Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: jays86 on April 17, 2026, 09:41:17 am
-
Redbridge Institute of Adult Education is the adult education service of London Borough of Redbridge - this makes it a council owned / provided.
London Borough of Redbridge is a traffic authority for the purposes of PoFA.
The land is therefore excluded from PoFA keeper liability as it is not 'relevant land' - this is set out under Schedule 4 Paragraph 3(1)(b) which states;
3(1) In this Schedule “relevant land” means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than—
(a)a highway maintainable at the public expense (within the meaning of section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980);
(b)a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority;
(c)any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control.
As long as the driver is not identified then liability cannot be moved onto the Registered Keeper.
3(2)(e) establishes London Borough of Redbridge as a traffic authority.
-
Updated to try and make the "double dip" my main point:
1. The Operator Has Failed to Prove a Single Continuous Parking Event
I am the Registered Keeper of the vehicle and submit this appeal in that capacity.
The Operator's case relies entirely upon two ANPR images recording a vehicle entering and exiting the site. From those two isolated timestamps, the Operator asks POPLA to infer that a single continuous parking event occurred.
I dispute that inference.
In my original appeal to the Operator, I specifically advised that the vehicle entered and exited the site on more than one occasion within a short timeframe and requested that the Operator review its full ANPR records, including any unmatched or orphan captures.
Despite this, the Operator's subsequent correspondence failed to address the point. The rejection letter contains no discussion of the multiple-visit issue and provides no evidence that any investigation of additional ANPR records was undertaken.
ANPR systems record vehicles passing camera locations. They do not record whether a vehicle was parked, where it was parked, how long it remained stationary, or whether multiple visits occurred during the relevant period.
The Operator has produced no evidence demonstrating:
* that all ANPR captures relating to the vehicle were reviewed;
* that multiple entry and exit events were excluded;
* that orphan or unmatched records were checked;
* that the timestamps relied upon represent a single continuous stay rather than separate visits.
The Operator's case therefore depends entirely upon an assumption that the two ANPR images relied upon represent a single continuous parking event.
I submit that this has not been proven.
Where a specific challenge regarding multiple visits has been raised and the Operator has failed to demonstrate that the issue was investigated, POPLA cannot safely conclude that the ANPR evidence establishes a single continuous period of parking.
Accordingly, the alleged contravention has not been proven.
2. The Notice to Keeper Does Not Establish Keeper Liability Under PoFA 2012
The Operator seeks to pursue me as Registered Keeper.
As I have not identified the driver, the Operator must demonstrate full compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("PoFA") in order to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper.
The Notice to Keeper relies upon ANPR-generated "From" and "To" timestamps.
However, PoFA requires the Notice to Keeper to specify the relevant period of parking.
Entry and exit timestamps merely record vehicle movements past camera locations. They do not identify a period of parking.
The Operator has not demonstrated that the requirements of Schedule 4 have been met and therefore has not established keeper liability.
Accordingly, the charge cannot be enforced against me as Registered Keeper.
3. The Operator Has Not Proven Any Actual Period of Parking
Even if POPLA were satisfied that keeper liability has been established, the Operator must still prove that a parking contravention occurred.
The evidence supplied consists only of ANPR entry and exit timestamps showing a total site presence of approximately 13 minutes.
Those timestamps do not establish:
* when parking commenced;
* when parking ended;
* whether the vehicle was parked at all;
* how much time was spent driving within the site;
* whether the driver was locating signage, turning around, or exiting.
The Notice to Keeper itself refers only to ANPR-derived "From" and "To" times and does not identify any separately evidenced period of parking.
The Operator has therefore failed to prove the duration of any actual parking event.
4. Failure to Properly Consider the Appeal and Submitted Evidence
After receiving my appeal, the Operator requested additional information.
The Operator directed that this material be submitted via its online portal.
The portal did not permit the requested upload and the material was therefore submitted by email instead.
Despite this, the Operator's rejection letter states:
"As this information has not been received within the specified timeframe..."
The rejection letter contains no acknowledgement of the emailed submission and no discussion of the substantive issues raised.
Furthermore, the Operator's earlier correspondence referred to "emergency circumstances" allegedly raised in my appeal despite no such circumstances having been mentioned.
The subsequent rejection letter also included wording stating:
"Please note that as the parking incident occurred in Scotland or Northern Ireland, only the driver can make the appeal to POPLA."
The site concerned is located in England.
These inaccuracies raise legitimate concerns as to whether the appeal was individually reviewed and whether the specific points raised were properly considered.
Whilst I do not rely upon this as a standalone ground of appeal, it is relevant when assessing the weight that should be attached to the Operator's unsupported assertion that it investigated and verified its ANPR evidence.
5. Inadequate Evidence of Contract Formation
The Operator is put to strict proof that the signage at the site was sufficiently clear, prominent and legible to bring the contractual terms to the attention of motorists before any contract was formed.
The Operator must demonstrate that:
* signage was clearly visible on entry;
* signage was prominent throughout the site;
* the terms were capable of being read and understood before any contractual agreement was formed.
Absent such proof, no contract can be established.
6. Operator Authority
The Operator is put to strict proof that it has the necessary authority from the landowner to:
* manage parking at this site;
* issue Parking Charge Notices in its own name;
* pursue unpaid charges; and
* defend appeals relating to those charges.
As the Operator is not the landowner, I require it to demonstrate that it possesses sufficient authority to undertake these activities at the material location.
Conclusion
The Operator has failed to prove that a single continuous parking event occurred.
The Operator has failed to address or investigate the specific multiple-visit issue raised in the original appeal.
The Operator has failed to establish keeper liability under PoFA 2012.
The Operator has failed to prove any actual period of parking.
Accordingly, I respectfully request that POPLA allow this appeal and direct Civil Enforcement Ltd to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.
-
What would you suggest my strongest points are, if any?!
The double dip.
-
I wasn't sure if it's worth mentioning the "double dip" as I cannot prove if what they have presented is a double dip or not. I'm definitely happy to put something in regarding it but just not sure where it would sit best. What would you suggest my strongest points are, if any?!
-
Yes, the ‘double dip’ is the most important point I think.
-
Given that the main point in your initial appeal was that a 'double dip' occurred, it seems strange that none of your proposed POPLA appeal points even mention this.
-
The “grace period” only applies on the end of a period of paid parking, so I wouldn’t mention it here.
In general, the more points you make, the more points they will ignore, and just respond to the “simple” ones. Personally I’d stick to the strong ones and ditch the rest. I predict they’ll reply to two of your eight points and simply ignore the other six. But that’s me, it’s your appeal.
-
I'm considering these points for my POPLA Appeal, comments before submission will be welcomed!
1. Registered Keeper Status
I am the Registered Keeper of the vehicle and submit this appeal in that capacity.
I am under no legal obligation to identify the driver to a private parking operator and decline to do so.
Accordingly, if the Operator seeks to pursue me as Registered Keeper, it must demonstrate full compliance with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("PoFA").
2. Failure to Establish Keeper Liability under PoFA 2012
The Operator seeks to pursue me as the Registered Keeper. In order to do so, it must demonstrate full compliance with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("PoFA").
The Notice to Keeper relies upon "From" and "To" timestamps, which appear to have been generated from ANPR captures of a vehicle entering and exiting the site.
PoFA requires a Notice to Keeper to specify the relevant period of parking. However, entry and exit timestamps merely record vehicle movements past camera locations and are not, in themselves, evidence of a parking period.
The Notice to Keeper does not identify any separately evidenced period of parking and the Operator has not demonstrated how the statutory requirements necessary to transfer liability to the Registered Keeper have been satisfied.
As the driver has not been identified and keeper liability has not been established, the charge cannot be enforced against me as Registered Keeper.
3. The Operator Has Not Proven that a Parking Contravention Occurred
Even if POPLA were to conclude that keeper liability has been established, the Operator must still prove, on the evidence, that the alleged parking contravention occurred.
The Operator relies solely upon ANPR entry and exit timestamps showing a total site presence of approximately 13 minutes.
ANPR cameras record only the times at which a vehicle passes entry and exit points. They do not record whether a vehicle was parked, when any parking commenced, when it ended, or how much of the recorded period was spent driving within the site.
The Operator has provided no evidence of:
the vehicle being parked in a parking bay;
the duration of any alleged parking event;
when any contractual terms were accepted;
the time taken to enter, manoeuvre within the site, read signage, or exit.
The allegation is therefore based upon an inference that a parking event must have occurred between the recorded entry and exit times.
The Operator has produced no direct evidence to support that inference and has not demonstrated that a parking contravention occurred.
4. Failure to Demonstrate Compliance with BPA Consideration and Grace Period Requirements
The British Parking Association Code of Practice requires operators to allow motorists a reasonable consideration period upon arrival to locate and read signage and decide whether to remain on site.
The Operator has produced no evidence demonstrating that any mandatory consideration period was taken into account when assessing this charge.
The total site presence alleged by the Operator is approximately 13 minutes. That period necessarily includes entry, navigation within the site, locating and reading signage, and exiting the site.
The Operator has not demonstrated what portion of the recorded period, if any, constituted actual parking.
Accordingly, compliance with the BPA Code of Practice consideration and grace period requirements has not been established.
5. Inadequate Signage and Failure of Contract Formation
The Operator is required to demonstrate that clear and prominent signage was present and capable of forming a contract with the driver.
The Operator is put to strict proof that:
signage was clearly visible upon entry;
signage was clearly visible throughout the site;
the terms and conditions were legible;
the driver had a reasonable opportunity to read and understand those terms before any contract was formed.
Absent such proof, no contract can be said to have been properly formed.
6. Failure to Properly Consider Submitted Evidence
The Operator requested additional evidence in support of the appeal and directed that such evidence be submitted through its online portal.
The portal did not permit the upload of the requested material. In order to comply with the Operator's request, the material was therefore submitted by email instead.
Despite this, the Operator's rejection letter states:
"As this information has not been received within the specified timeframe..."
The rejection letter does not acknowledge receipt of the emailed submission, nor does it address the substance of the material provided.
I therefore have legitimate concerns that the evidence supplied in response to the Operator's request was either not considered or not properly taken into account before the appeal was rejected.
Whilst this point is not relied upon as a standalone ground of appeal, it raises doubt as to whether the Operator conducted a fair and thorough review of the representations and evidence submitted.
7. Template-Based Rejection and Inaccurate Case Handling
The Operator's rejection letter contains the following statement:
"Please note that as the parking incident occurred in Scotland or Northern Ireland, only the driver can make the appeal to POPLA."
The site concerned is Redbridge Institute of Adult Education in Ilford, England.
The statement is plainly inapplicable to this case and appears to have been inserted from a generic template.
Whilst not determinative on its own, this further supports the concern that the appeal was not individually considered on its own facts.
8. Operator Authority
The Operator is put to strict proof that it has sufficient authority from the landowner to:
issue parking charge notices at this location;
enter into contracts with motorists;
pursue parking charges in its own name;
defend such charges before POPLA and in court proceedings.
Absent such evidence, the Operator has no standing to pursue this charge.
Conclusion
The Operator has failed to:
establish keeper liability under PoFA 2012;
prove that a parking contravention occurred;
demonstrate compliance with BPA consideration and grace period requirements;
demonstrate that a contract was properly formed through adequate signage;
demonstrate proper consideration of submitted evidence;
demonstrate sufficient authority from the landowner.
Accordingly, I respectfully request that POPLA allow this appeal and direct Civil Enforcement Ltd to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.
-
So, as expected, my initial appeal on this was rejected and I've been given the option of POPLA, which I think I will take up. Would I just reiterate my representations that I initially made to Civil Enforcement at POPLA stage? Advice much appreciated!
Here's their rejection letter: (https://i.ibb.co/zHbz7FhX/Parking-Charge-179276300727-smallpdf.png) (https://ibb.co/zHbz7FhX)
They mention that I did not respond to their request for further evidence, this is not correct. I tried to upload the evidence to their portal, but was blocked from doing so and have a screenshot showing this, so instead I emailed them and reiterated my original points and the fact that at no stage did I mention emergency circumstances.
-
I submitted the reps drafted above on 20th April, and today received this slightly confusing response:
Thank you for your appeal regarding Parking Charge XX.
Please note that the evidence originally attached with your appeal is insufficient as it does not confirm your legitimate visit on the day/ verify the emergency circumstances detailed in your appeal.
We have extended the deadline for you to provide additional evidence or documentation related to the date of the incident, confirming the circumstances related to the reason for your appeal. You now have an additional 14 days from the date of this email to submit the required information.
Please submit your evidence via the online appeal service at https://appeals.ce-service.co.uk/evidence.
Once a decision has been made, you will be notified via email using the email address you verified when submitting your appeal.
Yours sincerely,
Appeals Department
This feels like some sort of template response that hasn't even looked at what I actually submitted. There was no mention of any emergency circumstances...
Any suggestions of what to do next?!
-
Thanks, DWMB2. That makes sense regarding grace and consideration periods.
Regarding the 'double dip,' the driver is certain they exited and re-entered, and is certain that it is in close proximity to the times shown on the NtK. They think, but aren't certain, that the "From" time represents their first entry to the car park, the "To" time certainly represents the time that they exited the car park for the final time. Is it worth framing as a challenge to their logs? Even if they don't accept the double dip, I'm hoping the 13-minute total duration is too short to be considered 'parking' anyway.
I've reordered the points to lead with the 'Double Dip' and 'Consideration Period' as you suggested. Revised draft below—any further thoughts?
Dear Sir or Madam,
Re: Parking Charge Notice number []
I am appealing this notice on the following grounds:
1. ANPR Technical Failure (Potential Double Dip)
The vehicle entered and exited the site on two separate occasions within a short timeframe. It appears your ANPR system has suffered from a 'double-dipping' error, incorrectly pairing the first entry with the final departure and failing to record the intermediate exit and re-entry. I require you to check your full image logs (including 'orphan' records) for this VRM to verify the two separate visits.
2. Mandatory Consideration Period / No "Period of Parking"
Even if your ANPR data were accurate, your evidence shows a total duration of stay of only 13 minutes. Per the BPA Code of Practice, a motorist must be allowed a 'Consideration Period' to enter a site, find a space, and read the signage to decide whether to accept the terms of the contract. A 13-minute stay—which includes the time taken to drive from the boundary cameras to a bay and back again—is entirely consumed by a reasonable consideration period. No contract was entered into; the driver simply observed the terms and left the site. I rely upon Excel Parking Services Ltd v Burgess [Case No: C8DP11F0] regarding the distinction between "time on site" and "period of parking."
3. Non-Compliance with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4
The Notice to Keeper fails to satisfy the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
Failure to specify the "Period of Parking": As established in Excel v Burgess, camera timestamps of entry and exit do not satisfy the requirement of Paragraph 9(2)(a) to specify the period the vehicle was actually parked.
Late Delivery: While the notice is dated 24 March, actual delivery to the Keeper occurred on 7 April, 20 days after the incident. As this exceeds the 14-day limit for Keeper liability, the Creditor has no legal right to recover this charge from the Keeper.
-
If you are confident a 'double dip' has occurred, then I would lead with this point. Currently, your first two points are reasons why you cannot be liable as the keeper, but if the driver didn't breach the terms in the first place, there's no liability to transfer, so it would make sense to lead with this.
Your point around delivery is fair enough, but absent any compelling evidence proving it was delivered late, Civil Enforcement will be able to rely on the presumption it was delivered 2 working days after posting.
4. Mandatory Grace and Consideration Periods
Even if your flawed ANPR data were accurate, your evidence shows an entry at 14:24 and an exit at 14:37—a total duration of only 13 minutes. Per the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, a motorist must be allowed a "Consideration Period" to read signs and a "Grace Period" to leave the site. A 13-minute stay is entirely consumed by these mandatory periods, meaning no "period of parking" in breach of terms occurred.
This isn't quite how these periods work. You only get a grace period added onto the end of a permitted period of parking. Here, the allegation is that the parking was not permitted, because the driver didn't pay/obtain a permit.
Photos of the signage would be useful for the second stage appeal.
-
Hi Based on the 14-day rule (Incident: 18 March, Received: 7 April) and the 13-minute stay shown on the NtK, I’ve drafted the following appeal. I'm focusing on PoFA non-compliance, the 'Double Dip' technical error, and the lack of a defined 'period of parking' (citing Burgess). Does this look airtight before I submit?
Dear Sir or Madam,
Re: Parking Charge Notice number []
I am appealing this notice on the following grounds:
1. Late Delivery and Lack of Keeper Liability (PoFA 2012)
The alleged incident occurred on 18 March 2026. Under Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, a Notice to Keeper must be delivered within 14 days of the incident (by 1 April 2026). This notice was not received until 7 April 2026. Because you have failed to comply with the mandatory notice period required by the Act to transfer liability from the driver, there is no lawful basis to hold me, the Registered Keeper, liable for this charge. As the requirements of the Act have not been met, I am under no legal obligation to identify the driver and I decline to do so."
2. Failure to Identify the "Period of Parking"
Your notice identifies ANPR camera timestamps for entry and exit. However, it fails to specify the actual "period of parking" as strictly required by PoFA 2012, Paragraph 9(2)(a). I rely upon the persuasive authority of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Burgess [Case No: C8DP11F0], which established that ANPR timestamps recording times of entry and exit are not evidence of a "period of parking."
3. ANPR Technical Failure (Double Dipping)
Your ANPR system has suffered from a well-documented "double-dipping" error. The vehicle entered and exited the site on two separate occasions within a short timeframe. Your system has paired the initial entry of the day with the final departure, failing to record the intermediate exit and re-entry. I require you to check your full image logs for this VRM to identify the "orphan" records that prove the vehicle was not on site for a continuous period.
4. Mandatory Grace and Consideration Periods
Even if your flawed ANPR data were accurate, your evidence shows an entry at 14:24 and an exit at 14:37—a total duration of only 13 minutes. Per the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, a motorist must be allowed a "Consideration Period" to read signs and a "Grace Period" to leave the site. A 13-minute stay is entirely consumed by these mandatory periods, meaning no "period of parking" in breach of terms occurred.
Conclusion
As you have failed to meet the statutory requirements of PoFA 2012 to transfer liability to the Keeper, and your own evidence proves no parking contract was breached, I require you to cancel this PCN immediately and confirm in writing that my data has been removed from your systems.
-
It’s perfectly normal to record two visits as one with ANPR, in which the first exit is “overlooked”. You can construct your appeal accordingly, and feel free to post it here for comment prior to submission.
-
To clarify, the driver is unsure whether the entry time recorded on the Notice to Keeper relates to the first pass through the car park, when the vehicle briefly entered and exited while locating the correct site. The exit time corresponds to the final departure from the site after the second visit, during which the vehicle was parked.
Would it be relevant to any appeal to understand how ANPR systems typically handle multiple entries within a short period, and whether this could result in two separate visits being recorded as a single continuous stay?
-
Only you can say whether or not the times reflect your first pass through the car park!
And how long you actually parked subsequently.
-
The driver entered the car park twice. The first occasion they drove straight through the car park as they weren't sure they were at the right location. They drove around the block and then back into the car park where they parked, collected some items, returned to the vehicle and left.
On 7th April, I, the registered keeper, received a PCN through the post. I wonder if the time of entry is perhaps the time the driver first entered the car park? Is the NtK fully complaint with PoFA 2012, or could it be appealed on these grounds?
(https://i.ibb.co/QFFLfH20/Scanned-20260417-0917-1.png) (https://ibb.co/QFFLfH20)