We don't need to know about any dent recovery letters and you can safely ignore them. Use them as kindling. They are useless and powerless to do anything. Ignore them. Never, ever, ever, communicate with a useless debt collector.
The sign you've shown primarily offers terms for authorised parking and does not create a clear 'contractual offer' to the driver unless they meet specific conditions. The sign states that only "parishioners and authorised visitors" who register their vehicle on a touchscreen inside the premises are eligible to park.
This implies that no offer is being made to the general public for parking. Instead, it restricts the premises to authorised users only. The sign explicitly states, "General public parking is not permitted" which further supports that it is not an invitation to enter into a parking contract for anyone other than authorised users.
The phrase "If you breach any of these terms, you will be liable to a parking charge of up to £100" implies that any unauthorised parking constitutes a breach, not acceptance of a contract. This approach leans more towards a prohibitive notice rather than an offer capable of forming a contractual relationship.
The sign does not clearly state any terms that would apply to someone who merely enters the premises but does not park (e.g., someone turning around). A contract requires that terms are clearly communicated and capable of being accepted by conduct. Here, the "driver turning around" scenario does not align with the parking terms specified.
For a contract to be valid, it must offer terms that are capable of acceptance. The sign's focus on "Authorised Parking Only" does not provide an offer to unauthorised users but rather seeks to exclude them.
This sign does not appear to offer a contractual relationship to unauthorised drivers (e.g., those who enter and immediately leave, or turn around). Instead, it serves as a prohibitive notice designed to restrict access to authorised users only. As such, no contract could reasonably have been formed between the driver and Civil Enforcement Ltd in this case.
As you have the PCN number, you could go onto the CEL website as though to appeal and see what, if any, evidential photos they have. Make sure you download any images. You need to find out how much time the vehicle was actually on the premises because there are other appeal points that can be made, such as "consideration" and "grace" periods.
You say the driver simply entered, turned around and left. If they simply entered and turned around and then immediately left, CEL will be put to strict proof that that was not the case.
Send the following as a formal complaint to CEL (check their complaints procedure on their website):
Subject: Request for Clarification and Re-Issuance of Notice to Keeper (NtK)
[Keeper's Name]
[Keeper's Address]
[Date]
To:
Civil Enforcement Ltd
[Address - check CEL's correspondence or website for their contact details]
Re: Parking Charge Notice Reminder for PCN [pcn number]
Dear Civil Enforcement Ltd,
I am writing regarding a reminder letter I received for an alleged parking contravention at [Location Name] on 27/09/2024. I have not received the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) that should have been sent to me, and therefore I am unable to determine the nature of the alleged contravention.
As the Keeper of the vehicle, I am entitled to receive all the information necessary to understand the alleged breach. The reminder letter fails to provide the details required to establish:
1. The exact alleged contravention.
2. Evidence supporting your claim, including any images or proof of the vehicle's actions at the site.
From the limited information provided, I understand that the driver of the vehicle on the date in question did not park but merely entered the location to turn around and promptly exited. The signage at the site, which I have reviewed, states:
"Authorised Parking Only. Parishioners and authorised visitors must obtain a parking permit by registering their full correct vehicle registration on the touch screen located inside the premises."
This wording implies that any alleged contravention applies to vehicles that remain on-site without authorisation or proper registration. The vehicle in question did not park or wait at the location and therefore could not have breached these terms.
In line with the BPA Code of Practice (version 9, applicable at the time of the alleged incident), specifically Sections 21.4, 21.5, and 23.1, I require you to:
• Provide a copy of the original NtK, which must include all necessary details of the alleged contravention, including time-stamped evidence of the vehicle's presence and proof of any alleged terms breached.
• Clarify the alleged contravention with full supporting evidence.
Furthermore, I remind you that should you fail to provide adequate evidence to support your claim, this matter will be considered unresolved, and any further action by you or your agents may be deemed unreasonable and vexatious.
If I do not receive a satisfactory response within 14 days, I will escalate this matter to the BPA and other relevant bodies for further investigation.
Please treat this correspondence as a formal complaint.
Yours faithfully,
[Keeper's Full Name]
[Keeper's Contact Information]
