PCN for failed to obtain a permit in accordance with notified terms

Hi i have told them that i am not liable for this pcn  ..And if i have said something else there response should also be the same ..They always deny it if you appeal to the related agency ..Thank you

It seems you have shot yourself in the foot by admitting to them that you were the driver. I don't see any evidence on their paperwork on the signage in the car park, where is it situated? do you have a picture of it?

If they give you the option of an appeal to POPLA then the usual suggestion is t take that offer even though POPLA will refuse your appeal.

Hi i have uploaded the pictures i have taken from the car park..Please have a look ..It was not clear who are the permit holders as the car park is right next to building in which mosque is on ground floor and gym is on 3rd floor .. i was in the mosque ..I thought it belongs to mosque as well..Please suggest me what to do next..Thank you

You can use the following as your POPLA appeal:

POPLA Verification Code: [insert]
PCN Reference: [insert]
VRM: [insert]
Operator: Civil Enforcement Ltd
Site: Golds Gym, Rainham Road South, Dagenham, Essex, RM10 8TX
Incident time: 25/07/2025 14:24:12 to 14:46:38
NtK issue date: 31/07/2025

I am the registered keeper. This appeal is brought on two grounds: (1) inadequate signage and inadequate notice of the parking charge, and (2) no standing/landowner authority compliant with the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP).

Ground 1: Inadequate signage and inadequate notice (PoFA Schedule 4 paragraphs 2(2) and 2(3))

The operator alleges “Failed to obtain a permit in accordance with the notified terms.” The burden is on the operator to prove that, before parking, clear and prominent signs adequately brought both the terms and the parking charge to the attention of a driver. PoFA Schedule 4 paragraphs 2(2)–(3) require “adequate notice” of the parking charge, meaning notices that specify the sum and are adequate to bring that sum to the notice of drivers.

This is a multi-occupancy site. The driver attended the Dagenham Islamic Welfare Association and Mosque (Dagenham Jamme Masjid) within the same building. On site, signs referred to “permit holders” and did not clearly or prominently communicate that bays were limited to gym members only or that a separate whitelist/registration step applied to gym use. The first time “gym” was understood was when the Notice to Keeper arrived. That is not adequate notice of any core term or of a charge.

The operator is put to strict proof by producing dated, contemporaneous evidence from the material date: a complete signage schedule with photographs of the entrance and all internal signs visible from the bay used, showing exact wording, font sizes, positioning, height, and illumination; a site plan marking each sign and the route a driver would take; clear evidence that the £100 sum and any “gym-only”/whitelist requirement were brought to the driver’s attention before parking; and copies of any VRM whitelist/registration logs for the material date and time. The operator must also show clear demarcation at the entrance and within the car park distinguishing mosque/DIWA parking from any gym-only area, if such a distinction exists. If these items cannot be shown, the PoFA “adequate notice” test is not met and no contractual liability can arise.

Ground 2: No standing/landowner authority (PPSCoP section 14.1(a–j))

The operator is put to strict proof that it holds a valid, contemporaneous, and unredacted written agreement with the landholder (or a complete and unbroken chain of authority) authorising it to offer parking contracts on this land, to issue and pursue parking charges, and to take legal action in its own name. The evidence must meet every element of PPSCoP section 14.1(a–j, inclusive), including identification of the land and parties, precise site definition, scope of authority, commencement and expiry dates, renewal terms, operational limitations, responsibilities for signage and compliance, cancellation policies, and explicit rights to pursue charges and litigation. A mere “authority to act” letter or a redacted or unexecuted document is insufficient. Unless full compliance with 14.1(a–j) is evidenced, the operator has not shown standing to pursue the keeper.

Conclusion

For the reasons above—lack of adequate notice under PoFA Schedule 4 paragraphs 2(2)–(3) and failure to evidence landowner authority compliant with PPSCoP 14.1(a–j)—I respectfully request that POPLA allow this appeal.

Thank you so much ..I will try this and let you guys know that how did it go..Thank you once again ..

Hi Folks..i have won the PCN again Civil Enforcement through Popla appeal..Thank you everyone who guide me through this ..

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ve2b2tOu9eBC0ivHvQwV3qxuF_vniXbP/view?usp=drivesdk

They conceded and did not challenge your appeal. Well done.

Thank you for your help ..