My Terrible Parking Charge Experience - A Warning

redray99

On 4 November 2025, I received a parking charge notice from Parkmaven in the form of a Notice to Hirer (NTH). The vehicle involved is leased, meaning the registered keeper is the finance company rather than myself. Parkmaven had obtained the registered keeper’s details from DVLA, contacted the finance company, and then issued the NTH to me after receiving my contact details.

Before paying the reduced £60 charge, I reviewed the contents of the NTH to ensure that the information provided was correct. On the reverse of the notice was a section referring to the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA), legislation that allows private parking companies to transfer liability for a parking charge from the registered keeper to the hirer of a vehicle, provided certain conditions are met.

The NTH stated that the finance company had supplied Parkmaven with a copy of the hire agreement and a statement of liability signed by me. After reviewing the relevant sections of POFA, I discovered that when issuing a Notice to Hirer, the parking company must include copies of those documents with the notice itself in order to transfer liability correctly.

The Notice to Hirer sent to me did not contain either the hire agreement or the statement of liability. I researched the issue further using guidance available on MoneySavingExpert and found that this omission had affected other motorists and could invalidate the transfer of liability under POFA.

Based on this information, I submitted an appeal to Parkmaven stating that:

• The Notice to Hirer did not comply with POFA requirements.
• The required hire documentation had not been included.
• Liability for the parking charge had therefore not been transferred to me.
• I was not liable for the charge.

Parkmaven rejected the appeal and stated that the Notice to Hirer was valid. They subsequently sent copies of the hire agreement and statement of liability. However, my position was that these documents were required to accompany the original NTH and could not be supplied retrospectively.

Shortly afterwards, I spoke with the finance company, who confirmed that they had not supplied the documents to Parkmaven until 2 December 2025, approximately one month after the Notice to Hirer had already been issued.

Following the rejection of my appeal, Parkmaven provided a verification code allowing me to escalate the matter to POPLA, the independent appeals service used by members of the British Parking Association (BPA). I submitted an appeal to POPLA on the basis that Parkmaven had failed to comply with POFA and therefore could not transfer liability to me as hirer.

After approximately four weeks, POPLA rejected the appeal. When I reviewed the adjudicator’s decision, I found that the details referred to a different case and did not relate to my appeal. I contacted POPLA and complained about the error. POPLA acknowledged that a mistake had been made and stated that the case would be reconsidered.

A second adjudication was then carried out. This decision again found in favour of Parkmaven despite my evidence regarding non-compliance with POFA. I submitted a further complaint asking how that conclusion had been reached. POPLA later responded stating that another mistake had been made and that my appeal should have been allowed. However, POPLA stated that because it operates as a one-stage appeal process, it could not overturn the original decision.

During this period, the parking charge increased from £60 to £100. Parkmaven wrote to me requesting payment. I replied stating that I would not be paying the charge and was prepared to defend the matter in court if necessary.

The matter was then passed to Direct Collection Bailiffs Limited (DCBL), who contacted me by automated telephone calls demanding payment of £170. During a subsequent conversation with an agent, I was informed that failure to pay could affect my credit rating. I disputed this and stated that my credit file could not be affected unless:

• Court proceedings were issued,
• Judgment was entered against me, and
• The resulting County Court Judgment remained unpaid.

The DCBL representative stated that my credit rating was already being affected. I believe this statement was inaccurate and misleading.

DCBL also informed me that they had sent correspondence regarding the debt. I advised them that I had not received the letter and requested that it be resent. They declined to do so.

I later submitted a complaint to the BPA alleging that Parkmaven had breached the BPA Code of Practice by:

• Stating on the Notice to Hirer that they possessed the hire agreement and statement of liability when they did not,
• Representing to POPLA that the Notice to Hirer was compliant with POFA despite the missing documentation.

The BPA acknowledged receipt of the complaint and stated that they would investigate. At the time of writing, I have not received the outcome of that investigation.

I also contacted LCP Properties, the landowner responsible for the site where the alleged parking contravention occurred, requesting that the charge be cancelled. LCP Properties responded politely but referred the matter to YourParkingSpace, who manage the site and use Parkmaven for parking enforcement.

At present, the matter remains unresolved. I continue to receive contact from DCBL, while Parkmaven maintain that the charge remains payable. My position remains that the Notice to Hirer did not comply with the requirements of POFA and that liability for the parking charge was never lawfully transferred to me.

My conclusion is that the whole private parking industry is a sham wrapped up in a professional looking appearance. I went through all the correct channels with a clear, unambiguous and correct defence and still lost at every stage. There is no way they will ever take me to court as when someone sensible (yet to happen) looks at the case they will immediately see that Parkmaven are in the wrong. The concerning thing is how many people pay up when intimidated by increasing fines and calls from debt collectors – even when they have a valid case?

I definitely wont be paying – they have picked the wrong fight with the wrong person!!

Gr1pr

I presume that No court claim has yet been issued by Parkmaven or DCB Legal. ? ( ignore DCBL. )

If not you are correct in your fightback, so wait for a LBC or a Money Claim N1SDT pack from the CNBC in Northampton using MCOL

We will assist you in fighting them, you won't be paying a penny !

redray99

Thanks so much for your support.

No court claim issued yet. My only fear is why I didn't receive the letter DCBL claim to have sent. They say they have the right address but I am worried they have the address incorrect. I would not want any money claim to go the the wrong address and a default judgement made against me because I didn't respond. As I stated in my post DCBL refuse to resend it.

Thanks again.

Gr1pr

Use the DCBL app and ensure that they have the correct address for the service of papers

Also email the DPO at Parkmaven and ensure that your current address for the service of papers must be used

redray99

Thanks - Just done it. They have the right address.

Car1980

DCBL are the powerless debt collectors that send junkmail before it's sent upstairs to DCB Legal.

Parkmaven use the DCB Legal > court claim > eventually discontinue conveyor belt, so no worries there.

Popla are a joke.

Coupon-mad

"The matter was then passed to Direct Collection Bailiffs Limited (DCBL), who contacted me by automated telephone calls demanding payment of £170. During a subsequent conversation with an agent, I was informed that failure to pay could affect my credit rating. I disputed this and stated that my credit file could not be affected unless:

• Court proceedings were issued,

• Judgment was entered against me, and

The resulting County Court Judgment remained unpaid.

The DCBL representative stated that my credit rating was already being affected.

I believe this statement was inaccurate and misleading."

I wish you'd recorded that conversation.

The above is a blatant lie!

We've had another thread this year where Parkmaven got the hire docs retrospectively (had not and could not possibly have enclosed them with the NTK) and fed them in the evidence pack to POPLA, who believed their paymasters.

Castle

The OP could always submit a SAR and request copies of the telephone conversation(s).

Umkomaas

A second adjudication was then carried out. This decision again found in favour of Parkmaven despite my evidence regarding non-compliance with POFA. I submitted a further complaint asking how that conclusion had been reached. POPLA later responded stating that another mistake had been made and that my appeal should have been allowed. However, POPLA stated that because it operates as a one-stage appeal process, it could not overturn the original decision.

This example is a powerful one in underlining the reasons why POPLA should be made to drop this ‘get out’ excuse to prevent other motorists being thrown under the bus, cast adrift by Pontius Pilate handwashing!

redray99

For completeness - this is what I received from POPLA. It basically says we got it wrong but tough luck. This was after they initially adjudicated on the wrong case! How can this be a fair appeals process when the POPLA assessors have no idea what they are doing and are unable to understand clear and simple evidence?

My name is Bethany and as a member of the POPLA complaints team your concerns have been passed over to me.

First, I’m truly sorry that you’ve had to raise a complaint about the service you’ve received. I can confirm that your Subject Access Request has been raised and this information will be sent to you separately.

The crux of your complaint is that the assessment incorrectly concluded that the parking operator has transferred liability to the hirer of the vehicle in accordance with schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act2012 (PoFA).

I have taken the opportunity to review the case in its entirety, and my findings are as follows:

In their assessment, the assessor concluded that the identity of the driver had not been clearly established and therefore they considered whether the provisions of PoFA had been met in the parking operator’s attempt to transfer liability to the hirer. I can see from their report rationale that they considered the parking operator had complied with PoFA.

The assessor considered the appeal and was satisfied that the parking operator had demonstrated it obtained the relevant hirer documents from BMW Financial Services and issued these with the notice to hire.

However, I disagree. As you correctly point out in your email, the evidence shows that the notice to hirer was issued on 4 November 2025, but the parking operator only received the hire documents from BMW Financial Services on 2 December 2025. Therefore, I fully accept that these documents could not have been issued with the notice to hirer.

Having reviewed both the appeal and your complaint, it is evident that a mis-assessment has occurred. When reviewing the requirements of PoFA, the assessor should have recognised that the parking operator did not obtain the relevant documents prior to issuing the notice to hirer and allowed the appeal.

I believe we got this decision wrong, and I can only apologise for the undoubted inconvenience caused by the error. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

It is important to explain that POPLA is a single stage, determinative process, and there is no recourse to reconsider the appeal, or change the outcome. That said, please be assured, I will use the learning from this case as part of our continuous improvement initiatives.

You remain free to pursue your parking charge through other available channels, such as the courts, should you wish to do so. If you would like to obtain independent legal advice, Citizens Advice may be able to assist. They can be contacted at www.citizensadvice.org.ukor by telephone on 0345 404 05 06 (English) or 0345 404 0505 (Welsh).

In conclusion, I am sorry that your experience of using our service has not been a positive one. POPLA’s involvement with your case has now come to an end, and this response brings our complaints process to a close. As such, there will be no further review of your complaint, and any additional correspondence on this matter will be noted but not responded to.

 

redray99

This was the first email from POPLA - when they adjudicated on the wrong case. There must be a lot of training and continuous improvement going on at POLA!!

I note you have contacted us today regarding the outcome of your POPLA appeal as you have told us that it does not reflect the grounds of appeal you raised.

Having looked at the case, it is clear that an administration error has been made by the assessor when reaching the decision outcome. The decision that has been posted does not relate to your grounds of appeal. Therefore, I must roll the case back for reassessment to allow the assessor to post the correct outcome considering your grounds of appeal in full.

You will receive an email from us shortly notifying you that the decision has been reached. This will be for your appeal only.

I apologise for any inconvenience this may have caused you and will ensure coaching and accuracy feedback is given to the assessor to prevent any recurrences going forwards.