When you have completed the form, attach it to a single email addressed to both dq.cnbc@justice.gov.uk andinfo@dcblegal.co.ukdataprotectionofficer@ce-service.co.uk and CC in yourself. Make sure that the claim number is in the subject field of the email.
Having received your own N180 (make sure it is not simply a copy of the claimants N180), do not use the paper form. Ignore all the other forms that came with it. you can discard those. Download your own here and fill it in on your computer. You sign it by simply typing your full name in the signature box.Also read Section A about mediation.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/673341e779e9143625613543/N180_1124.pdf
Here are the answers to some of the less obvious questions:
• The name of the court is "Civil National Business Centre".
• To be completed by "Your full name" and you are the "Defendant".
• C1: "YES"
• D1: "NO". Reason: "I wish to question the Claimant about their evidence at a hearing in person and to expose omissions and any misleading or incorrect evidence or assertions.
Given the Claimant is a firm who complete cut & paste parking case paperwork for a living, having this case heard solely on papers would appear to put the Claimant at an unfair advantage, especially as they would no doubt prefer the Defendant not to have the opportunity to expose the issues in the Claimants template submissions or speak as the only true witness to events in question.."
• F1: Whichever is your nearest county court. Use this to find it: https://www.find-court-tribunal.service.gov.uk/search-option
• F3: "1".
• Sign the form by simply typing your full name for the signature.
When you have completed the form, attach it to a single email addressed to both dq.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and info@dcblegal.co.uk and CC in yourself. Make sure that the claim number is in the subject field of the email.
(g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.Unlike DCB's attempts, in this one they don't even seem to be attempting to plead alternative causes of action, they don't mention the capacity in which he's being pursued at all.
1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The Defendant asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and that no debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not adequately disclose any comprehensible cause of action.
2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made against the Defendant such that the PoC do not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a).
3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC because:
(a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to the PoC in accordance with PD 16, para 7.3(1);
(b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is/are relied on;
(c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract (or contracts)
(d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;
(e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest, damages, or other charges;
(f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the parking charge and what proportion is damages;
(g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.
4. The Defendant submits that courts have previously struck out similar claims of their own initiative for failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a), particularly where the Particulars of Claim failed to specify the contractual terms relied upon or explain the alleged breach with sufficient clarity. The Defendant refers specifically to the persuasive appellate cases:
- Civil Enforcement Ltd v Chan (2023), Luton County Court, HHJ Murch, ref: E7GM9W44
- CPMS Ltd v Akande (2024), Manchester County Court, HHJ Evans, ref: K0DP5J30
In both cases, the claim was struck out due to materially similar failures to comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a).
5. The Defendant invites the Court to strike out this claim of its own initiative. The Defendant relies on the judicial reasoning set out in Chan and Akande, as well as other County Court cases involving identical failures to adequately comply with CPR 16.4. In those cases, the court further observed that, given the modest sum claimed, requiring further case management steps would be disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective. Accordingly, the judge struck out the claim outright rather than permitting an amendment. The Defendant proposes that the following Order be made:
Draft Order:
Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars of claim and the defence.
AND the court being of the view that the particulars of claim do not comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) because: (a) they do not set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or contracts) which is (or are) relied on; and (b) they do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons) why the claimant asserts that the defendant was in breach of contract.
AND the claimant could have complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a) had it served separate detailed particulars of claim, as it could have done pursuant to PD 7C, para 5.2, but chose not to do so.
AND upon the Court determining, having regard to the overriding objective (CPR 1.1), that it would be disproportionate to direct further pleadings or to allot any further share of the Court’s resources to this claim (for example by ordering further particulars of claim and a further defence, with consequent case management).
ORDER:
1. The claim is struck out.
2. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or stay this order by application on notice, which must be filed at this Court not more than 7 days after service of this order, failing which no such application may be made.
I’m currently unable to upload attachments with this responseREAD THIS FIRST - Private Parking Charges Forum guide (https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/)
I am submitting this formal complaint regarding the handling of my recent appeal, specifically in relation to the assessor's decision to disregard Annex F1(j) of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP), which came into effect in February 2025.
The assessor acknowledged that I raised Annex F1(j) but dismissed its relevance on the basis that the alleged contravention occurred in January 2025, prior to the Code’s amendment. However, the Notice to Keeper (NtK) in this case was issued on 31 January 2025 and therefore deemed delivered in February 2025, after the Code amendment came into force. It is my position that the date of deemed delivery of the NtK is the relevant point at which Code compliance should be assessed, particularly when the alleged breach is of a procedural or administrative nature rather than substantive misconduct.
Annex F1(j) was introduced to prevent precisely the kind of enforcement action being pursued here—where a motorist has paid in full for the parking period but is being penalised for the timing of payment. The Code amendment was made in response to widespread concern about fairness and consumer protection in such cases. Dismissing its applicability based solely on the date of contravention ignores the fact that enforcement activity (including NtK issuance and appeal consideration) occurred while the new Code was in force.
While I understand that POPLA does not change appeal decisions once issued, this complaint is made to ensure that future assessments reflect the proper application of the Code. I am also putting POPLA on notice that I reserve the right to raise this case as an example of procedural unfairness in any public consultation, media commentary, or policy forum concerning private parking regulation and POPLA’s independence.
I request that this complaint is formally logged and reviewed, and that any internal guidance issued to POPLA assessors is updated to clarify that Annex F1(j) applies where the NtK is deemed delivered after February 2025, regardless of the date of the alleged contravention.
The operator's response fails to address key issues raised in my POPLA appeal and contains several flaws that render their claim invalid.
The operator has not complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). The Notice to Keeper (NtK) fails to meet the statutory wording required under paragraph 9(2)(e)(i), as it does not include a proper invitation for the keeper to pay or provide the driver's details. The operator has also failed to respond to the second key point raised in my POPLA appeal regarding the failure of their NtK to comply with PoFA, specifically the lack of a clear invitation to the keeper to pay, as required under PoFA 9(2)(e)(i).
PoFA requires that a NtK must clearly and explicitly invite the keeper to either pay the charge or provide the name and address of the driver. This is a legal requirement, not an optional inclusion. The operator cannot rely on implied obligation—the wording must be clear and unambiguous.
The operator’s NtK states that the driver is required to pay the charge and tells the keeper to provide the driver’s details if they were not the driver. However, there is no legal obligation on the keeper to identify the driver.
PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) specifically requires the NtK to invite the keeper to pay the charge. It does not attach any conditions to that invitation, such as stating that the keeper must have been the driver. However, this NtK only explains what happens if the keeper was not the driver, without a direct invitation for the keeper to pay. This omission makes the NtK non-compliant with PoFA, meaning the operator cannot transfer liability to the keeper.
My appeal pointed out that the operator’s NtK fails to include this required invitation. Rather than addressing this clear legal failure, the operator has entirely ignored the issue in their evidence pack. If the operator believed their NtK was compliant, they would have provided direct evidence that their notice contains the required wording. Their silence on this point confirms that their NtK does not comply with PoFA. The wording used is ambiguous and does not meet the strict requirements of PoFA. The operator has not addressed this issue in their evidence pack. If they believed their NtK was compliant, they would have rebutted this argument and justified the wording. Their silence on this point indicates they have no valid defense. POPLA should treat their failure to engage with this issue as a concession that their NtK does not comply with PoFA, and that keeper liability cannot be enforced.
The NtK also fails to comply with PoFA paragraph 9(2)(f), as it incorrectly states that the charge must be paid within 28 days from the issue date rather than the date of deemed delivery. The operator was required to provide strict proof that their NtK fully complies with all the requirements of PoFA, allowing them to lawfully transfer liability to the registered keeper. As already demonstrated, their NtK fails to meet the statutory requirements in several key areas. It does not correctly specify the statutory 28-day period for payment, as required under Paragraph 9(2)(f), and it also fails to include the mandatory invitation for the keeper to pay the charge, as required under Paragraph 9(2)(e)(i). Since full compliance with PoFA is an absolute requirement for transferring liability, these failures render the NtK non-compliant, and liability cannot pass to the keeper. This fundamental misrepresentation of PoFA requirements means that keeper liability cannot apply.
The operator has failed to comply with the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). The latest amendments were made only days before the contravention occurred, and the changes were introduced in response to widespread public concern about operators issuing charges for minor administrative delays in payment, despite the full parking fee being paid.
Annex F1(j) of the PPSCoP explicitly states:
"Parking charges must not be pursued in relation to vehicles where evidence is provided that they are identified as:
j) a vehicle parked in a car park managed by fixed camera technology (ANPR and/or CCTV) for which payment has been made for the full period of parking prior to the vehicle leaving the car park."
This clause was introduced to prevent precisely the kind of unfair charge being pursued in this case. The operator does not dispute that full payment was made for the entire duration of parking before the vehicle left the car park. Their reliance on an arbitrary rule requiring payment within 10 minutes of arrival is exactly the type of unfair practice that the updated PPSCoP was designed to eliminate.
The signage at the site is inadequate. The operator claims that clear signage was present, but the evidence provided does not demonstrate that the terms, specifically the 10-minute payment rule, were adequately communicated upon entry. The BPA Code of Practice requires that signs must be clear and legible so that motorists can read them before deciding to park. The operator has failed to prove that the signage meets this standard. Their own evidential photos show that the 10-minute limitation is buried in tiny font in a wall of text, and in no way can that form part of any contract by conduct if it is not adequately brought to the driver's attention.
The operator references the Supreme Court case ParkingEye v Beavis, but this case is not relevant here. That case concerned a retail car park with a free stay period and a deterrent charge to ensure turnover of spaces. In contrast, this case involves a paid car park where the driver paid in full for the entire duration of parking. There is no commercial justification for this charge, as no financial loss was suffered by the landowner. The operator's attempt to rely on Beavis is therefore misplaced.
The operator asserts that keeper liability applies under PoFA, but this is incorrect. Furthermore, if the operator wished to hold the registered keeper liable, they were required to provide strict proof that the person they are pursuing was, in fact, the driver on the date of the alleged contravention. The law does not allow inference that the registered keeper was the driver, and the burden rests entirely on the operator to provide evidence proving this. In VCS v Edward [2023], the court ruled that an operator must provide sufficient evidence to prove that the registered keeper and the driver are the same person. The operator has failed to provide any such evidence in their response pack. This is because of the PoFA failures already pointed out in the appeal.
The operator’s failure to rebut the specific PoFA non-compliance issues raised in my appeal, coupled with their failure to provide strict proof of the driver’s identity, means they have no lawful basis to pursue me, the keeper, for this charge. The absence of any meaningful response to these fundamental legal failures should be taken as a concession that their case is without merit. The appeal must be upheld, and the PCN must be cancelled. As demonstrated in my appeal, the NtK is not PoFA compliant, meaning that the keeper cannot be held liable. The operator cannot lawfully transfer liability to the keeper when their notice fails to meet the mandatory legal requirements.
The operator suggests that matters raised in my POPLA appeal were not included in the initial appeal to them. However, there is no requirement for an appellant to raise all arguments in their initial appeal. POPLA considers appeals independently, and all relevant legal and procedural errors must be taken into account regardless of when they were first raised.
The operator's own evidence confirms that full payment was made for the period of parking. The operator has completely failed to address Point 2 of my appeal, which highlights their clear breach of the PPSCoP. Instead of responding to this fundamental issue, they have remained silent, failing to justify or explain their non-compliance.
The NtK misleads by instructing to pay or appeal within 28 days of the issue of the NtK. However, under the PPSCoP, specifically Section 8.1.2(e) and Note 2, the correct appeal deadline is 28 days from the "receipt" date, not the "issue" date. The PPSCoP makes it clear that a NtK sent by post is presumed to be delivered on the second working day after posting unless proven otherwise. By setting an incorrect deadline, the operator misrepresents the keeper’s rights and misleads them into believing they have less time to appeal than they actually do.
The operator’s failure to respond to this point means they implicitly accept that their NtK contains misleading information. They have not provided any explanation or justification for their failure to comply with the PPSCoP, nor have they attempted to correct the misrepresentation. Their silence on this matter should be taken as an admission that their demand was inaccurate and misleading.
Under POPLA’s own appeal assessment principles, if an appellant raises a valid challenge and the operator does not respond to it, the appeal must be upheld. The burden of proof lies with the operator to demonstrate compliance with the CoP and fairness in their communications. Their failure to do so means they have not discharged that burden, and the appeal should be allowed.
As this appeal point remains uncontested, the misleading NtK alone is sufficient to invalidate the PCN. The sole reason for issuing this charge is an arbitrary rule about when payment must be made. As per Annex F1(j) of the updated PPSCoP, such a charge is now expressly prohibited. POPLA should consider this amendment as persuasive guidance and uphold my appeal.
For the reasons set out above, this Parking Charge Notice must be cancelled.
Hi,
I intend to send the following to POPLA. Please advise of any necessary adjustments. Thanks.
I am appealing the Civil Enforcement Ltd (CEL) Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the grounds that it was not issued in accordance with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) and the Parking Practice Code of Practice (PPSCoP). The PCN fails to meet the necessary legal standards for the following reasons:
1. Failure to Comply with PoFA 9(2)(e)(i)
Under PoFA 9(2)(e)(i), the Notice to Keeper (NtK) must invite the keeper to either pay the charge or provide the driver's details to the operator. However, the back of the NtK states:
“We have photographic evidence of this incident. You are notified under paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 that it is the driver's responsibility to pay the parking charge in respect of the period of parking and the parking charges have not been paid in full. The Creditor does not know both the name of the driver and the current address for service for the driver. You can therefore choose to pay or appeal the unpaid parking charge but you cannot do both; or if you were not the driver of the vehicle, to notify us of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass this notice on to the driver.”
This wording does not constitute the required "invitation" for the keeper to pay the charge, as set out in PoFA 9(2)(e)(i). The language used is vague and does not comply with the strict requirements of PoFA, which specifically mandates that the notice must invite the keeper to pay or provide the driver's details.
Key failings include:
• No clear invitation for the keeper to pay: The notice does not explicitly state that the keeper is invited to pay the charge, as required by PoFA. Instead, it merely offers the option to "choose to pay or appeal," which is not the same as an invitation to assume liability.
• Assumption that the recipient is the driver: The notice incorrectly assumes the recipient is the driver, stating "it is the driver's responsibility to pay." It fails to make clear that the keeper can be held liable only if PoFA's conditions are met.
• Failure to transfer liability to the keeper: PoFA requires the notice to explicitly state that the keeper is liable if the driver is not identified. The NtK does not clearly transfer liability to the keeper.
2. Failure to Comply with PPSCoP Section 8.1.2(e)
PPSCoP Section 8.1.2(e) states that the NtK is considered delivered two working days after posting. The 28-day period for payment or appeal starts from this deemed delivery date. However, the NtK incorrectly states that debt recovery action may begin if payment is not made within 28 days of the issue date, which is contrary to the PPSCoP. Debt recovery cannot legally begin until the full appeal period has expired. This breach of procedure invalidates the PCN.
3. Failure to Comply with PoFA Paragraph 9(2)(f)
PoFA Paragraph 9(2)(f) specifies that the charge becomes payable by the keeper only if it remains unpaid after 28 days from the date the NtK is deemed delivered. However, the NtK incorrectly states that the charge must be paid within 28 days from the issue date, which is not in line with PoFA. The charge is only due from the keeper 29 days after the notice is deemed delivered, not 28 days from the issue date. This error creates a procedural defect, invalidating the NtK. Additionally, PPSCoP prohibits early debt recovery threats, making CEL’s wording misleading and unfair.
4. Keeper Liability is Not Applicable
Due to the operator's failure to comply with the legal requirements of PoFA and PPSCoP, the registered keeper cannot be held liable for this charge. I am not legally obligated to identify the driver, and since the NtK does not meet PoFA’s mandatory requirements, keeper liability does not apply.
CEL’s inability to transfer liability under PoFA due to these errors means they cannot pursue the registered keeper. Therefore, POPLA must uphold the appeal on this basis alone.
5. Defective Signage
The signage at the car park entry was inadequate. The driver purchased a permit covering the exit time of 11:21 am but was unaware of the requirement to purchase a permit within 10 minutes of arrival. The signage at the entry did not clearly state this 10-minute rule, which contributed to the alleged contravention.
This 10-minute rule is unreasonable, as it is not communicated clearly upon entry, and drivers may miss it until it’s too late. (Image of entry sign attached)
As per the BPA Code of Practice v9, signage must be clear, visible, and unambiguous in communicating the terms.
Summary of Failures:
• The NtK does not comply with PoFA 9(2)(e)(i) as it fails to invite the keeper to pay the charge or provide the driver's details.
• The NtK does not comply with PoFA 9(2)(f) due to an incorrect liability start date.
• The NtK does not comply with PPSCoP Section 8.1.2(e) by failing to clearly communicate the 28-day appeal deadline.
• Keeper liability cannot apply due to these non-compliances.
• The signage at the location is defective, particularly regarding the 10-minute permit purchase requirement.
Given these significant issues, the Parking Charge is unenforceable against the registered keeper. I respectfully urge POPLA to uphold this appeal and cancel the charge, recognizing that CEL has failed to meet its legal obligations.
This appeal is submitted in good faith, supported by the relevant sections of PoFA and PPSCoP. I request that POPLA cancel this Parking Charge Notice in full.
We have photographic evidence of this incident. You are notified under paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 that it is the driver's responsibility to pay the parking charge in respect of the period of parking and the parking charges have not been paid in full. The Creditor does not know both the name of the driver and the current address for service for the driver. You can therefore choose to pay or appeal the unpaid parking charge but you cannot do both; or if you were not the driver of the vehicle, to notify us of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass this notice on to the driver.
This notice is issued under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, By parking or remaining at the car park/private land in the circumstances above, the terms and conditions clearly set out on the signage throughout the car park were breached, In accordance with those terms and conditions, the Parking Charge is now payable to Civil Enforcement Limited. Failure to pay the full amount due within 28 days of the issue date may result in Civil Enforcement Ltd (the Creditor) taking debt recovery action or forwarding this account to a debt recovery agency and/or Issuing court proceedings, that will incur further debt recovery fees of up to £70 and/or additional costs for which you may be liable.
I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.
As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. CEL has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. CEL have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.