentation so I appealed immediately. They rejected my appeal. I appealed to POPLA who also rejected the appeal saying the NTH was issued correctly.

I got on to my finance company who told me that they were not asked for the hire document, etc until 28/11/25 and supplied it to the parking company on 02/12/25. These dates mean that the documentation could not possible have been in the NTH as the parking company did not have them when the NTH was issued.

I have told the parking company that I am not paying and that they can take me to court as I am confident I can defend it.

Am I right to be confident?

Coupon-mad

Certainlybe confident. No paying it!

Did the PPC put in false evidence to mislead POPLA? The Hire Agreement that they didn't have, made to look like it went with the NTH?

Which PPC?

Do you have those dates by email from the Hire/finance company?

Show us the NTH you received (both sides) and the email from the finance company, both with all dates showing. And the POPLA Decision too.

redray99

The PPC is ParkMaven. When I appealed to them it was on the grounds that the NTH was invalid. They then went off to my finance company to get the documents they were missing. When it went to POPLA Parkmaven included the documents in their evidence and said the NTH was issued correctly. Of course, there was no date on when they obtained the details so they did mislead POPLA.

The POPLA experience has been really strange. When they first adjudicated it was for a completely different case! I had to send them a complaint and they then re-adjudicated - however they did not inform me of the outcome. First I found out about it was when Parkmaven sent me a £100 charge telling me I had been unsuccessful at POPLA!

I have the dates in an email from my finance company.

(1) The date on the NTH from Parkmaven was 4/11/25

(2) Email from my finance company says " We received the first PCN on 24/10/25 and submitted the TOL on 30/10/25. Subsequently, Parking Maven issued another notice requesting the HA, which we received on 24/11/25. We provided the requested HA on 02/12/25"

I'm really angry about the whole thing. The POPLA experience was just terrible. I could not believe the level of incompetence. For them to then believe Parkmaven over me shows how biased the whole system is.

I sent Parkmaven an email saying I was not going to pay and they they should either drop the case or go to court. I also said that I would ignore any other 'requests' for money.

I posted on here to get another opinion. I would hate them to take it to court and find I've been an idiot!!

Coupon-mad

You haven't. They misled POPLA.

You could get your MP to complain to Parkmaven and to the BPA about them misleading POPLA by effectively "falsifying" the evidence pack with a Hire Agreement that WASN'T posted with the NTH and could never have been.

You forgot to show us this:

Show us the NTH you received (both sides) and the email from the finance company, both with all dates showing. And the POPLA Decision too.

redray99

Unfortunately I cant find the NTH - It will be around somewhere.

This is the transcript of the POPLA case (I've xxxx some details). Some of what the operator says is not true - for example I did not claim that an attempt was made to pay for additional time.

Operator Name

ParkMaven Limited - EW

Operator Case Summary

We submit this statement in response to the appeal lodged by xxxx concerning the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued at the Eddisbury Square Shopping Centre car park on 04-11-2025. After reviewing the details of this case, we confirm that the PCN was issued correctly due to the motorist’s failure to make payment after exceeding the allocated free parking period, as required under the clearly stated terms and conditions of the car park.The signage at Eddisbury Square Shopping Centre is prominently displayed and clearly communicates the terms and conditions for using the car park, including the duration of any free parking period and the requirement to pay for additional time. These signs are strategically placed at the car park entrance and at multiple locations throughout the site to ensure visibility for all motorists. The signage includes details on the payment methods available, such as app, phone, and specifies that failure to comply with the terms will result in the issuance of a Parking Charge Notice. To further enhance clarity, these signs are designed with large fonts and contrasting colours to ensure readability, even from a distance. Photographs of the signage are attached as evidence, demonstrating their clarity, content, and placement. Our records confirm that the vehicle with registration number xxxxx was recorded entering the car park on 14-10-2025 at 14:43:34 and exiting at 17:02:24, as verified by our ANPR system or observation logs. This results in a total stay of 2hr 18min 50sec, which exceeds the maximum free parking period of 2 hours allowed at this location. Despite the payment facilities being clearly indicated and fully operational, the motorist did not make the required payment for the additional time beyond the free parking allowance, which constitutes a breach of the displayed terms and conditions. The Notice to Hirer (NTH) was issued in full compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 and the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. The NTH provides clear information about the reason for the charge and includes instructions regarding payment and the appeals process, ensuring complete transparency. The parking charge is a reasonable and proportionate measure to ensure compliance with the car park’s terms of use. Despite the motorist’s claims, no evidence has been provided to show that payment was made for the additional time or that mitigating circumstances prevented adherence to the terms and conditions. In conclusion, the motorist failed to make payment after exceeding the permitted free parking period, despite the clear and ample signage located throughout the car park detailing the terms of use and payment requirements. As such, the PCN was issued correctly. We respectfully request that POPLA dismiss the appeal and uphold the PCN, 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, NTH for your review.

Decision

Unsuccessful

Assessor Name

xxxxxxxxxx

Assessor summary of operator case

The parking operator issued the parking charge notice (PCN) for no valid parking session.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant raised the following points from their grounds of appeal and they state: • They received a notice to hirer on 4 November 2025. • The notice falsely claimed that the hire company had provided a signed agreement and liability statement. • These documents were supplied on 4 December 2025, after their appeal. • The notice did not comply with the legal requirements under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. • The required documents were not provided at the time the notice was issued. • Their appeal to the operator ignored this issue. After reviewing the parking operator’s evidence, the appellant reiterates expands their grounds of appeal and they state: • Without a compliant notice to hirer, the operator cannot charge the hirer. • Only the identified driver can be held liable. • They will not disclose the driver’s details.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

POPLA is a single-stage appeal service that is impartial and independent of the sector. When assessing an appeal, POPLA considers if the parking operator issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park on the day. Our remit only extends to allowing or refusing an appeal. The parking operator has submitted photographic images of the signage displayed throughout the car park together with a site map confirming the locations of the signage. The signage states a £100 PCN will be issued to drivers who fail to adhere to the stated terms and conditions. Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) images submitted by the operator confirm he appellants vehicle entered the car park on the 14 October 2025 at 14:43 and exited at 17:02. A total duration of 2 hours and 18 minutes. A search list of the authorised vehicles permitted to park has also been submitted and the appellants vehicle is not on the list, I acknowledge all the grounds raised by the appellant. They explain that the hirer received a notice on 4 November 2025, which falsely claimed that a signed agreement and liability statement had been provided. They state these documents were only supplied on 4 December 2025, after their appeal, meaning the notice did not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). While I appreciate the appellant’s explanation, the contravention occurred on 14 October 2025, and the PCN is compliant with POFA. Under POFA 2012, Schedule 4, paragraphs 13 and 14, when a vehicle is on a contract hire, the hirer may be held liable for a parking contravention if certain conditions are met; they are not automatically treated as the registered keeper. The PCN was initially issued to BMW/finance company on 21 October 2025, within the 14-day period allowed for issuing a Notice to Keeper. BMW subsequently provided the hirer’s details, and the operator issued a Notice to Hirer on 4 November 2025, in accordance with the statutory requirement to serve it within 21 days of receiving the hirer’s details, including the necessary documents (copy of hire agreement, copy of original Notice to Keeper, and statement of liability). The appellant has highlighted that the notice issued on 4 November 2025 incorrectly stated that a signed agreement and liability statement had already been provided. However, the operator has supplied a copy of the contract showing that the vehicle is hired to the appellant, confirming that they, as the registered keeper, are responsible for any charges relating to the vehicle. The notice was issued to the correct keeper within the statutory timelines under POFA, and all procedural requirements for enforcement were met. As such, the hirer’s refusal to provide driver details at this stage would not have affected the outcome of the review. The appellant also states that the operator ignored the compliance with POFA. I have noted this, but I cannot comment on how the operator handled their appeal; the appellant may contact the operator directly to address their concerns. The appellant has made comments on the operator’s evidence. However, these largely expand on points they have already raised, which have been addressed above. After considering the evidence from both parties, the motorist having no valid parking session and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal. POPLA is not involved with the financial aspect of the parking charge. For any queries regarding payments, the appellant will need to contact the parking operator directly.

Here is the email from my finance company:

Good Morning ,

Thank you for your call.

We received the first PCN on 24/10/25 and submitted the TOL on 30/10/25.

Subsequently, Parking Maven issued another notice requesting the HA, which we received on 24/11/25. We provided the requested HA on 02/12/25.

Should you require any further assistance please contact us and we will be happy to help.

Kindest Regards,

Adarsh

Coupon-mad

Get your MP to complain about this to the BPA because Parkmaven have knowingly got the Hire Agreement late, yet misled POPLA into thinking the NTH was compliant (naive assessor…there is no way that NTH could have enclosed the required extra documents Parkmaven only got a month later).

You will never have to pay this invoice but misleading POPLA is s serious allegation and any MP worth their salt WOULD complain to the BPA, who might lean on Parkmaven to cancel it and sweep the whole issue under the carpet.