You do not use any of the forms that demand. Simply respond with the following in an email and CC yourself:
Subject: Response to your Letter of Claim Ref: [reference number]
Re: PCN at Sacred Heart Wimbledon, Edge Hill – VRM [reg] – LBC dated 04/09/2025
Dear Sirs,
1) Protocol non-compliance
Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail and omits the key documents required to enable informed engagement. It fails to comply with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paras 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1–5.2) and the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols (PD-PAC), including the duty to exchange key documents before proceedings.
2) Documents required
Pursuant to PAPDC 5.1–5.2 and PD-PAC 6, provide in a single paginated PDF bundle:
(1) The original NtK (both sides) and all subsequent notices.
(2) The precise legal basis relied on (keeper liability under PoFA 2012 or driver liability) and strict proof of PoFA compliance, including the statutory warning and an identified period of parking.
(3) All photographs/ANPR images and full VRM [reg] in/out logs covering at least one hour either side of the material times, plus any manual checks.
(4) Contemporaneous photographs of the actual signs in situ on the material date, the full terms in readable close-ups, and a site plan showing location/number of signs and the entrance signage.
(5) An unredacted landowner contract/chain of authority showing your standing to offer contracts, issue PCNs and litigate in your own name at this site on the material date.
(6) Machine/payment records and audit logs for the relevant period (or confirmation none existed).
(7) A full breakdown of the sum claimed and the legal basis for any sums over the core PCN, identifying whether the principal is alleged consideration or damages and whether the £70 “debt recovery” add-on attracts VAT (and if so, on what basis).
(8) The name, role and regulatory status of the person with conduct of this matter.
3) Timing and hold
Given the late receipt of your LBC, confirm that the 30-day period runs from service of a compliant, document-supported LBC. In accordance with PAPDC 5.2, place the matter on hold for a minimum of 30 days after you have supplied the above.
4) Next steps
Upon receipt of a compliant Letter Before Claim and the requested documents I will seek advice and provide a substantive response within 30 days. If you issue proceedings prematurely, I will apply for a stay and appropriate sanctions for non-compliance, relying on Webb Resolutions v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments v Park West Club (Part 20) Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, and Charles Church Developments v Stent Foundations & Peter Dann [2007] EWHC 855, together with PD-PAC paras 13, 15(b)–(c) and 16 and PAPDC 7.2.
5) Address for service & data accuracy
Record the address after my signature as my address for service. If you hold any other address, rectify your records and confirm erasure of incorrect data.
Yours faithfully,
[Your name]
[Address for service]
Add another section to the POPLA appeal titled "Evidence tampering by the operator".
Expand on it by saying that the operator has submitted as supposed evidence a photograph of the sign that is alleged to have formed the contract. The BPA CoP specifically Staes at 21.5a as follows:
Use of photographic evidence
Photographic evidence must not be used by you as the basis for issuing a parking charge unless:
b) the images bear an accurate time and date stamp applied at the point the picture was taken;
(https://i.imgur.com/FWzaiQ1.png)
It is obvious from the photograph above, provided by the operator, that it has been tampered with and altered. There are two different timestamps, one of which has, without a doubt, been added after the point the picture was taken.
Additionally, in section 21.5a it states:
Alteration of photographic evidence
You must not digitally or by other means alter images used as photographic evidence other than:
e) to blur faces or the VRMs of other vehicles in the image in accordance with your GDPR obligations; or
f) to enhance the image of the VRM for clarity, but not to alter the letters and numbers displayed.
It is obvious that this breach of the BPA CoP must invalidate the PCN as it has been issued incorrectly.
Or, something along the lines of the above.
In terms of POPLA appeals, the burden of proof rests with the operator to provide clear evidence of the contravention it alleges occurred, and consequently, that it issued the PCN correctly.
POPLA Appeal Argument: Inadequate Signage and Lack of Landowner Authority by Civil Enforcement Ltd at Sacred Heart Church, Wimbledon
Appeal Summary:
The burden of proof rests with the operator, Civil Enforcement Ltd (CEL), to provide clear evidence of the alleged contravention and to demonstrate that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued correctly. The signage at Sacred Heart Church Wimbledon fails to meet the necessary standards of clarity, prominence, and legibility as set out in the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice (CoP) and the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. Furthermore, CEL has not provided adequate evidence of their authority to issue parking charges at this location. Therefore, the PCN should be cancelled.
1. Inadequate Signage:
The appellant contests that the signage at Sacred Heart Church, Wimbledon, is neither prominent, clear, nor legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge.
2. BPA Code of Practice Compliance:
When evaluating the adequacy of the signage, it is essential to consider the minimum standards set out in the BPA Code of Practice:
- Section 19.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle… Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.”
The signage installed by Civil Enforcement Ltd (CEL) at Sacred Heart Church, Wimbledon, fails to comply with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, specifically Section 19, which requires that signs must be clear and legible so that they are easy to see, read, and understand. The key issues with the signage are as follows:
a. Visibility and Legibility:
- The signage is not sufficiently prominent, especially upon entering the car park. The excessive amount of text and the way it is presented make it difficult for drivers to quickly comprehend the terms and conditions.
- The signage fails to adequately attract attention, particularly in low light conditions. Photographs taken at various times of the day demonstrate that the signs are hard to read and not clearly visible from a distance.
(https://i.imgur.com/Vw8QEGy.jpg)
b. Clear and Prominent Charges:
- As established in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the signage must be clear and prominent to ensure that drivers are aware of the charges. In the Beavis case, the charge was prominently displayed and easily noticed by drivers. In contrast, the CEL signage does not prominently display the £100 charge.
The £100 parking charge is not prominently displayed. The charge is buried within a lot of text, reducing its visibility and the likelihood that a driver would see and understand the charge upon entering the car park.
(https://i.imgur.com/PCrTa89.jpg)
3. Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) Compliance:
In addition to the BPA Code of Practice, PoFA 2012 also discusses the clarity needed to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given “adequate notice” of the charge.
- PoFA defines “adequate notice” as follows:
- “(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” means notice given by:
- (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or
- (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which:
- (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorized parking; and
- (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land.”
Even if PoFA does not apply, this standard is reasonable for an independent assessment of the signage at this location.
4. Assessment Against POFA and BPA Requirements:
Having evaluated the signage at Sacred Heart Church Wimbledon against the requirements of Section 19 of the BPA Code of Practice and PoFA, it is evident that the signage fails to provide adequate notice of the parking charge. It does not bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist, which is necessary to form a valid contract.
5. No Evidence of Landowner Authority:
The operator, Civil Enforcement Ltd, has not provided evidence that it has the authority to issue parking charges on behalf of the landowner at Sacred Heart Church, Wimbledon. The BPA Code of Practice (Section 7) stipulates that operators must have a written agreement with the landowner that establishes their authority. CEL is put to strict proof, by means of contemporaneous and unredacted evidence, of a chain of authority flowing from the landholder of the "relevant land" to the operator.
It is not accepted that the operator has adhered to the landholder's definitions, exemptions, grace period, hours of operation, etc., and any instructions to cancel charges due to complaints. There is no evidence that the freeholder authorizes this operator to issue parking charges or what the land enforcement boundary and start/expiry dates are, nor whether this operator has standing to enforce such charges in their own name rather than a bare license to act as an agent ‘on behalf of’ the landowner.
As this operator does not have a proprietary interest in the “relevant land,” 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 including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorized to do and any circumstances where the landowner in fact has a right to cancellation of a charge.
It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put up some signs and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorized 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, 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 Code of Practice), and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply.
Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorized can give rise to a charge and, of course, how much the landowner authorizes this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).
Paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice 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
Conclusion:
Due to the inadequate signage at Sacred Heart Church, Wimbledon, which fails to comply with the BPA Code of Practice and does not provide clear and prominent notice of the parking charge, the PCN cannot be considered enforceable. Additionally, Civil Enforcement Ltd has not provided evidence of their authority to issue parking charges at this location. The signage does not meet the necessary standards to form a contract by conduct with the driver. Therefore, the PCN issued at this location should be canceled.
This expanded narrative now includes a comprehensive challenge to the operator’s authority, emphasising the need for unredacted evidence of their contractual rights and responsibilities as mandated by the BPA Code of Practice.
For now you need to get a generic appeal in so that you can get a POPLA code. You don't have much time left for the appeal.
A simple appeal along these lines will get your rejection and POPLA code:
Re PCN number:
I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.
There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Since your PCN is a vague template, I require an explanation of the allegation and your evidence. You must include a close up actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date as well as your images of the vehicle.
If the allegation concerns a PDT machine, the data supplied in response to this appeal must include the record of payments made - showing partial VRNs - and an explanation of the reason for the PCN, because your Notice does not explain it.
If the allegation involves an alleged overstay of minutes, your evidence must include the actual grace period agreed by the landowner.