Author Topic: Civil Enforcement PCN - compliant with BPA? (Read 57 times)

IanO · « **on:** March 06, 2025, 09:20:35 am »

Hello,
The driver visited Sacred Heart Church in Wimbledon on February 12th and parked in their car park. The driver went to enquire about funeral services in the Church lobby. There is a 15 minute grace period before cameras issue a PCN. The driver was there for 18 minutes and hadn’t realised they should have registered their car number plate on one of the tablets in the Presbytery reception.

Page 1 of the PCN: https://ibb.co/7JbqPFCc
Page 2: https://ibb.co/hRpwyQrT

The PCN is from a company called Civil Enforcement, and was received yesterday in the post (March 5th), but has an issue Issue Date on it of February 28th. I would like to know if I have grounds to appeal on the following:

- The photos on the PCN do not bear any time stamps and as far as I can tell they look slightly cropped. There seems to be no way to view them online. This isn’t line with requirement of BPA ATA CoP 21.5?
- I can’t tell if this operator relies on POFA 2012, how can I tell? If they do, the notice is dated more than 14 days after the alleged contravention. I only received the notice yesterday, so have already lost 5 of the 14 days to pay the discounted rate.
- I only over-stayed by 3 minutes

Do I, the registered keeper, have any other grounds for appeal please?
Thank you

DWMB2 · « **Reply #1 on:** March 06, 2025, 09:43:46 am »

Can you confirm that you are the registered keeper of the vehicle? If so, you are right that they have failed to comply with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act.

You can appeal with the below.

Dear Sirs,

I have received your Parking Charge Notice (Ref: ________) for vehicle registration mark ____ ___, in which you allege that the driver has incurred a parking charge. I note from your correspondence that you are not seeking to hold me liable as the registered keeper, under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("The Act"). You have chosen not to issue a Notice to Keeper in accordance with The Act, and it is now too late for you to do so.

There is no obligation for me to name the driver and I will not be doing so. I am therefore unable to help you further with this matter, and look forward to your confirmation that the charge has been cancelled. If you choose to decline this appeal, you must issue a POPLA code.

Yours,

If appealing online, be careful there are no drop down/tick boxes that cause you to identify who was driving, and keep a close eye on your spam folder for their response. If they do not respond within 28 days, chase them.

IanO · « **Reply #2 on:** March 06, 2025, 03:22:43 pm »

Thanks. The very first question they ask during the appeal online is “are you the driver of the vehicle?”,
I can select yes, no or just proceed by not answering it. Does it matter what option I choose? Same with the next question asking if I’m the registered keeper (yes, no or leave it unanswered).

jfollows · « **Reply #3 on:** March 06, 2025, 04:04:49 pm »

Do not answer the question about the driver.
Yes, you are the registered keeper (if true).

If you identify the driver you sink your case fatally.
They already know you are the registered keeper anyway since they asked the DVLA for this information. Well, you haven’t answered the earlier question on this here so I’m presuming you are.

IanO · « **Reply #4 on:** March 06, 2025, 06:23:43 pm »

Yes I am the registered keeper! Ok I’ll appeal as advised, thank you for your input

b789 · « **Reply #5 on:** March 07, 2025, 12:27:45 am »

OP< you have to get it into your head that the driver and the keeper are two separate legal entities and there is no legal obligation on the Keeper to identify the driver to an unregulated private packing company. The only entity liable for the charge is the driver and CEL have absolutely no idea who that is unless you blab it to them, inadvertently or otherwise.

So, irrespective of whether you were or were not the driver, you are only responding as the Keeper and any reference to the driver should be in the third person. No blabbing that you, the keeper were the driver by saying "I did this or that", only "the driver did this or that".

Because CEL have not relied on PoFA to be able to transfer liability from the unknown driver to the known Keeper, you use the response provided above.

ixxy · « **Reply #6 on:** March 07, 2025, 12:12:57 pm »

As explained above, not POFA complaint so they can't hold the keeper liable, that's on them for not issuing the PCN in time.

There is a 15 minute grace period before cameras issue a PCN.

Does it say this on the signs or are you assuming that is the case. If it's not mentioned on the signs you get a minimum of a 5 minute consideration period in most car parks (there are exceptions under the new COP), it could be longer but often it's not. If there is a free stay period mentioned on the signs then you get a grace period of a minimum of 10 minutes on top of what's on the signage. It's either or though, they don't add together and a grace period only applies if you parked in accordance with the rules of the car park.

It's not relevant in this case but in case you find yourself in another privately managed car parks read the signs, don't make assumptions.

Free Traffic Legal Advice

Author Topic: Civil Enforcement PCN - compliant with BPA? (Read 57 times)

IanO

Civil Enforcement PCN - compliant with BPA?

DWMB2

Re: Civil Enforcement PCN - compliant with BPA?

IanO

Re: Civil Enforcement PCN - compliant with BPA?

jfollows

Re: Civil Enforcement PCN - compliant with BPA?

IanO

Re: Civil Enforcement PCN - compliant with BPA?

b789

Re: Civil Enforcement PCN - compliant with BPA?

ixxy

Re: Civil Enforcement PCN - compliant with BPA?