-
Why on earth do you think that CEL would agree to “settle” anything? They have gone this far and they are still hoping that you are low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree who is likely to pay out of ignorance and fear.
Please enlighten us as to what you imagine “court” to be?
Once you have done that, we can then explain why you are wrong and can give you the advice that will quash those misconceptions.
-
Thanks very much for this. I've searched the forum and it appears most people advise offering £0 at the mediation, saying that it's unlikely the case will go to court.
However, considering that CE is using in-house legal representation, should I take a different course if it's more likely that it does go to court?
I would much rather not pay anything, but I also don't really want this to go to court and experience the added stress.
Would it be wise to prepare to settle?
-
Hello, just an update...
Still no reply from CEL providing the full name of the signatory of the Statement of Truth.
I also filled in the Directions Questionnaire (thanks very much for the help) and I've got a mediation appointment this upcoming Tuesday.
Would appreciate any advice on how I should approach it...
Search the forum!
For example
For the mediation call, the only requirement is for you "attend" the call. It is not part of the judicial process and no judge is involved.
This is what I advise you to say when you receive the call from the mediator:
“Before I set out my position, please confirm from the claimant’s side:
• the full name of the person attending for them;
• their role/position at their legal representative’s firm; and
• whether they hold written authority to negotiate and settle today.
Please relay that back to me before we continue.”
After the mediator calls back...
If identified and authority confirmed:
“Thank you. I’m content to proceed on that basis. My settlement offer is £0, or I invite the claimant to discontinue with no order as to costs.”
If no/unclear authority:
“Please record that the claimant’s attendee has not confirmed settlement authority. My position remains that liability is denied and my offer is £0, subject to prompt approval by an authorised solicitor if they choose to discontinue.”
If the mediator probes your defence:
”In what capacity are you asking that question? Are you legally trained? If not, please refrain from offering opinions. I will be reporting any attempt to do so as inappropriate.”
All you need to know is the name and the position of the person acting for the claimant and report that back to us. It will be over within minutes. Complete waste of time otherwise.
-
Hello, just an update...
Still no reply from CEL providing the full name of the signatory of the Statement of Truth.
I also filled in the Directions Questionnaire (thanks very much for the help) and I've got a mediation appointment this upcoming Tuesday.
Would appreciate any advice on how I should approach it...
-
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.
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.
-
Search the forum for
N180
and you will find comprehensive instructions.
-
Thanks for this, I received a copy of CELs Directions Questionnaire 2 days ago and sent the email to the email address listed on that (legal@ce-service.co.uk)
They still haven't acknowledged receipt...Both the email and the letter were sent and dated Monday 29 Sept 2025. I guess now I must wait...
Also, do I need to fill in a DQ too, and if so, am I ok using the n180 form from the gov.uk website here and I guess emailing it? https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/form-n180-directions-questionnaire-small-claims-track
Heres the DQ they sent: https://imgur.com/a/QJTvgMD
Or would I just wait for another letter that specifically requests I do so? Thanks.
-
Send the open letter by first-class post to the address for service shown on the claim form or the company’s registered office. Get a free 'Certificate of Posting' from any post office. DO NOT use 'signed for' (recorded delivery). Deemed service is the second business day after posting.
You should also send the following email to the same email address
Subject: Claim [M4GM5R3Q] – Address for service by email / portal access
To: dataprotectionofficer@ce-service.co.uk
Dear Civil Enforcement Limited,
I am the Defendant in Claim [M4GM5R3Q] (issue date 08/09/2025).
Please confirm, for this claim:
• whether you accept service of documents by email, and if so, the specific email address to be treated as the address for service; and/or
• whether you operate a portal for litigation correspondence/uploads (with access details).
If you do not confirm an email address or portal within 7 days, I will continue to serve by first-class post to your address for service only. In any later dispute about service, I will put you to strict proof of posting and reserve the right to rebut any presumption of service with evidence (including returned mail, delivery records and contemporaneous logs of non-receipt).
To avoid unnecessary disputes, if you serve by post, please retain and be ready to produce a Certificate of Posting or equivalent proof, and (as a courtesy) copy the same material to me by email.
Please acknowledge receipt of this message and confirm the position.
Yours faithfully,
[Full name]
[Email] | [Postal address]
-
What if they don't acknowledge receipt?
Is it worth putting this in letter form and posting it to their registered address in Office Horton House,
Exchange Flags, Liverpool L2 3PF?
-
Hoping someone acknowledges the email and it's not left unseen...
-
Thanks, just sent them!
-
dataprotectionofficer@ce-service.co.uk
-
How about
office@ce-service.co.uk
Legal3@ce-service.co.uk
?
-
Wow, thanks so much for this. Was trying to get this sent off but the email address (legal@cel.co.uk) isn't valid.
Gonna try to scour the web for another email address associated with CEL and will come back with an update.
-
So, the Statement of Truth is defective because it has been signed without the full name of the person making the statement. Practice Direction 22 is clear: the signer must print their full name beneath the signature, and a legal representative must sign in their own name (not just the firm). Using “S Wilson” instead of the full forename is non-compliant with PD22 ¶3.8 (and ¶3.9 if purporting to sign as a legal representative). It’s usually treated as a procedural irregularity that the court can require to be corrected; it’s not normally fatal to the claim unless the party fails to put it right when asked.
You should send two separate letters to CEL as PDF attachments in separate emails.
First email:
subject: Claim [M4GM5R3Q] – Defect in Statement of Truth on Particulars of Claim
To: legal@cel.co.uk
Dear Sir/Madam,
Please see the attached Open Letter regarding the defective Statement of Truth on your Particulars of Claim in Claim No. M4GM5R3Q (issue date 08/09/2025).
Kindly acknowledge receipt by return.
Yours faithfully,
[Your full name]
[Email] | [Telephone]
This is the PDF letter you should attach to this email:
OPEN LETTER
Claim: M4GM5R3Q — Civil Enforcement Limited v [Defendant’s name] Issue date: 08/09/2025
Dear Sir/Madam,
I write regarding the Statement of Truth that purports to verify the Particulars of Claim on the N1SDT. The signature block states only “S Wilson” (Head of Legal). This does not comply with PD 22, which requires the signatory to print their full forename(s) and surname beneath the signature and, if signing as a legal representative, to sign in their own name and identify capacity.
Please within 7 days of this email file and serve a separate Statement of Truth verifying the existing Particulars of Claim (identifying the claim number and issue date) that prints the signatory’s full name and states their capacity. This request concerns verification only. For the avoidance of doubt, I do not consent to any amendment of the content of the Particulars of Claim.
If you do not comply, I will issue an application seeking an order for proper verification under CPR 22.2, and I will seek my application fee and reasonable litigant-in-person costs.
Yours faithfully,
[Your full name]
[Address]
[Email] | [Telephone]
Date: [insert date sent][/b]
For the second letter/email, use the following:
Email subject: Without prejudice save as to costs – offer to discontinue (M4GM5R3Q)
To: legal@cel.co.uk
Without prejudice save as to costs
Dear Sir Madam,
Please see the attached WP(SATC) Letter offering a time-limited opportunity to discontinue with no order as to costs.
Please acknowledge receipt.
Yours faithfully,
[Your full name][/b]
Use this as the text for the PDF letter you are attaching to the email:
WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE AS TO COSTS
Claim: M4GM5R3Q — Civil Enforcement Limited v [Defendant’s name], issue date: 08/09/2025
Dear Sir/Madam,
Having reviewed your Particulars of Claim and the defective Statement of Truth, my position is that the claim fails to comply with CPR 16.4 and that the Statement of Truth is non-compliant with PD 22.
Offer: If you file and serve a Notice of Discontinuance within 7 days of this email, I will accept discontinuance on the basis of no order as to costs, and I will take no further steps.
If you do not discontinue, I will:
• apply for an order compelling proper verification of the PoC (PD 22 / CPR 22.2); and
• seek strike-out for non-compliance with CPR 16.4(1)(a), relying on persuasive authority including Civil Enforcement Ltd v Ming Tan Chan (2023) [E7GM9W44] and CPMS v Akande (2023) [K0DP5J30];
• and I will seek my court fee and reasonable litigant-in-person costs (£19/hour).
This offer is open for 7 days and is made without prejudice save as to costs.
Yours faithfully,
[Your full name]
[Email] | [Telephone]
Date: [insert date sent][/b]
-
Sorry, that would be a S. Wilson, 'Head of Legal'
https://imgur.com/a/1w9JyXG
Thanks, I guess I just have to wait to hear back from them now...
-
POPLA appears to have decided that PoFA only requires the notice to be posted in time (and they mis-state the requirement because it has to be posted to arrive within 14 days, not as the assessor states) and ignored other points making this not comply.
What are you talking about? Whilst the assessor is wrong when they state that the Notice must be "issued" within 14 days rather than than "given" within 14 days, in this case, the Notice was given within the relevant period.
As CEL are handling this with their own legal team, there is a higher chance that it will go to a hearing, but not necessarily. There is a good chance this will be struck out after allocation because of the PoC defects in breach of CPR 16.4(1)(a). We will just have to wait and see.
Why have you redacted the signatory of the Statement of Truth on the N1SDT Claim Form? We need to see the name and position of every person who signs a document that is submitted for litigation, whether the claim form, the N180 DQ, any WS or any other form or document that is part of the litigation process. Please tell us the name and position of the person who signed it.
-
POPLA appears to have decided that PoFA only requires the notice to be posted in time (and they mis-state the requirement because it has to be posted to arrive within 14 days, not as the assessor states) and ignored other points making this not comply.
-
Hi, thanks for this defence, I've just submitted it online via money claim.gov
Do you think this will go to court? (I'm trying not to panic).
Also sorry for not providing an update. Basically, POPLA rejected my appeal, and I believe I may have received a Letter of Claim but I don't really remember (unhelpful, sorry).
Here's the POPLA response: https://imgur.com/a/VsyGCCH
-
With an issue date of 8th September you have until 4pm on Wednesday 27th September to submit your defence. If you submit an Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then have until 4pm on Wednesday 10th October to submit your defence.
You only need to submit an AoS if you need extra time to prepare your defence. If you want to submit an AoS then follow the instructions in this linked PDF:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?dl=0
Until very recently, we never advised using the MCOL to submit a defence. However, due to recent systemic failures within the CNBC, we feel that it is safer to now submit a short defence using MCOL as it is instantly submitted and entered into the "system". Whilst it will deny the use of some formatting or inclusion of transcripts etc. these can always be included with the Witness Statement (WS) later, if it ever progresses that far.
You will need to copy and paste it into the defence text box on MCOL. It has been checked to make sure that it will fit into the 122 lines limit.
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 or any facts capable of amounting to a breach;
(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.
-
So, from being advised to appeal to POPLA and respond to the operators evidence, we have not heard back until no, after a claim has been issued.
Assuming the POPLA appeal was unsuccessful, why didn't you post the decision. Also, did you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC)? If so, why have you not told us about it?
-
You should obscure the claim number and password also.
-
Hi all,
I received this letter from HM Courts & Tribunals Service- do I need to reply or is this not an official court document? Would appreciate any help.
https://imgur.com/a/n1eVPfI
Fyi, here is my previous post on getting a PCN from CE Ltd (I only started a new post bc it wouldn't let me attach this letter to a reply https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/ce-ltd-rejected-my-appeal/msg61957/#msg61957.
-
Thanks for this! I'll upload it as a response (along with the fact that they don't even bother to check if the driver's registration is accurate lol). Fingers crossed it goes well, I'll keep you updated.
P.S., sorry to be a bother, but could you replace your screenshot of the list of car regs with the one I've attached here, as I clearly forgot to blur mine lol
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
just trying to get my head around something here...
Point 16 in CE's operator evidence pack, they state the following:
"16. The Driver failed to purchase parking within 10 minutes of arrival for the vehicle, registration YR11VPU, as can be seen from the attached report which shows the vehicles that did purchase parking on the day in question."
They then go on to evidence this:
(https://i.imgur.com/GAVO7A9.png)
Does anyone else notice the anomaly?
They then go on to state at 18: "Whilst we appreciate the Driver’s submissions, we are unable to take into account mitigating circumstances; the terms and conditions of parking were clear."
The PPSCoP at section 8.4.4 states:
"8.4.4. In considering appeals, parking operators must consider mitigating circumstances in accordance with Annex F."
1. Failure to Acknowledge the PPSCoP (Feb 2025) Update and Its Relevance
The operator has failed to acknowledge that the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) Version 1.1 (Feb 2025), which was published just days after this alleged contravention, now explicitly states that a PCN must not be issued if payment was received for the full period of parking before the vehicle left the site.
This amendment followed a national outcry over rogue operators imposing unrealistic and unfair penalty conditions, such as a strict 10-minute payment window, even when their own flawed payment systems cause delays.
The operator has failed to justify why a PCN was issued in this case, given that payment was received before departure and covered the full period of parking.
2. Failure to Address the Payment System Malfunctions
The appellant has provided clear screenshot evidence demonstrating multiple failures of the operator’s payment systems, including:
- Repeated error messages on the Phone and Pay app.
- The website failing to load properly, preventing online payment.
- The automated phone payment system requiring verbal input of card details, which repeatedly failed to register the information correctly.
- The operator claims that the system was working because other motorists made payments, but they have not evidenced this claim.
- The operator has only submitted a list of other vehicles that were eventually registered.
- This does not prove that the system was functioning correctly at all times.
- It is entirely possible that other motorists also encountered issues and only succeeded after multiple attempts, just as the appellant did.
- The operator has failed to provide system logs or any technical evidence proving that their systems were fully operational and without fault at the time of the alleged contravention.
As a result, the appellant was subjected to an unreasonable and arbitrary payment condition that could not be met due to the operator’s own failures, rather than any wrongdoing on the part of the motorist.
3. Lack of Prominent Signage Regarding the 10-Minute Payment Rule
= The operator claims that the signs were "clearly displayed", but their own photographic evidence contradicts this.
- The images provided show that the signs are barely noticeable and not positioned in a way that ensures drivers can read and understand them before entering the car park.
- Even in the close-up images submitted by the operator, it is impossible to clearly read the actual terms, particularly the 10-minute limit for payment, which appears buried in small print among other conditions.
- This is a clear failure under Vine v Waltham Forest [2000] 4 All ER 169, which establishes that for a contract to be legally binding, motorists must be given sufficient notice of the key terms before they park.
- A term that is hidden in minuscule text, buried among other information, and not legible even in the operator’s own close-up photos cannot be deemed prominent enough to form a valid contract.
- The operator has failed to provide any evidence that this critical term was displayed clearly and prominently at the entrance, where a driver could make an informed decision before entering the site.
- This lack of clarity and visibility makes the 10-minute rule an unfair and unenforceable condition.
4. Misuse of Beavis Case Law
- The operator has included a summary of ParkingEye v Beavis in an apparent attempt to suggest that this Supreme Court ruling somehow justifies the parking charge. However, this is a clear misrepresentation of that case, which has no relevance to the circumstances here.
Beavis concerned a free car park where the charge was intended as a deterrent to prevent overstaying, and the Supreme Court ruled that such a charge was justified due to the need for turnover of parking spaces.
- In contrast, this case involves paid parking, where the issue is not overstaying or abuse of the car park but rather a delayed payment caused by system failures beyond the motorist’s control.
- The core issue here is the unrealistic and unfair 10-minute payment condition, which was rendered even more unreasonable due to the operator’s own flawed payment systems.
- Beavis has no bearing on cases where a motorist fully intended to pay and did pay but was obstructed by a dysfunctional payment process and insufficiently clear contractual terms.
- The fact that the operator has included Beavis in their evidence pack without explaining its relevance suggests that they are simply relying on it as a scare tactic, rather than providing a genuine legal argument.
- POPLA assessors must not allow operators to bandy about the Beavis case in every appeal as if it applies universally. Each case must be considered on its own facts, and in this instance, the circumstances are entirely different from those in Beavis.
5. Failure to Justify the Issuance of the PCN
The operator’s own evidence confirms that payment was made before the vehicle left the site and that the driver paid for the full parking duration. Despite this, the operator still issued a PCN based on an arbitrary and predatory 10-minute payment condition, which serves no legitimate purpose other than to extract penalties from unsuspecting motorists.
The Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) Version 1.1 (Feb 2025), which was issued just days after this PCN was issued, was amended precisely because of a national outcry against rogue parking operators using this exact exploitative payment rule. The 10-minute payment condition is unfair, unreasonable, and now officially recognised as such under the PPSCoP, as it operates purely as an undisclosed penalty clause—a clear breach of contract law.
If a motorist pays for the period of parking before departure, there is no legitimate justification for issuing a penalty charge, as there is no loss incurred by the operator or landowner. The fact that the BPA and IPC had to urgently amend the industry-wide Code of Practice confirms that this tactic is entrapment, deception, and an unlawful revenue-generating scheme rather than a genuine enforcement measure.
The PPSCoP now explicitly prohibits the issuance of PCNs in these circumstances, confirming that the operator’s conduct in this case is indefensible. This is not simply a minor oversight; it is a clear example of systemic abuse by rogue parking firms, who knowingly impose near-impossible conditions on motorists to engineer technical breaches that result in revenue, rather than ensuring fair and reasonable parking management.
The operator has provided no justification for issuing a PCN when the motorist ultimately complied with the fundamental requirement of paying for parking. The only reasonable conclusion is that this PCN was issued punitively and in bad faith, making it wholly unenforceable.
-
They also added a press summary and images of the car park
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
So I submitted my appeal to POPLA, and CE Ltd responded with this today (attached docs). They seem to ignore my claims about PoFA and transfering liability to the keeper one day early...
Does anyone have any advice? POPLA says I have 7 days to respond and I don't know what else there is to say other than what I've already written!
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Got it, thanks.
[attachimg=1][attach=2]
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
You are demonstrating the difference between the two signs. The Beavis one was considered as a good example of clear terms and the penalty for breaching the terms. Nothing is clear or obvious on the signs used by CEL.
(https://i.imgur.com/zVPWeOM.png)
-
How's this:
https://imgur.com/a/lJCgUJi . I realise the CE Ltd sign does have a yellow background but the size of the writing is still quite small
-
If you're going to try and say that the Beavis sign is good and CEs sign is bad, simply showing a photo of the Beavis sign is about as useful as a poke in the arm with a sharp stick.
Do something similar to this and stick it right in the section you are pleading in your appeal:
(https://i.imgur.com/I4fMOK0.jpeg)
-
Thanks, I was just having issues with spacing
-
I've copied and pasted it for you below so we don't have to use Pastebin. I'm not sure what issue you encountered, but copy and paste works on here the same as it does on Pastebin and elsewhere.
POPLA reference number:
Civil Enforcement Ltd PCN:
Dear POPLA Assessor,
As the registered keeper, I am appealing the Parking Charge Notice issued by Civil Enforcement Ltd. for an alleged breach of the terms and conditions at Beech Hill Conservative Club, on 18th January 2025. For clarity, I am not identifying the driver in this appeal, and this statement is solely on behalf of the registered keeper.
Summary of Case:
I wish to challenge this Parking Charge Notice on the following grounds:
1.Non-compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012
2.Inadequate signage and insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge
3.Lack of evidence of Landowner Authority
1. Non-compliance with PoFA 2012
The Notice to Keeper (NtK) issued in this case is non-compliant with the requirements set out in schedule 4 of The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. This is because the NtK incorrectly starts the 28-day period for transferring liability one day too early.
PoFA Requirements:
Under paragraph 9(2)(f), the NtK must include the following wording:
"The notice must state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper to pay the unpaid parking charges or, if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to provide the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver."
It must also state:
"(i) that the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; and
(ii) the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given."
Under paragraph 9(6), the notice is deemed to have been 'given' to the keeper on the second working day after the date it was issued. The 28-day period then starts the day after that.
For example:
The NtK was issued on Monday 27th January.
The NtK is presumed to be 'given' to the keeper on Wednesday 29th January (the second working day).
The 28-day period should then begin on Thursday 30th January (the day after the second working day).
Where the NtK's Wording is Non-Compliant:
The wording on the back of the NtK attempts to transfer liability to the keeper one day early by stating that the 28-day period starts “from the second working day after the date of this Parking Charge," rather than the day after the second working day.
Why This Matters:
Incorrectly starting the 28-day period is significant because PoFA requires full and strict compliance with its wording to hold the registered keeper liable. By attempting to transfer liability one day too early, the operator has not met the legal requirements of PoFA, meaning that the keeper cannot be held liable for the parking charge.
The mistake in the NtK effectively cuts short the keeper’s response period and breaches PoFA’s clear requirements, which unfairly prejudices the keeper. POPLA must recognise that this premature attempt to start the liability transfer invalidates the notice, making it non-compliant with PoFA, and as a result, the parking charge should be cancelled.
Reference to Previous POPLA Decisions:
Successful POPLA Decision (December 2024)
I would like to draw POPLA’s attention to a recent decision regarding a similar case involving Horizon Parking (POPLA code 3762434330, decision date 17/12/2024), which was allowed on the basis of the same non-compliance with PoFA. The assessor in that case ruled as follows:
“The appellant has presented a technical challenge to the parking operator’s application of PoFA. The parking operator is reliant on the correct application of PoFA in this case as driver liability cannot be established. As such, in respect of the 28-day period given for the PCN to be paid or for the driver’s details to be provided, I must note that Notice to Keeper in this case does state: ‘the period of 28 days from the second working day after the date of this Parking Charge’. However, PoFA stipulates (at paragraph 9 subparagraph (2)(f)) that this period must be given from: ‘the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given’. In respect of the presumed date of issue, paragraph 9 subparagraph (6) of PoFA advises: ‘A notice sent by post is to be presumed…to have been delivered (and so ‘given’ for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4)) on the second working day after the day on which it is posted’. As such, I must uphold the appellant’s grounds in respect of the wording used by the parking operator in this case, as this sets the 28-day timescale from the presumed date of issue, whereas PoFA stipulates this must begin from the day after. Accordingly, I must allow this appeal.”
Acknowledgment of Error in Unsuccessful POPLA Decision (January 2025)
In another case where an appeal on this same point was initially rejected, the POPLA Complaints Team has since confirmed that the assessor’s judgment was incorrect. While the decision could not be reversed, the complaints handler explicitly acknowledged the error, stating:
“I acknowledge that the assessor has incorrectly stated that the given date… I would like to apologise for this error… As PoFA 2012 states that motorists must be given 28 days from the day after the notice is given, you are correct in stating that the 28 days should have begun from [the correct date].”
This acknowledgment highlights the importance of adhering to PoFA requirements and avoiding repeated errors in the interpretation of the legislation. I respectfully request that the assessor for this appeal carefully reviews both the successful December 2024 decision and the Complaints Team acknowledgment to ensure a correct and fair decision is made in this case.
In Summary:
PoFA states that the NtK is presumed 'given' on the second working day after issuance.
The 28-day period to transfer liability then begins the day after the second working day.
The NtK incorrectly starts the 28-day period from the second working day itself, which is one day too early.
As PoFA requires exact compliance, this error invalidates the attempt to transfer liability to the keeper.
This is a crucial challenge that POPLA should uphold, as it directly affects the legality of the operator’s attempt to hold the keeper liable.
2. Inadequate Signage and Insufficient Notice of the sum of the Parking Charge
The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself.
I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act (POFA) 2012 it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given 'adequate notice' of the charge. POFA 2012 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 unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land''.
Even in circumstances where POFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own assessment, as appellant, of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and POFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site - given the minuscule font size of the £sum, which is illegible in most photographs and does not appear at all at the entrance - is NOT sufficient to bring the parking charge (i.e. the sum itself) to the attention of the motorist.
There was no contract nor agreement on the 'parking charge' at all. It is submitted that the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any terms involving this huge charge, which is out of all proportion and not saved by the dissimilar 'ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis' case.
In the Beavis case, which turned on specific facts relating only to the signs at that site and the unique interests and intentions of the landowners, the signs were unusually clear and not a typical example for this notorious industry. The Supreme Court were keen to point out the decision related to that car park and those facts only:
http://imgur.com/a/AkMCN
In the Beavis case, the £85 charge itself was in the largest font size with a contrasting colour background and the terms were legible, fairly concise and unambiguous. There were 'large lettering' signs at the entrance and all around the car park, according to the Judges.
Here is the 'Beavis case' sign as a comparison to the signs under dispute in this case:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eYdphoIIDgE/VpbCpfSTaiI/AAAAAAAAE10/5uFjL528DgU/s640/Parking%2Bsign_001.jpg
This case, by comparison, does not demonstrate an example of the 'large lettering' and 'prominent signage' that impressed the Supreme Court Judges and swayed them into deciding that in the specific car park in the Beavis case alone, a contract and 'agreement on the charge' existed.
Here, the signs are sporadically placed, indeed obscured and hidden in some areas. They are unremarkable, not immediately obvious as parking terms and the wording is mostly illegible, being crowded and cluttered with a lack of white space as a background. It is indisputable that placing letters too close together in order to fit more information into a smaller space can drastically reduce the legibility of a sign, especially one which must be read BEFORE the action of parking and leaving the car.
It is vital to observe, since 'adequate notice of the parking charge' is mandatory under the POFA Schedule 4 and the BPA Code of Practice, these signs do not clearly mention the parking charge which is hidden in small print (and does not feature at all on some of the signs). Areas of this site are unsigned and there are no full terms displayed - i.e. with the sum of the parking charge itself in large lettering - at the entrance either, so it cannot be assumed that a driver drove past and could read a legible sign, nor parked near one.
This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 2.6.16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate:
''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operators signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.''
From the evidence I have seen so far, the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in letters no more than about half an inch high, approximately. I put the operator to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.
The letters seem to be no larger than .40 font size going by this guide:
http://www-archive.mozilla.org/newlayout/testcases/css/sec526pt2.htm
As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here:
http://www.signazon.com/help-center/sign-letter-height-visibility-chart.aspx
''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2' letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3' or even larger.''
...and the same chart is reproduced here:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/gds/Outdoor-Dimensional-Sign-Letter-Best-Viewing-Distance-/10000000175068392/g.html
''When designing an outdoor sign for your business keep in mind the readability of the letters. Letters always look smaller when mounted high onto an outdoor wall''.
''...a guideline for selecting sign letters. Multiply the letter height by 10 and that is the best viewing distance in feet. Multiply the best viewing distance by 4 and that is the max viewing distance.''
So, a letter height of just half an inch, showing the terms and the 'charge' and placed high on a wall or pole or buried in far too crowded small print, is woefully inadequate in an outdoor car park. Given that letters look smaller when high up on a wall or pole, as the angle renders the words less readable due to the perspective and height, you would have to stand right in front of it and still need a stepladder (and perhaps a torch and/or magnifying glass) to be able to read the terms.
Under Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, the charge (being 'out of all proportion' with expectations of drivers in this car park and which is the most onerous of terms) should have been effectively: 'in red letters with a red hand pointing to it' - i.e. VERY clear and prominent with the terms in large lettering, as was found to be the case in the car park in 'Beavis'. A reasonable interpretation of the 'red hand rule' and the 'signage visibility distance' tables above and the BPA Code of Practice, taking all information into account, would require a parking charge and the terms to be displayed far more transparently, on a lower sign and in far larger lettering, with fewer words and more 'white space' as background contrast. Indeed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 there is a 'Requirement for transparency':
(1) A trader must ensure that a written term of a consumer contract, or a consumer notice in writing, is transparent.
(2) A consumer notice is transparent for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is expressed in plain and intelligible language and it is legible.
The Beavis case signs not being similar to the signs in this appeal at all, I submit that the persuasive case law is in fact 'Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106' about a driver not seeing the terms and consequently, she was NOT deemed bound by them.
This judgment is binding case law from the Court of Appeal and supports my argument, not the operator's case:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2000/106.html
This was a victory for the motorist and found that, where terms on a sign are not seen and the area is not clearly marked/signed with prominent terms, the driver has not consented to - and cannot have 'breached' - an unknown contract because there is no contract capable of being established. The driver in that case (who had not seen any signs/lines) had NOT entered into a contract. The recorder made a clear finding of fact that the plaintiff, Miss Vine, did not see a sign because the area was not clearly marked as 'private land' and the signs were obscured/not adjacent to the car and could not have been seen and read from a driver's seat before parking.
So, for this appeal, I put this operator to strict proof of where the car was parked and (from photos taken in the same lighting conditions) how their signs appeared on that date, at that time, from the angle of the driver's perspective. Equally, I require this operator to show how the entrance signs appear from a driver's seat, not stock examples of 'the sign' in isolation/close-up. I submit that full terms simply cannot be read from a car before parking and mere 'stock examples' of close-ups of the (alleged) signage terms will not be sufficient to disprove this.
3. Lack of Evidence of Landowner Authority
No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then 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 - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights, and of course all enforcement dates/times/days, and the boundary of the site - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do, and when/where.
It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is authorised on the material date, 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 I suggest 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 CoP) and basic but crucial information such as the site boundary and any bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the only restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge, as well as the date that the parking contract began, and when it runs to, or whether it runs in perpetuity, and of course, who the signatories are: name/job title/employer company, and whether they are authorised by the landowner to sign a binding legal agreement.
Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP 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
I respectfully request that POPLA reject this charge and uphold my appeal based on these grounds.
Thank you for considering my appeal.
Kind regards,
-
Hi, thanks for the helpful advice, here's a link to a POPLA appeal draft via pastebin: https://pastebin.com/Zzv3nYKj
Fyi credit for the template belongs here: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6576444/horizon-28-days-error-popla-appeal-2025/p5
-
You can't do anything after the fact. You should try a POPLA appeal based on other factors such as the PCN not being compliant with the PPSCoP where they have reduced the time for an appeal to be made or before they can initiate debt recovery, poor signs which do not adequately bring to the attention of the driver the charge for breaching any terms, insufficient signs, missing or obscured signs, no valid contract flowing from the landowner to issue PCNs at the location and so on.
-
Thanks for this, yes, I see the problem. I wonder how this can be remedied after the fact, I mean would it be stupid for the driver to pay for another half an hour just to strengthen this case, and would it still be convincing for me to reference the F.1 section?
-
Their appeal rejection says that the reasoner the charge is because the driver failed to make payment with 10 minutes of arriving. However, that clause has now been made redundant in version 1.1 of the PPSCoP at Annex F.1(j)
"Parking charges must not be pursued in relation to vehicles where evidence is provided that they are identified as: 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."
However, as I already mentioned, the driver failed to pay for "the full period of parking". They paid for 3 hours and were on site for over 3:30. Can you see the issue here?
-
The NtK is not PoFA compliant because it states very clearly in the PoFA statement on the front that failure to pay the full amount within 28 days of "issue", negates any other statement to the contrary. Also, that statement is a breach of the PPSCoP which also states that the recipient must be given 28 days from "receipt", not "issue".
Of course you appeal to POPLA. You lead the POPLA assessor by the nose through every point of appeal explain, as though to to a toddler, why each point is valid.
Your main problem is not that you may have paid for 3 hours of parking but you were actually on site for 3hours and 31 minutes.
Thanks for this, I will draft something up including this info. Agreed, I really wish the driver was able to stick within the 'grace period,' but I do have to say that payment was made so difficult...
-
My bad, here is the back of the PCN: https://imgur.com/a/DGTM0Px
And this is the link for CE Ltd's response to my initial appeal (scroll to the bottom): https://imgur.com/a/9TwsI6P
-
The NtK is not PoFA compliant because it states very clearly in the PoFA statement on the front that failure to pay the full amount within 28 days of "issue", negates any other statement to the contrary. Also, that statement is a breach of the PPSCoP which also states that the recipient must be given 28 days from "receipt", not "issue".
Of course you appeal to POPLA. You lead the POPLA assessor by the nose through every point of appeal explain, as though to to a toddler, why each point is valid.
Your main problem is not that you may have paid for 3 hours of parking but you were actually on site for 3hours and 31 minutes.
-
Please show us the back of the notice, and CE's rejection.
-
Hi all,
(Sorry for all the lines/ horizontal rules, it won't let me break up the paragraphs any other way)
I received a NtK from CE Ltd for the driver of the vehicle taking over 10 minutes to park at the Luton Conservative Association (the PCN is attached or scroll a little further down to see).
The driver took about 20 minutes to pay because the mobile payment app kept freezing and crashing (images attached). The driver first attempted payment by phone, but the operator couldn't register the card digits, and there was no option to enter them in the keypad. The driver then tried web payment on https://www.paybyphone.co.uk/ but the site also kept showing an error message and so did the app, which was eventually how the driver paid (images attached). This is why it took approx 20 mins to pay. Parking was paid for 3 hours, and the driver left the car park before it was up. Also, there was no sign outside the car park specifying that only online payment was taken, and no machines were available inside, otherwise the driver wouldn't have entered.
Now I appealed as the keeper, but it was rejected (See appeal at the end of this post).
Is it worth appealing to POPLA? I frustratingly haven't been able to find any details about the landowner online. Also, to make things stranger, the Luton Conservative Association seems to have dropped off the face of the earth- their contact details on the sign are obsolete- phone invalid and website down...
**Heres the link to the drivers attempts to pay via app, website and phone, and pics of the car park:
https://imgur.com/a/9TwsI6P
Any advice would be much appreciated.
Appeal to CE Ltd:
As the keeper of the vehicle, I am appealing this fine. For the record, the driver had paid to park from 13:52 to 16:52 on 18/01/2025 at the Beech Hill Conservative Club, using the Phone and Pay App.
There is no signage to specify that there is no machine payment available prior to entering the Beech Hill Conservative Club car park. Neither does the signage outside the car park state that there is a 10-minute limit for payment. The attached images prove that the 10-minute limit is only written in small writing on the signs inside the car park, not outside it. If this were the case, the driver would not have entered the car park. In addition, the Beech Hill Conservative Club parking website is faulty and does not load, so the driver was unable to see that payment is only possible through pay by phone. This means that motorists will enter the car park unaware of this limit. 10 minutes is not a reasonable amount of time to download a faltering, glitching app and complete payment.
The British Parking Association (BPA), of which Civil Enforcement Ltd. is a member, and the International Parking Community (IPC), recently announced changes to the private parking sector's code of conduct to ensure it "protects genuine motorists who have difficulty making prompt payment on entry."
This is designed to protect drivers who experience delays in making payment in private car parks monitored by fixed camera technology (eg ANPR or CCTV). According to the BPA website, “the panel and the two parking Trade Associations remain dedicated to building trust and transparency through continuous improvements and higher standards.”
In the Beech Hill Conservative Club car park, there are three options for payment: calling the number advertised on the signage, using the website paybyphone.co.uk, or the Phone and Pay App. The driver attempted all three methods, but each one was slow and unresponsive. Despite this, the driver ultimately DID pay for parking.
Firstly, the driver called the phone number advertised on the signage. However, the automated operator did not offer the option to type out card details on the keypad for payment. Instead, it required the driver to verbally read the digits of the card number. The automated operator could not register verbal speech accurately, and there was no option to type digits into the dial pad. This is an extremely inefficient method to pay by phone. The driver attempted to recite their card details three times, to no avail. The operator then ended the call. There are screenshots attached to this appeal that prove that this phone call took place only minutes after the driver entered the car park. The phone call lasted 5 minutes and 29 seconds and not only did it refuse to accept payment, but it also used up half of the 10 minutes allotted to pay for parking. This sets drivers up to fail.
Secondly, the driver used the website, paybyphone.co.uk. This also wouldn't permit payment to be completed, as can be seen by the screenshot attached. The parking operator must update their technological systems.
Lastly, the driver downloaded the Phone and Pay App. This app is extremely flawed. It repeatedly displayed error messages at every stage. Firstly, when the driver entered the location code; secondly, when an attempt was made to enter vehicle registration details; and lastly, when the driver tried to complete payment. This can be seen in the attached screenshots. Some examples of these error messages were ‘something went wrong,’ ‘payment is not accepted at this time,’ and ‘please try again later.’ This app was prone to repeatedly malfunctioning and freezing, taking well over the allotted 10 minutes to complete payment. There was no option to backdate the payment, which would have been used if available. However, the driver ultimately did complete payment, which covered 3 hours of parking, as can be seen by the screenshots. This car park must update its parking payment technology and allow drivers to pay for parking through functioning and reliable technology. Reviews of the Phone and Pay Parking app on both the Google Play Store and The App Store attest to its poor user interface that constantly freezes and glitches when payment is attempted. This is evident in reviews averaging a score of 1.1 out of 5 stars.
The car park operators must update their signage to clarify that there is no machine payment available PRIOR to drivers entering the car park. 10 minutes is not a reasonable time period to enter a car park, find a space, park, read all the terms and conditions of parking, accept them, and then make payment. This makes it impossible to comply with the terms on offer. The 10 minute rule is an unfair contract term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which protects consumers from unfair terms in contracts they have not had the opportunity to negotiate.
[attachment deleted by admin]