Amend the suggested appeal to:
It also shortens the appeal deadline contrary to paragraph 9.4 of the Code.
I believe this is correctly stated on the rear side of the postal PCN?
I'm speculating, having seen other CEL postal PCN's.
It is not enough for the correct PoFA wording to appear somewhere on the Notice to Keeper (NtK). The issue is not simply whether the statutory wording is included — it’s about whether the notice conveys a clear, unambiguous and consistent instruction to the recipient regarding their liability and the statutory time limits under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(f) of PoFA requires the NtK to “state that the keeper is required to pay the parking charge in full within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given.”
If the front of the NtK incorrectly demands payment within 28 days of the date of issue, that misstates the legal time period by at least two days. The "date of issue" and the date the notice is deemed "given" are not the same in law. According to Paragraph 9(6), a notice sent by post is considered “given” two working days after posting, not on the day it was issued.
This kind of contradiction is not a harmless oversight. It creates a clear conflict between:
• a false, immediate deadline on the front (designed to provoke early payment), and
• the statutory timeframe tucked away elsewhere.
This fails the statutory test. The law does not say the correct words must appear “somewhere” — it says the notice must specify them. That means the entire notice must be read as a consistent, compliant document. A conflicting statement on the front renders the notice incoherent, and therefore non-compliant.
It’s a basic principle of consumer protection law that a notice must be clear, accurate and unambiguous. This is echoed in:
• Schedule 4 of PoFA itself,
• The Private Parking Code of Practice (PPSCoP) – which requires clear communication of obligations, and
• Contract law in general, where ambiguity is construed against the party drafting the notice (the parking firm).
Therefore, it is legally irrelevant that the correct wording may appear on the reverse if the front of the NtK undermines or misstates it. The keeper cannot be expected to resolve contradictions, and the operator must bear the burden of any resulting uncertainty.
[/quote]
Excellent. :)
It is not enough for the correct PoFA wording to appear somewhere on the Notice to Keeper (NtK). The issue is not simply whether the statutory wording is included — it’s about whether the notice conveys a clear, unambiguous and consistent instruction to the recipient regarding their liability and the statutory time limits under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(f) of PoFA requires the NtK to “state that the keeper is required to pay the parking charge in full within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given.”
If the front of the NtK incorrectly demands payment within 28 days of the date of issue, that misstates the legal time period by at least two days. The "date of issue" and the date the notice is deemed "given" are not the same in law. According to Paragraph 9(6), a notice sent by post is considered “given” two working days after posting, not on the day it was issued.
This kind of contradiction is not a harmless oversight. It creates a clear conflict between:
• a false, immediate deadline on the front (designed to provoke early payment), and
• the statutory timeframe tucked away elsewhere.
This fails the statutory test. The law does not say the correct words must appear “somewhere” — it says the notice must specify them. That means the entire notice must be read as a consistent, compliant document. A conflicting statement on the front renders the notice incoherent, and therefore non-compliant.
It’s a basic principle of consumer protection law that a notice must be clear, accurate and unambiguous. This is echoed in:
• Schedule 4 of PoFA itself,
• The Private Parking Code of Practice (PPSCoP) – which requires clear communication of obligations, and
• Contract law in general, where ambiguity is construed against the party drafting the notice (the parking firm).
Therefore, it is legally irrelevant that the correct wording may appear on the reverse if the front of the NtK undermines or misstates it. The keeper cannot be expected to resolve contradictions, and the operator must bear the burden of any resulting uncertainty.
Yes, that is a strong factual argument. If the permit for 27 March 2025 was valid until 23:59, and a separate permit was needed for 28 March (which, based on your notes, was not obtained), then any alleged breach could only have occurred after midnight — i.e. on 28 March, not the 27th.
By stating the "incident date" as 27 March 2025, CEL creates a procedural discrepancy:
• The period of authorised parking (with the 27th permit) runs to 23:59 on 27 March, and therefore the first 5+ hours of the recorded period (17:57–23:59) were clearly covered.
• Any overstay, if one occurred, would have been on 28 March, for which (as noted) a separate permit was not in place.
Thus, the “incident date” of 27 March 2025 is inaccurate and misleading, since no unauthorised parking took place on that date. PoFA Schedule 4 requires the date and period of parking to be specified with clarity.
Amend the suggested appeal to:
I am appealing as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle.
The driver was staying at the property and followed the host’s instructions to text the registration to a designated number. A confirmation was received for each day of the stay, including 27 March 2025. The permit for that date was valid until 23:59.
Your notice alleges an “incident date” of 27 March 2025, but your own evidence shows that any unauthorised parking could only have occurred after midnight, on 28 March — a date for which the driver was not informed that a separate permit would be required. No breach occurred on the date stated.
Furthermore, the NtK misrepresents the keeper’s potential liability by threatening £70 in recovery fees, in breach of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice. It also shortens the appeal deadline contrary to paragraph 9.4 of the Code.
CEL have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
[Name]
[For and on behalf of: Company Name]