3. Messages

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - jays86

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: City of Westminster - Code 01 Parked in restricted street - Palmer Street
« on: July 20, 2026, 04:31:11 pm »
Sorry, how about this for a condensed version?

Quote
I am making formal representations against this Penalty Charge Notice on the basis that my vehicle was engaged in a continuous, permitted unloading operation. The vehicle was stopped briefly to return ten boxes of fragile, high-value goods to the Nyetimber offices at the Asticus Building, 21 Palmer Street. As Nyetimber had explicitly required the bottles to be returned in pristine condition and advised that damage could result in the return being refused, it was practically necessary to stop as close to the building as possible to minimise handling and the risk of damage.

The entire delivery process was rapid and uninterrupted. Upon arrival, I entered the building and was advised that Nyetimber had a trolley available on the 7th floor. I collected the trolley as instructed, returned immediately to the vehicle to load the boxes, and transported them directly back to the office for handover. The PCN records the vehicle as first seen and issued at 11:45 on 15 July 2026; my enclosed photographs show the goods safely inside the 7th-floor office at approximately this same time, demonstrating that the vehicle was unattended only because I was completing this active unloading operation inside the building.

I enclose photographs of the completed delivery alongside the prior correspondence confirming the return arrangements. As the vehicle was being used solely for a genuine and continuous unloading operation, I respectfully request that this Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled.

2
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: City of Westminster - Code 01 Parked in restricted street - Palmer Street
« on: July 20, 2026, 03:53:20 pm »
Hi
Please see below my drafted appeal, the boxes on the trolley were the only reason I was at that location at that time.

Quote
I make formal representations against the above Penalty Charge Notice on the basis that my vehicle was engaged in a continuous unloading operation and was therefore benefiting from the loading/unloading exemption applicable to the restriction.

The vehicle was stopped on double yellow lines solely for the purpose of unloading approximately ten sealed boxes containing goods which were being returned to Nyetimber.

This was not a case of parking for convenience. The vehicle was stopped solely to facilitate the safe unloading of goods, and it departed immediately once the operation had been completed.

Background to the return

Prior to the delivery, I contacted Nyetimber to establish the correct process and location for returning the goods.

Nyetimber confirmed that I could return the items myself to their offices at:

Nyetimber
Astiсus Building
21 Palmer Street
London
SW1H 0AD

Nyetimber advised that:

"The bottles will need to be returned in pristine original condition. If any damage occurs during return transit, including cosmetic damage to the bottles, labels, foil, shield, or gift boxes - even if the boxes themselves are unopened, we may be unable to accept the return."

This was therefore not a routine delivery. The goods consisted of approximately ten boxes of high value items, and Nyetimber had specifically advised that any damage occurring during the return process could result in the return being refused.

Before arriving, I had no way of knowing whether a trolley would be available within the building. I therefore stopped as close as reasonably possible to the entrance to minimise the distance the boxes would need to be carried manually if no trolley was available, reducing unnecessary handling and the risk of damage.

Chronology of the unloading operation

Upon arrival, I immediately entered the building to establish the arrangements for safely completing the return.

The building manager/receptionist informed me that Nyetimber had a trolley available and advised that I needed to collect it from the seventh floor.

I proceeded directly to the seventh floor, collected the trolley, returned directly to my vehicle, transferred all of the boxes onto the trolley, secured the vehicle, and immediately transported the goods into the building.

The goods were then taken directly to Nyetimber's seventh-floor office using the building's lifts and handed over to the appropriate recipient.

Given both the value of the goods and Nyetimber's express instructions regarding their condition, it would not have been appropriate to leave the boxes unattended in a reception area or communal lobby.

Following the handover, I took photographs of the boxes inside Nyetimber's office as evidence that the return had been successfully completed. I then returned immediately to my vehicle and departed.

At no stage was the vehicle left while I undertook any unrelated activity. Every action undertaken (entering the building, obtaining the trolley, transporting the goods, completing the handover, documenting the delivery and returning to the vehicle) formed part of one continuous unloading operation.

Evidence of the continuous unloading operation

The PCN records that the vehicle was first seen and the Penalty Charge Notice was issued at:

11:45 on Wednesday 15 July 2026.

The Civil Enforcement Officer's photographs show only that the vehicle was unattended at street level. However, that is entirely consistent with a genuine unloading operation of this nature.

The unloading process required me to leave the vehicle temporarily because I was required to transport approximately ten boxes into the building, collect and use a trolley, and deliver the goods to Nyetimber's seventh-floor office.

My photographs taken during the delivery show the returned goods inside Nyetimber's seventh-floor office at 11:45am, the same minute that the PCN records the vehicle as first seen.

These photographs provide direct evidence that the unloading operation was actively taking place at the time of the alleged contravention. The fact that the vehicle was unattended does not indicate that it was parked; it was unattended because I was carrying out the necessary steps to complete the unloading operation.

The CEO's observations were therefore limited to the vehicle's location and could not capture the exempt loading activity taking place inside the building.

Why the duration was reasonable

The vehicle remained stationary only for the minimum period reasonably necessary to complete the unloading operation.

The time required was directly attributable to:

locating the recipient and establishing the return arrangements;
collecting the trolley from the seventh floor;
transferring approximately ten boxes from the vehicle onto the trolley;
transporting the goods by lift to the seventh-floor office;
completing the handover;
recording evidence of delivery; and
returning directly to the vehicle.

No part of this period involved any unrelated activity.

Evidence enclosed

I enclose the following evidence in support of these representations:

Photographs showing the returned boxes inside Nyetimber's seventh-floor office, including timestamps.
Email correspondence with Nyetimber confirming the return address and arrangements.
Nyetimber's instructions regarding the requirement for the goods to be returned in pristine condition.

This evidence demonstrates that the vehicle was stopped solely for the purpose of a genuine unloading operation and remained stationary for no longer than was reasonably necessary.

In the circumstances, I respectfully request that the Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled.

3
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: City of Westminster - Code 01 Parked in restricted street - Palmer Street
« on: July 17, 2026, 12:58:29 pm »
So should I hold off putting my appeal in until I've got something from the office manager, or press ahead? And is it as simple as just stating what I was doing there, and that no contravention occurred as the vehicle was unloading?

4
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: City of Westminster - Code 01 Parked in restricted street - Palmer Street
« on: July 15, 2026, 04:15:23 pm »
I made a single trip with the trolley, the office was on the 7th Floor, but essentially it was enter the building, collect the trolley, back to the vehicle, load the trolley, back up to the office, photograph of returned items, and then back to the car.

No guarantee but i can ask if they'll provide me with something to confirm the delivery.

5
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: City of Westminster - Code 01 Parked in restricted street - Palmer Street
« on: July 15, 2026, 03:57:37 pm »
It was personally returning some items due to their value, it took me no longer than 10 minutes, and I have a photo of the boxes that were returned in the office of where they were being returned to.


6
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / City of Westminster - Code 01 Parked in restricted street - Palmer Street
« on: July 15, 2026, 02:11:27 pm »
Hi All
After some advice, received the below today. The vehicle was stationary in the bay on Palmer Street, but it was because I was delivering 10 boxes to the Asticus Building, is it worth appealing this?
Thanks!




Street View Link: https://maps.app.goo.gl/9uGdryVNLy6SEXXB9

7
Private parking tickets / Re: Civil Enforcement PCN – Payment not made – Redbridge Institute of Adult Education
« on: July 09, 2026, 04:19:00 pm »
Civil Enforcement have provided their POPLA Pack, I'm not sure quite what to make of it, but want to comment on it as I have the chance. I don't believe they have fully engaged with the @InterCity125 point, but then they've produced Confirmation of Authority from 2017 at the back of the evidence pack.

CE POPLA Pack

My comments for what they're worth:
My comments are restricted to the Operator's evidence and matters arising from it.

The Operator has failed to answer the central issue: whether this was a single continuous parking event
My primary appeal point was that the ANPR evidence relied upon by the Operator may represent two separate visits to the site rather than one continuous parking event.

I specifically requested that the Operator review its complete ANPR records, including any additional captures, unmatched reads or orphan entries, to establish whether multiple visits had occurred.

The Operator's response is simply that it has checked its ANPR footage and that:

"If there has been any further entrances/exits on that day, these would be shown on our photographic evidence."

This does not answer the issue raised.

The Operator also relies upon a screenshot in support of its assertion that there were no further entries or exits for the vehicle on the date in question.

However, the screenshot itself provides no meaningful context as to what information it displays. The Operator has not explained:

what system the screenshot has been taken from;
what search parameters were used;
whether it represents the complete ANPR record for the vehicle on that date;
whether unmatched or non-chargeable movements have been included; or
whether any filtering has been applied.

A screenshot without this supporting explanation cannot, by itself, prove that no additional vehicle movements occurred. This is particularly relevant because my appeal specifically challenged whether the ANPR evidence represented one continuous visit or multiple visits.

The Operator has also not provided evidence demonstrating:

what ANPR records were reviewed;
whether all vehicle movements on the date in question were checked;
whether unmatched or orphan ANPR captures were considered;
how the possibility of multiple visits was excluded.

The Operator has simply relied upon the two images already used to issue the Parking Charge Notice.

My appeal was not that those two images do not exist. My appeal is that those two images, without further evidence, do not prove a single continuous parking event.

The burden remains on the Operator to prove the alleged contravention occurred.

The Operator incorrectly states that additional evidence was not provided
The Operator states that my appeal was rejected because I failed to provide the additional evidence requested.

This is incorrect.

The Operator requested further information through its appeals process. When attempting to comply, the online portal did not allow the requested evidence to be uploaded. I therefore submitted the information by email to the Operator's published data protection email address.

The Operator's evidence pack does not acknowledge receipt of that email, explain why it was disregarded, or explain why it continued to state that no evidence had been provided.

The Operator cannot reasonably rely upon an alleged failure to provide evidence where the evidence was submitted following a failure of its own portal.

The Operator's evidence contains multiple objective inaccuracies
The Operator's evidence pack contains several factual inconsistencies which undermine confidence in its reliability.

The evidence refers to correspondence allegedly issued on:

5 August 2025; and
18 August 2025.

However, the alleged parking event occurred on 18 March 2026.

More significantly, the Operator states:

"The Appellant's details as the registered keeper were obtained from the DVLA on 28/06/2025 and the PCN was sent on 28/06/2025."

This is a chronological impossibility.

The alleged parking event had not occurred at that time, meaning the Operator could not have obtained my keeper details or issued a Notice to Keeper in relation to this alleged incident approximately nine months before the event.

The Operator's correspondence also refers to "emergency circumstances", despite no such circumstances forming part of my appeal.

Additionally, the Operator's rejection letter incorrectly states:

"Please note that as the parking incident occurred in Scotland or Northern Ireland..."

The location of the alleged incident is Redbridge Institute of Adult Education, Ilford, England.

Whilst individual administrative errors can occur, the number of inaccuracies within the Operator's evidence pack raises concerns as to whether this appeal has been individually reviewed or whether template material has been applied without proper verification.

The Operator has not demonstrated that keeper liability has been established
I appeal as the Registered Keeper only.

I have not identified the driver and I am under no legal obligation to do so.

The Operator therefore relies upon Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to transfer liability from the driver to the Registered Keeper.

The Operator is required to demonstrate compliance with all mandatory requirements of Schedule 4.

The Notice to Keeper was received by me on 7 April 2026 following an alleged event on 18 March 2026. The Operator is therefore put to strict proof that the Notice to Keeper was delivered within the statutory timeframe required by paragraph 9(4) of Schedule 4.

A date printed on a Notice to Keeper is not, by itself, proof of the date of posting or delivery.

Furthermore, the Operator has not demonstrated that the land falls within the definition of "relevant land" for the purposes of Schedule 4.

Accordingly, keeper liability has not been established.

The Operator has not proven the duration of any actual period of parking
The Operator relies upon ANPR entry and exit timestamps.

These timestamps record vehicle movements past cameras but do not, without further evidence, establish an actual period of parking.

The evidence does not demonstrate:

when any parking commenced;
when any parking ended;
that the vehicle remained parked continuously;
that no intervening visit occurred.

Given the specific challenge regarding multiple visits, the ANPR evidence should not be accepted as proof of a single continuous parking event without further supporting evidence.

Conclusion
The Operator has not addressed the central issue raised in my appeal: whether the ANPR evidence represents one continuous parking event.
Instead, it has relied upon unsupported assertions and evidence containing multiple factual inaccuracies.
The Operator has also failed to demonstrate that keeper liability has been established.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that POPLA allows the appeal and directs Civil Enforcement Ltd to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.

8
Private parking tickets / Re: Civil Enforcement PCN – Payment not made – Redbridge Institute of Adult Education
« on: June 18, 2026, 04:55:56 pm »
Updated to try and make the "double dip" my main point:

1. The Operator Has Failed to Prove a Single Continuous Parking Event
I am the Registered Keeper of the vehicle and submit this appeal in that capacity.

The Operator's case relies entirely upon two ANPR images recording a vehicle entering and exiting the site. From those two isolated timestamps, the Operator asks POPLA to infer that a single continuous parking event occurred.

I dispute that inference.

In my original appeal to the Operator, I specifically advised that the vehicle entered and exited the site on more than one occasion within a short timeframe and requested that the Operator review its full ANPR records, including any unmatched or orphan captures.

Despite this, the Operator's subsequent correspondence failed to address the point. The rejection letter contains no discussion of the multiple-visit issue and provides no evidence that any investigation of additional ANPR records was undertaken.

ANPR systems record vehicles passing camera locations. They do not record whether a vehicle was parked, where it was parked, how long it remained stationary, or whether multiple visits occurred during the relevant period.

The Operator has produced no evidence demonstrating:

* that all ANPR captures relating to the vehicle were reviewed;
* that multiple entry and exit events were excluded;
* that orphan or unmatched records were checked;
* that the timestamps relied upon represent a single continuous stay rather than separate visits.

The Operator's case therefore depends entirely upon an assumption that the two ANPR images relied upon represent a single continuous parking event.

I submit that this has not been proven.

Where a specific challenge regarding multiple visits has been raised and the Operator has failed to demonstrate that the issue was investigated, POPLA cannot safely conclude that the ANPR evidence establishes a single continuous period of parking.

Accordingly, the alleged contravention has not been proven.

2. The Notice to Keeper Does Not Establish Keeper Liability Under PoFA 2012
The Operator seeks to pursue me as Registered Keeper.

As I have not identified the driver, the Operator must demonstrate full compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("PoFA") in order to transfer liability from the driver to the keeper.

The Notice to Keeper relies upon ANPR-generated "From" and "To" timestamps.

However, PoFA requires the Notice to Keeper to specify the relevant period of parking.

Entry and exit timestamps merely record vehicle movements past camera locations. They do not identify a period of parking.

The Operator has not demonstrated that the requirements of Schedule 4 have been met and therefore has not established keeper liability.

Accordingly, the charge cannot be enforced against me as Registered Keeper.

3. The Operator Has Not Proven Any Actual Period of Parking
Even if POPLA were satisfied that keeper liability has been established, the Operator must still prove that a parking contravention occurred.

The evidence supplied consists only of ANPR entry and exit timestamps showing a total site presence of approximately 13 minutes.

Those timestamps do not establish:

* when parking commenced;
* when parking ended;
* whether the vehicle was parked at all;
* how much time was spent driving within the site;
* whether the driver was locating signage, turning around, or exiting.

The Notice to Keeper itself refers only to ANPR-derived "From" and "To" times and does not identify any separately evidenced period of parking.

The Operator has therefore failed to prove the duration of any actual parking event.

4. Failure to Properly Consider the Appeal and Submitted Evidence
After receiving my appeal, the Operator requested additional information.

The Operator directed that this material be submitted via its online portal.

The portal did not permit the requested upload and the material was therefore submitted by email instead.

Despite this, the Operator's rejection letter states:

"As this information has not been received within the specified timeframe..."

The rejection letter contains no acknowledgement of the emailed submission and no discussion of the substantive issues raised.

Furthermore, the Operator's earlier correspondence referred to "emergency circumstances" allegedly raised in my appeal despite no such circumstances having been mentioned.

The subsequent rejection letter also included wording stating:

"Please note that as the parking incident occurred in Scotland or Northern Ireland, only the driver can make the appeal to POPLA."

The site concerned is located in England.

These inaccuracies raise legitimate concerns as to whether the appeal was individually reviewed and whether the specific points raised were properly considered.

Whilst I do not rely upon this as a standalone ground of appeal, it is relevant when assessing the weight that should be attached to the Operator's unsupported assertion that it investigated and verified its ANPR evidence.

5. Inadequate Evidence of Contract Formation
The Operator is put to strict proof that the signage at the site was sufficiently clear, prominent and legible to bring the contractual terms to the attention of motorists before any contract was formed.

The Operator must demonstrate that:

* signage was clearly visible on entry;
* signage was prominent throughout the site;
* the terms were capable of being read and understood before any contractual agreement was formed.

Absent such proof, no contract can be established.

6. Operator Authority
The Operator is put to strict proof that it has the necessary authority from the landowner to:

* manage parking at this site;
* issue Parking Charge Notices in its own name;
* pursue unpaid charges; and
* defend appeals relating to those charges.

As the Operator is not the landowner, I require it to demonstrate that it possesses sufficient authority to undertake these activities at the material location.

Conclusion
The Operator has failed to prove that a single continuous parking event occurred.

The Operator has failed to address or investigate the specific multiple-visit issue raised in the original appeal.

The Operator has failed to establish keeper liability under PoFA 2012.

The Operator has failed to prove any actual period of parking.

Accordingly, I respectfully request that POPLA allow this appeal and direct Civil Enforcement Ltd to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.

9
Private parking tickets / Re: Civil Enforcement PCN – Payment not made – Redbridge Institute of Adult Education
« on: June 08, 2026, 11:51:10 am »
I wasn't sure if it's worth mentioning the "double dip" as I cannot prove if what they have presented is a double dip or not. I'm definitely happy to put something in regarding it but just not sure where it would sit best. What would you suggest my strongest points are, if any?!

10
Private parking tickets / Re: Civil Enforcement PCN – Payment not made – Redbridge Institute of Adult Education
« on: June 08, 2026, 11:16:07 am »
I'm considering these points for my POPLA Appeal, comments before submission will be welcomed!

1. Registered Keeper Status

I am the Registered Keeper of the vehicle and submit this appeal in that capacity.

I am under no legal obligation to identify the driver to a private parking operator and decline to do so.

Accordingly, if the Operator seeks to pursue me as Registered Keeper, it must demonstrate full compliance with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("PoFA").

2. Failure to Establish Keeper Liability under PoFA 2012

The Operator seeks to pursue me as the Registered Keeper. In order to do so, it must demonstrate full compliance with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("PoFA").

The Notice to Keeper relies upon "From" and "To" timestamps, which appear to have been generated from ANPR captures of a vehicle entering and exiting the site.

PoFA requires a Notice to Keeper to specify the relevant period of parking. However, entry and exit timestamps merely record vehicle movements past camera locations and are not, in themselves, evidence of a parking period.

The Notice to Keeper does not identify any separately evidenced period of parking and the Operator has not demonstrated how the statutory requirements necessary to transfer liability to the Registered Keeper have been satisfied.

As the driver has not been identified and keeper liability has not been established, the charge cannot be enforced against me as Registered Keeper.

3. The Operator Has Not Proven that a Parking Contravention Occurred

Even if POPLA were to conclude that keeper liability has been established, the Operator must still prove, on the evidence, that the alleged parking contravention occurred.

The Operator relies solely upon ANPR entry and exit timestamps showing a total site presence of approximately 13 minutes.

ANPR cameras record only the times at which a vehicle passes entry and exit points. They do not record whether a vehicle was parked, when any parking commenced, when it ended, or how much of the recorded period was spent driving within the site.

The Operator has provided no evidence of:

the vehicle being parked in a parking bay;
the duration of any alleged parking event;
when any contractual terms were accepted;
the time taken to enter, manoeuvre within the site, read signage, or exit.

The allegation is therefore based upon an inference that a parking event must have occurred between the recorded entry and exit times.

The Operator has produced no direct evidence to support that inference and has not demonstrated that a parking contravention occurred.

4. Failure to Demonstrate Compliance with BPA Consideration and Grace Period Requirements

The British Parking Association Code of Practice requires operators to allow motorists a reasonable consideration period upon arrival to locate and read signage and decide whether to remain on site.

The Operator has produced no evidence demonstrating that any mandatory consideration period was taken into account when assessing this charge.

The total site presence alleged by the Operator is approximately 13 minutes. That period necessarily includes entry, navigation within the site, locating and reading signage, and exiting the site.

The Operator has not demonstrated what portion of the recorded period, if any, constituted actual parking.

Accordingly, compliance with the BPA Code of Practice consideration and grace period requirements has not been established.

5. Inadequate Signage and Failure of Contract Formation

The Operator is required to demonstrate that clear and prominent signage was present and capable of forming a contract with the driver.

The Operator is put to strict proof that:

signage was clearly visible upon entry;
signage was clearly visible throughout the site;
the terms and conditions were legible;
the driver had a reasonable opportunity to read and understand those terms before any contract was formed.

Absent such proof, no contract can be said to have been properly formed.

6. Failure to Properly Consider Submitted Evidence

The Operator requested additional evidence in support of the appeal and directed that such evidence be submitted through its online portal.

The portal did not permit the upload of the requested material. In order to comply with the Operator's request, the material was therefore submitted by email instead.

Despite this, the Operator's rejection letter states:

"As this information has not been received within the specified timeframe..."

The rejection letter does not acknowledge receipt of the emailed submission, nor does it address the substance of the material provided.

I therefore have legitimate concerns that the evidence supplied in response to the Operator's request was either not considered or not properly taken into account before the appeal was rejected.

Whilst this point is not relied upon as a standalone ground of appeal, it raises doubt as to whether the Operator conducted a fair and thorough review of the representations and evidence submitted.

7. Template-Based Rejection and Inaccurate Case Handling

The Operator's rejection letter contains the following statement:

"Please note that as the parking incident occurred in Scotland or Northern Ireland, only the driver can make the appeal to POPLA."

The site concerned is Redbridge Institute of Adult Education in Ilford, England.

The statement is plainly inapplicable to this case and appears to have been inserted from a generic template.

Whilst not determinative on its own, this further supports the concern that the appeal was not individually considered on its own facts.

8. Operator Authority

The Operator is put to strict proof that it has sufficient authority from the landowner to:

issue parking charge notices at this location;
enter into contracts with motorists;
pursue parking charges in its own name;
defend such charges before POPLA and in court proceedings.

Absent such evidence, the Operator has no standing to pursue this charge.

Conclusion

The Operator has failed to:

establish keeper liability under PoFA 2012;
prove that a parking contravention occurred;
demonstrate compliance with BPA consideration and grace period requirements;
demonstrate that a contract was properly formed through adequate signage;
demonstrate proper consideration of submitted evidence;
demonstrate sufficient authority from the landowner.

Accordingly, I respectfully request that POPLA allow this appeal and direct Civil Enforcement Ltd to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.

11
Private parking tickets / Re: Civil Enforcement PCN – Payment not made – Redbridge Institute of Adult Education
« on: June 02, 2026, 01:12:42 pm »
So, as expected, my initial appeal on this was rejected and I've been given the option of POPLA, which I think I will take up. Would I just reiterate my representations that I initially made to Civil Enforcement at POPLA stage? Advice much appreciated!

Here's their rejection letter:

They mention that I did not respond to their request for further evidence, this is not correct. I tried to upload the evidence to their portal, but was blocked from doing so and have a screenshot showing this, so instead I emailed them and reiterated my original points and the fact that at no stage did I mention emergency circumstances.

12
Private parking tickets / Re: Civil Enforcement PCN – Payment not made – Redbridge Institute of Adult Education
« on: May 17, 2026, 07:10:20 pm »
I submitted the reps drafted above on 20th April, and today received this slightly confusing response:
Quote
Thank you for your appeal regarding Parking Charge XX.

Please note that the evidence originally attached with your appeal is insufficient as it does not confirm your legitimate visit on the day/ verify the emergency circumstances detailed in your appeal.

We have extended the deadline for you to provide additional evidence or documentation related to the date of the incident, confirming the circumstances related to the reason for your appeal. You now have an additional 14 days from the date of this email to submit the required information.

Please submit your evidence via the online appeal service at https://appeals.ce-service.co.uk/evidence.

Once a decision has been made, you will be notified via email using the email address you verified when submitting your appeal.

Yours sincerely,
Appeals Department

This feels like some sort of template response that hasn't even looked at what I actually submitted. There was no mention of any emergency circumstances...

Any suggestions of what to do next?!

13
Private parking tickets / Re: Civil Enforcement PCN – Payment not made – Redbridge Institute of Adult Education
« on: April 17, 2026, 03:13:34 pm »
Thanks, DWMB2. That makes sense regarding grace and consideration periods.

Regarding the 'double dip,' the driver is certain they exited and re-entered, and is certain that it is in close proximity to the times shown on the NtK. They think, but aren't certain, that the "From" time represents their first entry to the car park, the "To" time certainly represents the time that they exited the car park for the final time. Is it worth framing as a challenge to their logs? Even if they don't accept the double dip, I'm hoping the 13-minute total duration is too short to be considered 'parking' anyway.

I've reordered the points to lead with the 'Double Dip' and 'Consideration Period' as you suggested. Revised draft below—any further thoughts?


Dear Sir or Madam,

Re: Parking Charge Notice number []

I am appealing this notice on the following grounds:

1. ANPR Technical Failure (Potential Double Dip)
The vehicle entered and exited the site on two separate occasions within a short timeframe. It appears your ANPR system has suffered from a 'double-dipping' error, incorrectly pairing the first entry with the final departure and failing to record the intermediate exit and re-entry. I require you to check your full image logs (including 'orphan' records) for this VRM to verify the two separate visits.

2. Mandatory Consideration Period / No "Period of Parking"
Even if your ANPR data were accurate, your evidence shows a total duration of stay of only 13 minutes. Per the BPA Code of Practice, a motorist must be allowed a 'Consideration Period' to enter a site, find a space, and read the signage to decide whether to accept the terms of the contract. A 13-minute stay—which includes the time taken to drive from the boundary cameras to a bay and back again—is entirely consumed by a reasonable consideration period. No contract was entered into; the driver simply observed the terms and left the site. I rely upon Excel Parking Services Ltd v Burgess [Case No: C8DP11F0] regarding the distinction between "time on site" and "period of parking."

3. Non-Compliance with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4
The Notice to Keeper fails to satisfy the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

Failure to specify the "Period of Parking": As established in Excel v Burgess, camera timestamps of entry and exit do not satisfy the requirement of Paragraph 9(2)(a) to specify the period the vehicle was actually parked.

Late Delivery: While the notice is dated 24 March, actual delivery to the Keeper occurred on 7 April, 20 days after the incident. As this exceeds the 14-day limit for Keeper liability, the Creditor has no legal right to recover this charge from the Keeper.

14
Private parking tickets / Re: Civil Enforcement PCN – Payment not made – Redbridge Institute of Adult Education
« on: April 17, 2026, 02:28:35 pm »
Hi Based on the 14-day rule (Incident: 18 March, Received: 7 April) and the 13-minute stay shown on the NtK, I’ve drafted the following appeal. I'm focusing on PoFA non-compliance, the 'Double Dip' technical error, and the lack of a defined 'period of parking' (citing Burgess). Does this look airtight before I submit?

Dear Sir or Madam,

Re: Parking Charge Notice number []
I am appealing this notice on the following grounds:

1. Late Delivery and Lack of Keeper Liability (PoFA 2012)
The alleged incident occurred on 18 March 2026. Under Schedule 4, Paragraph 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, a Notice to Keeper must be delivered within 14 days of the incident (by 1 April 2026). This notice was not received until 7 April 2026. Because you have failed to comply with the mandatory notice period required by the Act to transfer liability from the driver, there is no lawful basis to hold me, the Registered Keeper, liable for this charge. As the requirements of the Act have not been met, I am under no legal obligation to identify the driver and I decline to do so."

2. Failure to Identify the "Period of Parking"
Your notice identifies ANPR camera timestamps for entry and exit. However, it fails to specify the actual "period of parking" as strictly required by PoFA 2012, Paragraph 9(2)(a). I rely upon the persuasive authority of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Burgess [Case No: C8DP11F0], which established that ANPR timestamps recording times of entry and exit are not evidence of a "period of parking."

3. ANPR Technical Failure (Double Dipping)
Your ANPR system has suffered from a well-documented "double-dipping" error. The vehicle entered and exited the site on two separate occasions within a short timeframe. Your system has paired the initial entry of the day with the final departure, failing to record the intermediate exit and re-entry. I require you to check your full image logs for this VRM to identify the "orphan" records that prove the vehicle was not on site for a continuous period.

4. Mandatory Grace and Consideration Periods
Even if your flawed ANPR data were accurate, your evidence shows an entry at 14:24 and an exit at 14:37—a total duration of only 13 minutes. Per the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, a motorist must be allowed a "Consideration Period" to read signs and a "Grace Period" to leave the site. A 13-minute stay is entirely consumed by these mandatory periods, meaning no "period of parking" in breach of terms occurred.

Conclusion
As you have failed to meet the statutory requirements of PoFA 2012 to transfer liability to the Keeper, and your own evidence proves no parking contract was breached, I require you to cancel this PCN immediately and confirm in writing that my data has been removed from your systems.

15
Private parking tickets / Re: Civil Enforcement PCN – Payment not made – Redbridge Institute of Adult Education
« on: April 17, 2026, 01:16:57 pm »
To clarify, the driver is unsure whether the entry time recorded on the Notice to Keeper relates to the first pass through the car park, when the vehicle briefly entered and exited while locating the correct site. The exit time corresponds to the final departure from the site after the second visit, during which the vehicle was parked.

Would it be relevant to any appeal to understand how ANPR systems typically handle multiple entries within a short period, and whether this could result in two separate visits being recorded as a single continuous stay?

Pages: [1] 2 3 4