Please confirm whether these are the actual dates in the BPA response or are they typos made when transcribing to this post?
If this is meant to be “07/10/2024” (7 October), it still raises the question of how they’ve calculated the delivery date without any proof of posting. They are simply inserting a presumed delivery date to fit within the 14-day limit without requiring CEL to produce the mandated evidence.
Yes this is exactly what was in the reply surprisingly
In which case I suggest you respond to Ms Staunton with the following:
Subject: BPA’s Deliberate Misapplication of PoFA Delivery Presumption
Dear Ms Staunton,
Your dismissal of the rebuttal to the statutory presumption of service is precisely the reason PPSCoP Section 8.1.2(d) Note 2 exists in the first place.
You know full well that under PoFA Schedule 4, the “second working day” presumption in 9(6) only applies if the parking operator can prove the date of posting. That statutory safeguard exists to prevent operators from simply claiming a convenient delivery date without evidence. The PPSCoP Note reflects this in mandatory language:
“Parking operators MUST retain a record of the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice having been generated.”
This is not an optional “best practice” nicety. It is the only practical means by which PoFA compliance on delivery timing can be evidenced.
By refusing to require Civil Enforcement Ltd to produce posting records — and by instead fabricating a “presumed delivery” date that either precedes the issue date by over two months (20 July 2024) or, if corrected to 7 October 2024, is still wrong in law — you have:
• Destroyed the evidential basis for the presumption;
• Enabled an operator to rely on PoFA without satisfying its statutory preconditions;
• Acted contrary to the PPSCoP’s stated purpose of upholding statutory compliance; and
• Demonstrated why public confidence in the BPA’s impartiality is non-existent.
The very fact that you dismiss the rebuttal of presumption is itself proof of the BPA’s regulatory failure. If you genuinely believed in upholding PoFA, you would treat posting evidence as non-negotiable — as the PPSCoP Note requires — rather than dismissing it to shield a member from scrutiny.
This correspondence, along with your stated position, will be provided to the DVLA, the MHCLG minister, and the ICO as evidence of systemic bias and failure to enforce statutory safeguards.
Your next reply should confirm either that:
(a) The operator has provided actual posting records for the NtK; or
(b) You accept that PoFA keeper liability cannot apply in the absence of such records.
Anything less will be taken as further confirmation of the BPA’s unwillingness to regulate its members in accordance with statute.
Yours sincerely,
[Name]
In this Code of Practice, a “NOTE” that uses the word “must” cannot be waved away as optional when it is the only practical means of evidencing compliance with statute.
1) What the BPA/IPC Private Parking Code of Practice (PPSCoP) actually says about “NOTES”
The PPSCoP includes a meta-clause: “Where ‘NOTES’ within the Code purport to impose a standard on an operator they are not mandatory… Not complying with a ‘NOTE’ is not a breach of the Code”.
However, the very same Code’s NOTE 2 under the parking charge section 8.1.2(e) states (in substance): because PoFA presumes postal delivery on the second working day after posting, operators must retain a record of the date of posting, not merely of notice generation (e.g. the date a mail consolidator actually injected it into the postal system). This is written using the word “must”.
Interpreting these together: the ATAs try to classify all “NOTES” as non-mandatory Code text. But when a NOTE uses “must” to operationalise a statutory presumption (PoFA service), treating that as optional is untenable, for the reasons below.
2) Statute controls: PoFA requires delivery within 14 days, not mere “issue”
PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9 requires a Notice to Keeper to be given within the relevant period (14 days from the day after the parking ended). It further provides the postal presumption: a notice sent by post is presumed delivered on the second working day after posting. These are statutory rules of delivery and presumption, not trade-body preferences.
Therefore:
• If an operator wants to rely on PoFA keeper liability, it must be able to prove when it posted the NtK (to anchor the “second working day” presumption).
• Without a posting record, the “delivered within 14 days” requirement cannot be evidenced. Saying “we issued it within 14 days” is irrelevant to PoFA.
3) Why the NOTE states “must keep posting records” is, in effect, compulsory
Even if the ATA labels NOTES as “not mandatory”, the PoFA presumption only engages if there was posting and you can show when. The NOTE simply translates that legal reality into an evidential control: keep posting logs (e.g., third-party mail consolidator reports). If an operator doesn’t keep them, they can’t substantiate PoFA compliance. In other words, the NOTE’s “must” is functionally mandatory for any operator who wishes to rely on PoFA keeper liability.
4) The Code of Practice itself expects evidential records elsewhere
The PPSCoP imposes hard obligations outside the “NOTE” box, including record-keeping for 36 months where records are required, and it sets audit/monitoring expectations. If you must evidence compliance, you must keep the evidence. Posting logs fall squarely within that logic.
5) The PPSCoP’s sanctions show timing under PoFA is serious
Annex H lists non-conformances including sending notices implying PoFA keeper pursuit outside PoFA timescales. If timing is sanctionable, then proving the posting date is inseparable from compliance. It is incoherent to sanction late service yet treat the only practical proof of service timing as “non-mandatory”.
6) DVLA/KADOE context reinforces the need for auditable records
Access to DVLA keeper data depends on membership and adherence to PPSCoP standards, with reasonable cause and auditability. The KADOE framework expects operators to be able to show compliance to regulators. In the context of PoFA timing, that means retaining reliable posting evidence.
7) Bottom line on the BPA’s claim
• Saying “NOTES aren’t mandatory” does not permit operators (or the BPA) to ignore statutory requirements or the evidential controls that make those requirements provable.
• Where a NOTE restates or operationalises a legal presumption, the operator’s failure to follow it may not be a “Code breach” per the ATAs’ own disclaimer, but it is fatal to PoFA keeper liability and undermines DVLA audit expectations. The BPA cannot properly rely on a presumption of delivery without demanding the operator’s posting records.
8) The correct analytical position to put back to BPA (succinctly)
• PoFA 9(4)–(6) requires delivery within 14 days and presumes delivery on the second working day after posting; “issued within 14 days” is immaterial.
• The PPSCoP’s referenced NOTE 2 mirrors PoFA and states operators must keep posting records; without them, the PoFA presumption cannot be relied upon.
• The “NOTES are not mandatory” clause cannot disapply statute; at most, it downgrades some best-practice guidance. It does not excuse the BPA from requiring proof of posting where an operator asserts PoFA compliance.
• The Code’s own sanctions regime treats PoFA timing seriously, which presupposes auditable posting evidence.
You can respond to that ridiculous BPA fob-off with the following:
Subject: BPA’s Misinterpretation of PoFA and Refusal to Require Evidence of Posting – Further Response
Dear Ms Staunton,
Your latest reply again fails to address the core issue and, in doing so, undermines the BPA’s credibility as an Accredited Trade Association.
1. PoFA Requirement – Delivery, not Issue
The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4) requires that a Notice to Keeper be given (delivered) within 14 days, not merely “issued”. The statutory presumption of delivery on the second working day applies only if the notice was actually posted and the operator can show when that posting occurred. Your assertion that “issued within 14 days” satisfies PoFA is incorrect in law.
2. “NOTE” in the PPSCoP – Use of “Must” Cannot Be Optional
The BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice, Section 8.1.2(d) Note 2, states:
“Parking operators must retain a record of the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice having been generated.”
This wording exists because, without a posting record, PoFA’s delivery presumption cannot be substantiated. Calling this “non-mandatory” is regulatory abdication. The BPA cannot declare statutory evidential requirements optional.
3. Refusal to Require Proof of Posting
You have relied solely on CEL’s unverified assertion of “issue” and refused to obtain posting evidence. This is unacceptable for a regulator claiming to enforce compliance with PoFA and KADOE audit standards.
4. Denial of Appeal Rights
CEL’s failure to serve the NtK denied the keeper their statutory right to appeal. The later provision of a “copy” does not cure this breach. Your dismissal of this fact breaches PPSCoP 8.4.4 and 11.2.
I now put the BPA on notice that this matter will be escalated to:
• DVLA – for failure to enforce KADOE compliance;
• MHCLG – for BPA’s systemic failure to regulate its members;
• ICO – for potential misuse of DVLA data where PoFA conditions were not met.
Yours sincerely,
[Name]
You should also send the following to your MP, whose email address you can find at https://members.parliament.uk/FindYourMP
Subject: Regulatory Failure by BPA and DVLA – PoFA and KADOE Enforcement
Dear [MP Name],
I am seeking your assistance to escalate a serious regulatory failure involving the British Parking Association (BPA) and the DVLA to the Minister at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) responsible for private parking policy.
Background:
• The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) Schedule 4 allows parking companies to pursue a vehicle’s keeper only if a Notice to Keeper (NtK) is delivered within 14 days.
• “Delivered” is presumed to mean the second working day after posting — but only if the operator can prove when it was posted.
• The BPA/IPC Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) reflects this in Section 8.1.2(d) Note 2, stating that operators must retain posting records.
The Problem:
• The BPA refuses to enforce this requirement, calling it “non-mandatory” because it appears in a “Note”.
• This allows operators to claim PoFA compliance without producing posting evidence, undermining statutory safeguards.
• The DVLA continues to provide registered keeper data to such operators despite their inability to prove PoFA compliance.
Consequences:
[/indent]• Motorists are being wrongly told they are liable under PoFA.
• Appeals are being denied where NtKs were never actually served.
• The DVLA’s KADOE contractual requirement for compliance with PoFA is being ignored.[/indent]
Requested Action:
• Ask MHCLG to investigate the BPA’s refusal to enforce a statutory evidential safeguard.
• Ask DVLA to confirm how they audit operators’ compliance with PoFA delivery requirements.
• Require both bodies to ensure that posting records are retained and produced on demand.
I am happy to provide the correspondence showing the BPA’s position, the operator’s claim, and the statutory and Code provisions involved.
Yours sincerely,
[Name]
[Address]
Here is a timeline you can include with the MP email that helps explain the issue:
Timeline – BPA / CEL / PoFA Delivery Breach Complaint
[Incident Date] – Alleged parking contravention at [Site Name] by Civil Enforcement Ltd (CEL).
[NtK Date] – Original Notice to Keeper (NtK) never received. No opportunity to appeal within 28 days.
[Debt Recovery Date] – First contact was a £170 debt recovery letter (months later). No reduced amount offered, no appeal information.
Complaint to CEL
• Formal complaint sent to CEL:
• Failure to serve NtK.
• Denial of appeal rights.
• No evidence of contravention.
• Excessive charge.
• CEL response: Refused to consider appeal, claimed it was “too late” to appeal.
Complaint to BPA
• Raised formal complaint with BPA after exhausting CEL’s process.
• Alleged breaches of PPSCoP: 8.4.1, 8.4.4, 8.4.8, 11.2, 17.3.4, 17.4.6, and PoFA 2012 (Schedule 4).
• Requested BPA demand proof of posting from CEL and address denial of appeal rights.
BPA’s First Response
• Claimed NtK was “issued within 14 days” and therefore PoFA-compliant.
• Refused to require proof of posting.
• Said appeal outside 28 days is at operator’s discretion.
• Treated complaint as a “late appeal” and did not address core issues.
• Said adding £70 debt recovery fee is permitted.
Rebuttal to BPA
• Pointed out PoFA requires delivery within 14 days, not just “issue.”
• Highlighted PPSCoP 8.1.2(d) Note 2: operators must retain posting records.
• Argued BPA’s refusal to require proof of posting undermines PoFA and KADOE.
• Reiterated denial of appeal rights breaches PPSCoP 8.4.4 and 11.2.
• Stated intent to escalate to DVLA, MHCLG, and ICO.
BPA’s Second Response
• Asserted NtK was “presumed delivered” on their chosen date — despite no proof of posting.
• Claimed “Notes are not mandatory” in the PPSCoP, even when they contain the word “must.”
• Repeated that appeals outside 28 days are at operator’s discretion.
• Again refused to identify any breach of the Code or investigate further.
Current Status:
• BPA refuses to enforce its own evidential requirements for PoFA delivery.
• DVLA continues to provide CEL with keeper data despite lack of proof of timely NtK service.
• Preparing escalation to MP for referral to MHCLG minister and DVLA Chief Executive.
@b789 thanks so much will send across and update
In this Code of Practice, a “NOTE” that uses the word “must” cannot be waved away as optional when it is the only practical means of evidencing compliance with statute.
1) What the BPA/IPC Private Parking Code of Practice (PPSCoP) actually says about “NOTES”
The PPSCoP includes a meta-clause: “Where ‘NOTES’ within the Code purport to impose a standard on an operator they are not mandatory… Not complying with a ‘NOTE’ is not a breach of the Code”.
However, the very same Code’s NOTE 2 under the parking charge section 8.1.2(e) states (in substance): because PoFA presumes postal delivery on the second working day after posting, operators must retain a record of the date of posting, not merely of notice generation (e.g. the date a mail consolidator actually injected it into the postal system). This is written using the word “must”.
Interpreting these together: the ATAs try to classify all “NOTES” as non-mandatory Code text. But when a NOTE uses “must” to operationalise a statutory presumption (PoFA service), treating that as optional is untenable, for the reasons below.
2) Statute controls: PoFA requires delivery within 14 days, not mere “issue”
PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9 requires a Notice to Keeper to be given within the relevant period (14 days from the day after the parking ended). It further provides the postal presumption: a notice sent by post is presumed delivered on the second working day after posting. These are statutory rules of delivery and presumption, not trade-body preferences.
Therefore:
• If an operator wants to rely on PoFA keeper liability, it must be able to prove when it posted the NtK (to anchor the “second working day” presumption).
• Without a posting record, the “delivered within 14 days” requirement cannot be evidenced. Saying “we issued it within 14 days” is irrelevant to PoFA.
3) Why the NOTE states “must keep posting records” is, in effect, compulsory
Even if the ATA labels NOTES as “not mandatory”, the PoFA presumption only engages if there was posting and you can show when. The NOTE simply translates that legal reality into an evidential control: keep posting logs (e.g., third-party mail consolidator reports). If an operator doesn’t keep them, they can’t substantiate PoFA compliance. In other words, the NOTE’s “must” is functionally mandatory for any operator who wishes to rely on PoFA keeper liability.
4) The Code of Practice itself expects evidential records elsewhere
The PPSCoP imposes hard obligations outside the “NOTE” box, including record-keeping for 36 months where records are required, and it sets audit/monitoring expectations. If you must evidence compliance, you must keep the evidence. Posting logs fall squarely within that logic.
5) The PPSCoP’s sanctions show timing under PoFA is serious
Annex H lists non-conformances including sending notices implying PoFA keeper pursuit outside PoFA timescales. If timing is sanctionable, then proving the posting date is inseparable from compliance. It is incoherent to sanction late service yet treat the only practical proof of service timing as “non-mandatory”.
6) DVLA/KADOE context reinforces the need for auditable records
Access to DVLA keeper data depends on membership and adherence to PPSCoP standards, with reasonable cause and auditability. The KADOE framework expects operators to be able to show compliance to regulators. In the context of PoFA timing, that means retaining reliable posting evidence.
7) Bottom line on the BPA’s claim
• Saying “NOTES aren’t mandatory” does not permit operators (or the BPA) to ignore statutory requirements or the evidential controls that make those requirements provable.
• Where a NOTE restates or operationalises a legal presumption, the operator’s failure to follow it may not be a “Code breach” per the ATAs’ own disclaimer, but it is fatal to PoFA keeper liability and undermines DVLA audit expectations. The BPA cannot properly rely on a presumption of delivery without demanding the operator’s posting records.
8) The correct analytical position to put back to BPA (succinctly)
• PoFA 9(4)–(6) requires delivery within 14 days and presumes delivery on the second working day after posting; “issued within 14 days” is immaterial.
• The PPSCoP’s referenced NOTE 2 mirrors PoFA and states operators must keep posting records; without them, the PoFA presumption cannot be relied upon.
• The “NOTES are not mandatory” clause cannot disapply statute; at most, it downgrades some best-practice guidance. It does not excuse the BPA from requiring proof of posting where an operator asserts PoFA compliance.
• The Code’s own sanctions regime treats PoFA timing seriously, which presupposes auditable posting evidence.
You can respond to that ridiculous BPA fob-off with the following:
Subject: BPA’s Misinterpretation of PoFA and Refusal to Require Evidence of Posting – Further Response
Dear Ms Staunton,
Your latest reply again fails to address the core issue and, in doing so, undermines the BPA’s credibility as an Accredited Trade Association.
1. PoFA Requirement – Delivery, not Issue
The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4) requires that a Notice to Keeper be given (delivered) within 14 days, not merely “issued”. The statutory presumption of delivery on the second working day applies only if the notice was actually posted and the operator can show when that posting occurred. Your assertion that “issued within 14 days” satisfies PoFA is incorrect in law.
2. “NOTE” in the PPSCoP – Use of “Must” Cannot Be Optional
The BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice, Section 8.1.2(d) Note 2, states:
“Parking operators must retain a record of the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice having been generated.”
This wording exists because, without a posting record, PoFA’s delivery presumption cannot be substantiated. Calling this “non-mandatory” is regulatory abdication. The BPA cannot declare statutory evidential requirements optional.
3. Refusal to Require Proof of Posting
You have relied solely on CEL’s unverified assertion of “issue” and refused to obtain posting evidence. This is unacceptable for a regulator claiming to enforce compliance with PoFA and KADOE audit standards.
4. Denial of Appeal Rights
CEL’s failure to serve the NtK denied the keeper their statutory right to appeal. The later provision of a “copy” does not cure this breach. Your dismissal of this fact breaches PPSCoP 8.4.4 and 11.2.
I now put the BPA on notice that this matter will be escalated to:
• DVLA – for failure to enforce KADOE compliance;
• MHCLG – for BPA’s systemic failure to regulate its members;
• ICO – for potential misuse of DVLA data where PoFA conditions were not met.
Yours sincerely,
[Name]
You should also send the following to your MP, whose email address you can find at https://members.parliament.uk/FindYourMP
Subject: Regulatory Failure by BPA and DVLA – PoFA and KADOE Enforcement
Dear [MP Name],
I am seeking your assistance to escalate a serious regulatory failure involving the British Parking Association (BPA) and the DVLA to the Minister at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) responsible for private parking policy.
Background:
• The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) Schedule 4 allows parking companies to pursue a vehicle’s keeper only if a Notice to Keeper (NtK) is delivered within 14 days.
• “Delivered” is presumed to mean the second working day after posting — but only if the operator can prove when it was posted.
• The BPA/IPC Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) reflects this in Section 8.1.2(d) Note 2, stating that operators must retain posting records.
The Problem:
• The BPA refuses to enforce this requirement, calling it “non-mandatory” because it appears in a “Note”.
• This allows operators to claim PoFA compliance without producing posting evidence, undermining statutory safeguards.
• The DVLA continues to provide registered keeper data to such operators despite their inability to prove PoFA compliance.
Consequences:
[/indent]• Motorists are being wrongly told they are liable under PoFA.
• Appeals are being denied where NtKs were never actually served.
• The DVLA’s KADOE contractual requirement for compliance with PoFA is being ignored.[/indent]
Requested Action:
• Ask MHCLG to investigate the BPA’s refusal to enforce a statutory evidential safeguard.
• Ask DVLA to confirm how they audit operators’ compliance with PoFA delivery requirements.
• Require both bodies to ensure that posting records are retained and produced on demand.
I am happy to provide the correspondence showing the BPA’s position, the operator’s claim, and the statutory and Code provisions involved.
Yours sincerely,
[Name]
[Address]
Here is a timeline you can include with the MP email that helps explain the issue:
Timeline – BPA / CEL / PoFA Delivery Breach Complaint
[Incident Date] – Alleged parking contravention at [Site Name] by Civil Enforcement Ltd (CEL).
[NtK Date] – Original Notice to Keeper (NtK) never received. No opportunity to appeal within 28 days.
[Debt Recovery Date] – First contact was a £170 debt recovery letter (months later). No reduced amount offered, no appeal information.
Complaint to CEL
• Formal complaint sent to CEL:
• Failure to serve NtK.
• Denial of appeal rights.
• No evidence of contravention.
• Excessive charge.
• CEL response: Refused to consider appeal, claimed it was “too late” to appeal.
Complaint to BPA
• Raised formal complaint with BPA after exhausting CEL’s process.
• Alleged breaches of PPSCoP: 8.4.1, 8.4.4, 8.4.8, 11.2, 17.3.4, 17.4.6, and PoFA 2012 (Schedule 4).
• Requested BPA demand proof of posting from CEL and address denial of appeal rights.
BPA’s First Response
• Claimed NtK was “issued within 14 days” and therefore PoFA-compliant.
• Refused to require proof of posting.
• Said appeal outside 28 days is at operator’s discretion.
• Treated complaint as a “late appeal” and did not address core issues.
• Said adding £70 debt recovery fee is permitted.
Rebuttal to BPA
• Pointed out PoFA requires delivery within 14 days, not just “issue.”
• Highlighted PPSCoP 8.1.2(d) Note 2: operators must retain posting records.
• Argued BPA’s refusal to require proof of posting undermines PoFA and KADOE.
• Reiterated denial of appeal rights breaches PPSCoP 8.4.4 and 11.2.
• Stated intent to escalate to DVLA, MHCLG, and ICO.
BPA’s Second Response
• Asserted NtK was “presumed delivered” on their chosen date — despite no proof of posting.
• Claimed “Notes are not mandatory” in the PPSCoP, even when they contain the word “must.”
• Repeated that appeals outside 28 days are at operator’s discretion.
• Again refused to identify any breach of the Code or investigate further.
Current Status:
• BPA refuses to enforce its own evidential requirements for PoFA delivery.
• DVLA continues to provide CEL with keeper data despite lack of proof of timely NtK service.
• Preparing escalation to MP for referral to MHCLG minister and DVLA Chief Executive.
First of all, you can reply to the utterly incompetent Ms Staunton with the following:
Subject: Formal Rebuttal – BPA’s Failure to Investigate POFA Breach and Misapplication of Code
Dear Ms. Staunton,
Your response to my complaint is not only procedurally deficient but betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the statutory framework your organisation purports to uphold.
1. Misrepresentation of POFA Requirements
You refer to the NtK being “issued within 14 days,” which is legally meaningless. The relevant statutory requirement under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is that the notice must be given—i.e. delivered—within 14 days. This is not a semantic distinction; it is the cornerstone of lawful keeper liability.
Your failure to grasp this distinction is deeply concerning and calls into question your competence to assess compliance with POFA.
2. Failure to Demand Proof of Posting
You accept CEL’s assertion that the NtK was “issued” without requiring strict proof of posting, despite the clear directive in Section 8.1.2(d) Note 2 of the BPA/IPC PPSCoP:
“Parking operators must retain a record of the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice having been generated.”
Why did you not require CEL to produce evidence of the date of posting—such as third-party mail consolidator logs or postal certificates? Your failure to do so renders your conclusion baseless and undermines the credibility of your investigation.
3. Denial of Appeal Rights
You have entirely ignored the fact that the Keeper was denied the opportunity to appeal due to CEL’s failure to serve the NtK. The alleged subsequent provision of a copy (which is denied) does not retroactively cure the breach or restore the lost appeal rights. Your position is legally incoherent and procedurally unjust.
4. Regulatory Abdication
Your refusal to investigate these breaches—despite clear evidence and direct references to the PPSCoP—suggests either wilful ignorance or regulatory capture. If the BPA cannot enforce its own Code, it has no business claiming to regulate this industry.
I now request that you:
• Reopen the investigation and demand strict proof of posting from CEL.
• Acknowledge the statutory requirement for delivery under POFA, not mere issuance.
• Address the denial of appeal rights as a breach of Sections 8.4.4 and 11.2 of the Code.
If you are unwilling to do so, I will escalate this matter to the DVLA, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC), and the ICO, citing BPA’s failure to enforce its own standards and protect consumer rights.
Yours sincerely, [Your Name]
As for the LoC, you can respond with the following (also CC in yourself):
Dear Sirs,
Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence you place reliance upon. It is therefore in complete contravention of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.
As a claimant, one would expect you to be capable of crafting a letter that aligns with paragraphs 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1 and 5.2 of the Protocol, and paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. These provisions do not exist for decoration—they exist to facilitate informed discussion and proportionate resolution. You might wish to reacquaint yourselves with them.
The Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols (Part 3), stipulate that prior to proceedings, parties should have exchanged sufficient information to understand each other’s position. Part 6 helpfully clarifies that this includes disclosure of key documents relevant to the issues in dispute.
Your template letter mentions a “contract”, yet fails to provide one. This would appear to undermine the only foundation upon which your claim allegedly rests. It’s difficult to engage in meaningful pre-litigation dialogue when you decline to furnish the very document you purport to enforce.
I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim that complies with the requirements of para 3.1(a) of the Pre-Action Protocol, I shall then seek advice and submit a formal response within 30 days, as required by the Protocol. Thus, I require you to comply with your obligations by sending me the following information/documents:
1. A copy of the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) that confirms any PoFA 2012 liability, including proof of posting and delivery within the statutory timeframe
2. A copy of the contract (or contracts) you allege exists between you and the driver, in the form of an actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date, not a generic stock image
3. The exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract(s) which is (are) relied upon that you allege to have been breached
4. The written agreement between you and the landowner, establishing authority to enforce
5. A breakdown of the charges claimed, identifying whether the principal sum is claimed as consideration or damages, and whether the £70 “debt recovery” fee includes VAT
I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).
I also challenge the £70 add-on per PCN. You have provided no evidence of actual costs incurred, nor any breakdown of how this figure was calculated. If VAT is included, you must confirm whether it is being properly accounted for and whether you are VAT registered. The BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice requires transparency and justification for any added fees, and your failure to provide this renders the amount unenforceable.
If you do not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, and Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on you and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13, 15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.
Until you have complied with your obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it. It is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for you to issue proceedings. Should you do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
I haven't double checked your BPA CoP sections, but assuming you have done your homework, here is a refinement of your formal complaint about CEL to the BPA. Please read it carefully and fill in the dates and other information necessary as required:
Subject: Formal Complaint Against Civil Enforcement Ltd (CEL) – Parking Charge Notice [Insert PCN Reference]
Dear BPA Complaints Team,
I am writing to lodge a formal complaint against Civil Enforcement Ltd (CEL), a member of the BPA. This complaint follows the exhaustion of CEL’s complaints process, as evidenced by their response to my formal complaint (dated [insert date]), in which they failed to adequately address the issues raised and declined to provide any resolution. As such, I now request that the BPA investigates their conduct and non-compliance with the BPA Code of Practice.
Background of Complaint
Civil Enforcement Ltd has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) for an alleged contravention at [Site Name] on [Incident Date]. However, CEL has failed in several key areas of compliance, as outlined below:
1. Failure to Provide Original Notice to Keeper (NtK):
I did not receive the original NtK; instead, I received a debt recovery notice months after the alleged contravention.
• This omission denied me the opportunity to appeal within the required 28-day period, in breach of Section 8.4.1 of the BPA Code of Practice.
2. Lack of Evidence for the Alleged Contravention:
• CEL has not provided any evidence that the vehicle was parked or breached any terms.
• The vehicle did not park but merely manoeuvred within the area to turn around, obstructed by other vehicles. CEL’s photographic evidence fails to substantiate any contravention or even display the vehicle's registration number (VRM), violating Section 7.3(a) of the Code.
3. Non-Compliance with POFA 2012:
• CEL has stated that I, as the keeper, am liable under POFA 2012. However, their procedural failings (failure to issue an NtK and denial of an appeal opportunity) invalidate any claim under POFA 2012.
• The debt recovery demand for £170 significantly exceeds the initial charge and does not include the mandatory reduced amount for prompt payment, contrary to Sections 8.2.1 and 8.2.2 of the Code.
4. Denial of Appeal Opportunities:
• CEL has failed to provide an opportunity to appeal the PCN, despite my formal request. This breaches Sections 8.4.4, 8.4.8, and 11.2 of the BPA Code.
• Their response to my complaint dismisses my concerns on the basis that it is "too late to make representations," despite the fact that I was never given the required information to appeal in the first place.
5. Failure to Properly Address a Formal Complaint:
• My formal complaint to CEL was not properly addressed, and they failed to take any corrective action, in breach of Sections 17.3.4 and 17.4.6 of the Code.
Exhaustion of CEL Complaints Process
As per the BPA Code of Practice (v9 as applicable at the time of the alleged contravention), I have followed the correct procedure by first raising my concerns directly with CEL. Their response, however, was dismissive and failed to resolve the issues raised. Consequently, I now escalate this matter to the BPA for investigation and action against their member.
Requested Action
I request that the BPA:
• Investigate Civil Enforcement Ltd’s breaches of the BPA Code of Practice, including their failure to issue an NtK, lack of evidence for the alleged contravention, denial of appeal opportunities, and failure to properly address a formal complaint.
• Take appropriate enforcement action to ensure that CEL complies with the standards expected of BPA members.
• Provide a detailed response outlining the steps the BPA will take to address these concerns and prevent similar issues in the future.
Please find attached all relevant correspondence and evidence to support this complaint. If further information is required, I will be happy to provide it.
I trust the BPA will take this matter seriously, as CEL’s behaviour undermines the integrity of its membership and the Code of Practice.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Contact Information]
We don't need to know about any dent recovery letters and you can safely ignore them. Use them as kindling. They are useless and powerless to do anything. Ignore them. Never, ever, ever, communicate with a useless debt collector.
The sign you've shown primarily offers terms for authorised parking and does not create a clear 'contractual offer' to the driver unless they meet specific conditions. The sign states that only "parishioners and authorised visitors" who register their vehicle on a touchscreen inside the premises are eligible to park.
This implies that no offer is being made to the general public for parking. Instead, it restricts the premises to authorised users only. The sign explicitly states, "General public parking is not permitted" which further supports that it is not an invitation to enter into a parking contract for anyone other than authorised users.
The phrase "If you breach any of these terms, you will be liable to a parking charge of up to £100" implies that any unauthorised parking constitutes a breach, not acceptance of a contract. This approach leans more towards a prohibitive notice rather than an offer capable of forming a contractual relationship.
The sign does not clearly state any terms that would apply to someone who merely enters the premises but does not park (e.g., someone turning around). A contract requires that terms are clearly communicated and capable of being accepted by conduct. Here, the "driver turning around" scenario does not align with the parking terms specified.
For a contract to be valid, it must offer terms that are capable of acceptance. The sign's focus on "Authorised Parking Only" does not provide an offer to unauthorised users but rather seeks to exclude them.
This sign does not appear to offer a contractual relationship to unauthorised drivers (e.g., those who enter and immediately leave, or turn around). Instead, it serves as a prohibitive notice designed to restrict access to authorised users only. As such, no contract could reasonably have been formed between the driver and Civil Enforcement Ltd in this case.
As you have the PCN number, you could go onto the CEL website as though to appeal and see what, if any, evidential photos they have. Make sure you download any images. You need to find out how much time the vehicle was actually on the premises because there are other appeal points that can be made, such as "consideration" and "grace" periods.
You say the driver simply entered, turned around and left. If they simply entered and turned around and then immediately left, CEL will be put to strict proof that that was not the case.
Send the following as a formal complaint to CEL (check their complaints procedure on their website):
Subject: Request for Clarification and Re-Issuance of Notice to Keeper (NtK)
[Keeper's Name]
[Keeper's Address]
[Date]
To:
Civil Enforcement Ltd
[Address - check CEL's correspondence or website for their contact details]
Re: Parking Charge Notice Reminder for PCN [pcn number]
Dear Civil Enforcement Ltd,
I am writing regarding a reminder letter I received for an alleged parking contravention at [Location Name] on 27/09/2024. I have not received the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) that should have been sent to me, and therefore I am unable to determine the nature of the alleged contravention.
As the Keeper of the vehicle, I am entitled to receive all the information necessary to understand the alleged breach. The reminder letter fails to provide the details required to establish:
1. The exact alleged contravention.
2. Evidence supporting your claim, including any images or proof of the vehicle's actions at the site.
From the limited information provided, I understand that the driver of the vehicle on the date in question did not park but merely entered the location to turn around and promptly exited. The signage at the site, which I have reviewed, states:
"Authorised Parking Only. Parishioners and authorised visitors must obtain a parking permit by registering their full correct vehicle registration on the touch screen located inside the premises."
This wording implies that any alleged contravention applies to vehicles that remain on-site without authorisation or proper registration. The vehicle in question did not park or wait at the location and therefore could not have breached these terms.
In line with the BPA Code of Practice (version 9, applicable at the time of the alleged incident), specifically Sections 21.4, 21.5, and 23.1, I require you to:
• Provide a copy of the original NtK, which must include all necessary details of the alleged contravention, including time-stamped evidence of the vehicle's presence and proof of any alleged terms breached.
• Clarify the alleged contravention with full supporting evidence.
Furthermore, I remind you that should you fail to provide adequate evidence to support your claim, this matter will be considered unresolved, and any further action by you or your agents may be deemed unreasonable and vexatious.
If I do not receive a satisfactory response within 14 days, I will escalate this matter to the BPA and other relevant bodies for further investigation.
Please treat this correspondence as a formal complaint.
Yours faithfully,
[Keeper's Full Name]
[Keeper's Contact Information]