Free Traffic Legal Advice

Thanks! It is indeed CEL. I will keep this post updated and hopefully, it will have a successful outcome. By responding to this form does this mean I definitely will have to attend court?

I truly appreciate all the help and support I’ve received here.

I’ve submitted my defence through MCOL. Let’s see how they respond. I truly appreciate the assistance. Thank you!

Today, 15 September 2025, I received a letter from HM Courts & Tribunals Service. The claim form is dated 8 September 2025, and I understand that I have 14 days from the date of service (taken to be 5 days after issue date 08/09/2025) to submit a defence or challenge the court’s jurisdiction.

I’m currently unable to upload attachments with this response - possibly due to it being over 120 days since my last post.

The claim details are as follows:

Amount claimed: £178.31

Court fee: £35

Legal representative’s costs: £50

I would appreciate any advice on whether and how I can still contest this claim.

Thanks

Hello,

I finally have the outcome from Popla and it was unsuccessful. Please advise whether I should take action or just wait. I have pasted their response below:

Decision
Unsuccessful
Assessor Name
Heidi Brown
Assessor summary of operator case
The parking operator has issued a parking charge notice due to the motorist failing to make a payment in accordance with the terms.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following points from their grounds of appeal: - The appellant states the Notice to Keeper fails to invite the registered keeper to either pay the charge or pass the driver’s details to the operator. They state the operator has failed to transfer liability and meet the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. - The appellant states the Single Parking Code of Practice advises that the Notice to Keeper is presumed to be delivered on the second working day after issue but the operator states that the debt recovery process, can begin 28 days from the date of issue. They state the PCN fails to communicate the 28 day appeal deadline. - The appellant states the signage upon entry is not clear in communicating the 10 minute period to pay and therefore the driver was unaware of this. They state the signage fails to meet the requirements of the Code of Practice. Upon reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has reiterated their grounds and expanded on their grounds. The appellant provided images of the entrance signage and the Notice to Keeper.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the parking operator has issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car park. When entering a site, it is the motorist’s responsibility to read the signs and adhere to the terms and conditions stated. In this case, the signs state payment is required within 10 minutes of arrival. The operator’s evidence shows the payment was made 48 minutes after arrival which is outside of the permitted timeframe. Therefore, the terms and conditions of the site were breached, and a charge was issued for £100. - The appellant states the Notice to Keeper fails to invite the registered keeper to either pay the charge or pass the driver’s details to the operator. They state the operator has failed to transfer liability and meet the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012. The Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 is a law that allows parking operators to transfer the liability to the registered keeper in the event that the driver or hirer is not identified. I have reviewed the Notice to Keeper and can confirm the section quoted by the appellant is on page 2, paragraph 1 in the highlighted blue section. I am satisfied that the Notice to Keeper contains all the relevant information, and it was delivered within the relevant timeframe, therefore it complies with the requirements of PoFA. As such, the operator is permitted to pursue the appellant as the registered keeper. - The appellant states the Single Parking Code of Practice advises that the Notice to Keeper is presumed to be delivered on the second working day after issue but the operator states that the debt recovery process, can begin 28 days from the date of issue. They state the PCN fails to communicate the 28 day appeal deadline. POPLA’s sole role is to assess if the terms and conditions of the site were breached and if the charge was issued correctly. The information outlined by the appellant would not invalidate the charge and if the appellant wishes to make a complaint about the operator, they can contact the British Parking Association (BPA). - The appellant states the signage upon entry is not clear in communicating the 10 minute period to pay and therefore the driver was unaware of this. They state the signage fails to meet the requirements of the Code of Practice. The appellant continued to comment on this in the motorist comments. The Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice (The Code) sets the standards its parking operators need to comply with. Section 3.1.1 of the Single Code of Practice states that there must be an entrance sign displayed and maintained at the entrance to the site, to inform drivers whether parking is permitted subject to terms and conditions or prohibited. Section 3.1.3 of the Single Code of Practice contains the requirements for signs displaying the terms and conditions. The signs must be placed throughout the site, so that drivers have the opportunity to read them when parking or leaving their vehicle. The terms and conditions must be clear and unambiguous, using a font and contrast that is be conspicuous and legible. I acknowledge the appellant’s comments and images however there is no requirement for the entrance signage to explain the terms for parking. Its sole purpose is to advise the motorist is entering private land, upon entering, it is the motorist’s responsibility to seek out the terms and conditions signage. I am satisfied that the entrance signage meets the requirements of the Code. Upon looking at the operator’s images, the requirement to pay within 10 minutes is stated in large bold writing directly below the tariffs. Therefore, it is clear what it required of the motorist, and I am satisfied that the signage is clear. Within the motorist comments, the appellant has highlighted Annex F.1.J and although I acknowledge this, this change in the Code did not come into place until February 2025. As the contravention occurred in January, this section of the Code does not apply. I note the comments made regarding the Parkingeye vs Beavis case and they do not hold any bearing on the decision. The appellant has reiterated their original grounds of appeal after reviewing the operator’s case file. As I have addressed these issues above, I will not comment further. After considering the evidence from both parties, the motorist failed to make a payment in accordance with the terms and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, I am satisfied the parking charge has been issued correctly and I must refuse the appeal.

Hello,

Today, I got a notification from POPLA stating that CEL has submitted their evidence to contest my appeal. I have 7 days to provide any comments on the evidence they've submitted.

Here are the relevant documents:

CEL Appeal Documentation: https://imgur.com/a/w7cnUyG

CEL Car Park Location Plan: https://imgur.com/a/uMAA7ag

Could you please advise whether I should respond with comments or just leave it?

Thank you!

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.

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.

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.

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.

Hi,

I have read the guide and edited my post accordingly. I have also attached images of the PCN notice.

Please advise.