Free Traffic Legal Advice

Thanks for your replies.

Since I mentioned the mistake of not registering the car in my appeal to CEL, if CEL provides this to POPLA they will just view this this as a breach of contract. Thank you for pointing out that they don't consider mitigating excuses like honest mistakes. The only option I have to appeal this is to challenge whether CEL has legal authority - i.e., that they hold a valid, unredacted contract from the owner authorising them  to issue PCNs on this site.

But I think that is unlikely to succeed. Between 1 October 2021 to 30 September 2022, POPLA decided in favour of  Civil
Enforcement Limited and upheld the validity of the PCN in 83% of contested cases, and I don't have any other evidential points in my appeal.

I've previously contacted the management at the site and they will not contact CEL to cancel it either.

If my appeal is rejected I void the discounted mug charge of £20 and it goes up to £100.

So best option is I accept I'm in a losing battle here and pay the £20?

I am thinking an outline of my appeal to POPLA could look like this.

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle in question and wish to appeal against the Parking Charge Notice issued by Civil Enforcement Ltd (CEL) on 7th July 2025. The PCN relates to a visit to a sports facility where I was a legitimate, paying customer attending a regular indoor football session through a workplace group booking. While I ordinarily comply fully with the parking procedures at this location, on this one occasion, I genuinely forgot to register my vehicle at reception. This was an honest oversight, not an attempt to avoid payment. I paid the required £2.30 entrance fee on arrival, as I always do. I have attached a redacted copy of my bank statement showing payment on that date as proof of my legitimate use of the facility.

I submit the following grounds of appeal:

1. No Evidence of Landowner Authority
CEL has not provided evidence that it has the legal authority to issue Parking Charge Notices and pursue payment at this site. As a third-party agent, CEL must demonstrate through a valid, contemporaneous contract that it has been authorised by the landowner (not merely a managing agent or site operator) to operate and enforce parking terms on this land. The BPA Code of Practice (Section 7.1) requires this. CEL is put to strict proof that such a contract exists and that it specifically authorises CEL to issue charges in its own name at this site. If such evidence cannot be produced, CEL has no standing to pursue this charge and the appeal must be upheld.

2. Inadequate Signage – BPA Code of Practice Breach
While I am familiar with the process of registering my vehicle at this facility, the signage on-site failed to provide adequate reminders or prompts at the point of arrival or within the reception area to alert users to this obligation. For regular users, especially those engaged in habitual routines, signage must be clear and placed strategically to prompt compliance every time. The signs failed to act as a sufficient reminder in this case. The BPA Code of Practice (Section 19) requires signage to be both clear and prominently placed. On this occasion, I simply forgot to register — a situation that more prominent or clearer reminders (e.g., at eye level or in the reception area itself) could have prevented. Therefore, I ask that the signage’s sufficiency and prominence be properly reviewed.

3. No Grace Period Applied – BPA Code of Practice Clause 13
According to Clause 13 of the BPA Code of Practice, operators are required to allow a reasonable grace period before issuing a charge. This period is intended to allow drivers sufficient time to read signage and comply with parking conditions. In this case, no grace period was observed. As a paying customer who went directly into the facility and would ordinarily register the vehicle on arrival, I should have been given a reasonable amount of time to register the vehicle or rectify the oversight. Issuing a PCN without allowing for any grace period demonstrates non-compliance with the Code and is grounds for cancellation.

4. The Charge is Not a Genuine Pre-Estimate of Loss and Is a Penalty
The £100 charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss. CEL has suffered no loss whatsoever as a result of my failure to register on this single occasion. I paid to use the facility, just as any other guest would. There was no unauthorised parking, overstay, or misuse of the premises. The charge is therefore punitive, not compensatory. The landmark case ParkingEye v Beavis is not applicable here. That case involved a retail park with free parking where the charge was justified as a deterrent. In contrast, this site is a paid-access facility. There is no reasonable commercial justification for such a high charge under these specific circumstances. The charge in this context functions purely as a penalty and should be deemed unenforceable under contract law.

5. I Was a Legitimate, Paying Customer
I was a valid user of the facility, having paid the entry fee in full on the date in question. I have provided a redacted bank statement as proof of payment. I regularly use this site and have always registered my vehicle as required. This was a one-off error made in good faith, with no intent to breach any terms or to deprive CEL or the landowner of any income. The operator suffered no financial loss. POPLA should consider this in determining whether the imposition of a £100 charge is fair, reasonable, and proportionate in the circumstances. The operator has failed to consider mitigating factors, which is contrary to the principles of natural justice and the guidance contained in the BPA Code of Practice.

6. CEL’s Evidence Must Be Scrutinised for Accuracy and Timeliness
Should CEL submit evidence to POPLA, I request that POPLA carefully scrutinise any documents for authenticity, relevance, and timeliness. Any evidence submitted after the operator’s deadline should be disregarded in line with POPLA’s procedural rules. CEL has a history of relying on generic or templated witness statements, which do not meet the required standard of proof. I reserve the right to respond to CEL’s evidence if and when it is shared with me.

Conclusion
In summary, this PCN has been issued in contravention of multiple sections of the BPA Code of Practice. CEL has failed to demonstrate that it has landowner authority, has failed to apply the mandatory grace period, and relies on inadequate signage to impose disproportionately high charges. I was a genuine customer who made an honest mistake, caused no loss, and complied in every other respect with the parking terms on all previous visits. For these reasons, I respectfully request that POPLA uphold my appeal and cancel the Parking Charge Notice.

Thank you for your consideration.

Unfortunately I cannot find the exact wording of my initial appeal. I've logged onto the civil enforcement website and its not saved, and I didn't keep a word copy.

Attached is my appeal rejection.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Hi all,

Date of incident: Monday, 7th July 2025
Charge amount: £100 (discounted to £60 initially – now expired)
Status: Initial appeal to CEL rejected – currently preparing POPLA appeal
POPLA code issued: Yes

PCN images: https://imgur.com/a/TjzQyyy

I'm looking for advice regarding a Parking Charge Notice issued by Civil Enforcement Ltd (CEL).

Background:

I attended the sports centre for a regular indoor football session (work group booking) and, as usual, went straight to reception to register my vehicle. On this occasion, I genuinely forgot to do so — an honest mistake on what was otherwise a normal visit.

I paid the £2.30 entrance fee on arrival, as I always do. I’ve attached a redacted screenshot of my bank statement to my POPLA appeal to prove I was a paying, legitimate user of the facility.

I've also contacted the sports centre manager to request they support the cancellation, either by confirming my attendance or contacting CEL directly.

My Appeal Argument So Far:

I was a genuine, paying customer using the facility as intended.

I have proof of payment, entry fee to the sports centre (bank statement).

My failure to register was an honest one-off oversight.

I have previously complied with the parking system at this site.

No financial loss occurred to the landowner or CEL.

The charge feels disproportionate given the circumstances.

What I’m Looking For:

Feedback on the strength of this POPLA appeal.

Any suggestions to improve the appeal wording or angle.

Advice on whether venue intervention can still help at this stage.

Anything else I might be overlooking.

Let me know if I should include the full appeal text here. Thanks in advance for any help!