-
@b789 This is the response I have recieved
Thank you for your enquiry.
Our Role
Our role as an Accredited Trade Association is to investigate alleged breaches of our Code of Practice where evidence can be supplied and our members internal complaints policy has been exhausted. We are unable to become involved in individual Parking Charge disputes.
Appealing the Parking Charge
A motorist will have 28 days to appeal the Parking Charge if they believe that it was issued incorrectly; the process should be outlined in the Parking Charge.
The operator has 28 days to respond. If the appeal is rejected the operator should provide details on how to further appeal to the free and independent appeals service, POPLA. A further appeal is available via POPLA for 28 days following the operator rejecting the appeal.
About your Case
I can see that the operator has now provided you with a copy of the initial Parking Charge. Due to this we cannot advise further on this point as we cannot determine what has been sent or received by either party. The Parking Charge was issued within 14 days of the contravention which is compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act. If you wish to appeal the charge outside of the 28 day timeframe, it is at the operator’s discretion as to whether they consider it – they are not obligated to do so.
When a Parking Charge has been passed to a debt resolution operator, £70.00 can be added to the Parking Charge.
24.1b Where a Parking Charge becomes overdue and before Court Proceedings have commenced, a reasonable sum (which covers the cost of recovering debt) may be added for the debt recovery fees. This sum must not exceed £70 unless prior approval from the BPA has been granted.
It appears that the operator believed that your letter of complaint was a late appeal due to its contents and therefore, a full complaint response was not issued.
Next Steps
Based on the information you have supplied, I have not identified a breach of point raised in the Code of Practice and therefore I am unable to investigate your complaint further.
Kind regards
Laura Staunton
British Parking Association
Web: www.britishparking.co.uk
-
-
-
First of all, you can reply to the utterly incompetent Ms Staunton with the following:Quote
Subject: Formal Rebuttal – BPA’s Failure to Investigate POFA Breach and Misapplication of Code
Dear Ms. Staunton,
Your response to my complaint is not only procedurally deficient but betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the statutory framework your organisation purports to uphold.
1. Misrepresentation of POFA Requirements
You refer to the NtK being “issued within 14 days,” which is legally meaningless. The relevant statutory requirement under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is that the notice must be given—i.e. delivered—within 14 days. This is not a semantic distinction; it is the cornerstone of lawful keeper liability.
Your failure to grasp this distinction is deeply concerning and calls into question your competence to assess compliance with POFA.
2. Failure to Demand Proof of Posting
You accept CEL’s assertion that the NtK was “issued” without requiring strict proof of posting, despite the clear directive in Section 8.1.2(d) Note 2 of the BPA/IPC PPSCoP:“Parking operators must retain a record of the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice having been generated.”
Why did you not require CEL to produce evidence of the date of posting—such as third-party mail consolidator logs or postal certificates? Your failure to do so renders your conclusion baseless and undermines the credibility of your investigation.
3. Denial of Appeal Rights
You have entirely ignored the fact that the Keeper was denied the opportunity to appeal due to CEL’s failure to serve the NtK. The alleged subsequent provision of a copy (which is denied) does not retroactively cure the breach or restore the lost appeal rights. Your position is legally incoherent and procedurally unjust.
4. Regulatory Abdication
Your refusal to investigate these breaches—despite clear evidence and direct references to the PPSCoP—suggests either wilful ignorance or regulatory capture. If the BPA cannot enforce its own Code, it has no business claiming to regulate this industry.
I now request that you:• Reopen the investigation and demand strict proof of posting from CEL.
• Acknowledge the statutory requirement for delivery under POFA, not mere issuance.
• Address the denial of appeal rights as a breach of Sections 8.4.4 and 11.2 of the Code.
If you are unwilling to do so, I will escalate this matter to the DVLA, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC), and the ICO, citing BPA’s failure to enforce its own standards and protect consumer rights.
Yours sincerely, [Your Name]
As for the LoC, you can respond with the following (also CC in yourself):QuoteDear Sirs,
Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence you place reliance upon. It is therefore in complete contravention of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.
As a claimant, one would expect you to be capable of crafting a letter that aligns with paragraphs 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1 and 5.2 of the Protocol, and paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. These provisions do not exist for decoration—they exist to facilitate informed discussion and proportionate resolution. You might wish to reacquaint yourselves with them.
The Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols (Part 3), stipulate that prior to proceedings, parties should have exchanged sufficient information to understand each other’s position. Part 6 helpfully clarifies that this includes disclosure of key documents relevant to the issues in dispute.
Your template letter mentions a “contract”, yet fails to provide one. This would appear to undermine the only foundation upon which your claim allegedly rests. It’s difficult to engage in meaningful pre-litigation dialogue when you decline to furnish the very document you purport to enforce.
I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim that complies with the requirements of para 3.1(a) of the Pre-Action Protocol, I shall then seek advice and submit a formal response within 30 days, as required by the Protocol. Thus, I require you to comply with your obligations by sending me the following information/documents:1. A copy of the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) that confirms any PoFA 2012 liability, including proof of posting and delivery within the statutory timeframe
2. A copy of the contract (or contracts) you allege exists between you and the driver, in the form of an actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date, not a generic stock image
3. The exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract(s) which is (are) relied upon that you allege to have been breached
4. The written agreement between you and the landowner, establishing authority to enforce
5. A breakdown of the charges claimed, identifying whether the principal sum is claimed as consideration or damages, and whether the £70 “debt recovery” fee includes VAT
I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).
I also challenge the £70 add-on per PCN. You have provided no evidence of actual costs incurred, nor any breakdown of how this figure was calculated. If VAT is included, you must confirm whether it is being properly accounted for and whether you are VAT registered. The BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice requires transparency and justification for any added fees, and your failure to provide this renders the amount unenforceable.
If you do not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, and Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on you and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13, 15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.
Until you have complied with your obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it. It is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for you to issue proceedings. Should you do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name] -
-
A very minor point - Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities is now called Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
They change names almost as often as they change ministers. -
-
@b789 They have no email address and the online form now says too late for appeal. The generic documents giving options dont even clearly state the reply address it says 'address of business' the assumption is that this is Civil Enforcement at their Horton House, Liverpool address so I will fill the form with Box C (I dont know whether I owe the debt) and send a recorded letter with the reply above if that sounds reasonable?
-
-
You don't send anything recorded delivery. What a waste of money. If someone refuses to sign for it, then all you have proof of is non delivery which is a useful as a poke in the arm with a sharp stick.
If you ever need to send something by post, you simply send it first class and get a free proof of posting receipt at any post office. However, email is ALWAYS the best option as it is instant and is traceable as having been delivered.
You positively DO NOT fill out ANY of the forms that came with the LoC. Just respond with the advised email.
Send the response as an email, CC yourself to legal@ce-service.co.uk. -
-
@b789 received this from BPA
Thank you for your email.
Please see my comments below for your information.
1 – I can see that the Notice to Keeper was issued on 02/10/2024 which would have been presumed delivered on 07/20/2024 which is within the timescales of the Protection of Freedoms Act
2 – The Code of Practice also states “Where “NOTES” within the Code purport to impose a standard on an operator they are not mandatory”. We consider these as best practice and not a breach of the Code of Practice if the operator does not retain a record
3 - If you wish to appeal the charge outside of the 28 day timeframe, it is at the operator’s discretion as to whether they consider it – they are not obligated to do so.
Our Code states:
8.4.1. Where a parking operator accepts payment of a parking charge, they do not need to offer the ability to appeal providing this is clear in the notice. Parking operators must provide a process for motorists to appeal against a Parking Charge in accordance with Annex C, which:
a) allows that the parking charge may be appealed within 28 days;
We have not located a breach of the Code of Practice so, cannot advise further.
Kind regards
Laura
Compliance Team
British Parking Association
Web: www.britishparking.co.uk
-
-
@b789 received this from BPA
1 – I can see that the Notice to Keeper was issued on 02/10/2024 which would have been presumed delivered on 07/20/2024 which is within the timescales of the Protection of Freedoms Act
Please confirm whether these are the actual dates in the BPA response or are they typos made when transcribing to this post?
If this is meant to be “07/10/2024” (7 October), it still raises the question of how they’ve calculated the delivery date without any proof of posting. They are simply inserting a presumed delivery date to fit within the 14-day limit without requiring CEL to produce the mandated evidence. -
-
In this Code of Practice, a “NOTE” that uses the word “must” cannot be waved away as optional when it is the only practical means of evidencing compliance with statute.
1) What the BPA/IPC Private Parking Code of Practice (PPSCoP) actually says about “NOTES”
The PPSCoP includes a meta-clause: “Where ‘NOTES’ within the Code purport to impose a standard on an operator they are not mandatory… Not complying with a ‘NOTE’ is not a breach of the Code”.
However, the very same Code’s NOTE 2 under the parking charge section 8.1.2(e) states (in substance): because PoFA presumes postal delivery on the second working day after posting, operators must retain a record of the date of posting, not merely of notice generation (e.g. the date a mail consolidator actually injected it into the postal system). This is written using the word “must”.
Interpreting these together: the ATAs try to classify all “NOTES” as non-mandatory Code text. But when a NOTE uses “must” to operationalise a statutory presumption (PoFA service), treating that as optional is untenable, for the reasons below.
2) Statute controls: PoFA requires delivery within 14 days, not mere “issue”
PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9 requires a Notice to Keeper to be given within the relevant period (14 days from the day after the parking ended). It further provides the postal presumption: a notice sent by post is presumed delivered on the second working day after posting. These are statutory rules of delivery and presumption, not trade-body preferences.
Therefore:• If an operator wants to rely on PoFA keeper liability, it must be able to prove when it posted the NtK (to anchor the “second working day” presumption).
• Without a posting record, the “delivered within 14 days” requirement cannot be evidenced. Saying “we issued it within 14 days” is irrelevant to PoFA.
3) Why the NOTE states “must keep posting records” is, in effect, compulsory
Even if the ATA labels NOTES as “not mandatory”, the PoFA presumption only engages if there was posting and you can show when. The NOTE simply translates that legal reality into an evidential control: keep posting logs (e.g., third-party mail consolidator reports). If an operator doesn’t keep them, they can’t substantiate PoFA compliance. In other words, the NOTE’s “must” is functionally mandatory for any operator who wishes to rely on PoFA keeper liability.
4) The Code of Practice itself expects evidential records elsewhere
The PPSCoP imposes hard obligations outside the “NOTE” box, including record-keeping for 36 months where records are required, and it sets audit/monitoring expectations. If you must evidence compliance, you must keep the evidence. Posting logs fall squarely within that logic.
5) The PPSCoP’s sanctions show timing under PoFA is serious
Annex H lists non-conformances including sending notices implying PoFA keeper pursuit outside PoFA timescales. If timing is sanctionable, then proving the posting date is inseparable from compliance. It is incoherent to sanction late service yet treat the only practical proof of service timing as “non-mandatory”.
6) DVLA/KADOE context reinforces the need for auditable records
Access to DVLA keeper data depends on membership and adherence to PPSCoP standards, with reasonable cause and auditability. The KADOE framework expects operators to be able to show compliance to regulators. In the context of PoFA timing, that means retaining reliable posting evidence.
7) Bottom line on the BPA’s claim
• Saying “NOTES aren’t mandatory” does not permit operators (or the BPA) to ignore statutory requirements or the evidential controls that make those requirements provable.
• Where a NOTE restates or operationalises a legal presumption, the operator’s failure to follow it may not be a “Code breach” per the ATAs’ own disclaimer, but it is fatal to PoFA keeper liability and undermines DVLA audit expectations. The BPA cannot properly rely on a presumption of delivery without demanding the operator’s posting records.
8) The correct analytical position to put back to BPA (succinctly)
• PoFA 9(4)–(6) requires delivery within 14 days and presumes delivery on the second working day after posting; “issued within 14 days” is immaterial.
• The PPSCoP’s referenced NOTE 2 mirrors PoFA and states operators must keep posting records; without them, the PoFA presumption cannot be relied upon.
• The “NOTES are not mandatory” clause cannot disapply statute; at most, it downgrades some best-practice guidance. It does not excuse the BPA from requiring proof of posting where an operator asserts PoFA compliance.
• The Code’s own sanctions regime treats PoFA timing seriously, which presupposes auditable posting evidence.
You can respond to that ridiculous BPA fob-off with the following:QuoteSubject: BPA’s Misinterpretation of PoFA and Refusal to Require Evidence of Posting – Further Response
Dear Ms Staunton,
Your latest reply again fails to address the core issue and, in doing so, undermines the BPA’s credibility as an Accredited Trade Association.
1. PoFA Requirement – Delivery, not Issue
The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4) requires that a Notice to Keeper be given (delivered) within 14 days, not merely “issued”. The statutory presumption of delivery on the second working day applies only if the notice was actually posted and the operator can show when that posting occurred. Your assertion that “issued within 14 days” satisfies PoFA is incorrect in law.
2. “NOTE” in the PPSCoP – Use of “Must” Cannot Be Optional
The BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice, Section 8.1.2(d) Note 2, states:“Parking operators must retain a record of the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice having been generated.”
This wording exists because, without a posting record, PoFA’s delivery presumption cannot be substantiated. Calling this “non-mandatory” is regulatory abdication. The BPA cannot declare statutory evidential requirements optional.
3. Refusal to Require Proof of Posting
You have relied solely on CEL’s unverified assertion of “issue” and refused to obtain posting evidence. This is unacceptable for a regulator claiming to enforce compliance with PoFA and KADOE audit standards.
4. Denial of Appeal Rights
CEL’s failure to serve the NtK denied the keeper their statutory right to appeal. The later provision of a “copy” does not cure this breach. Your dismissal of this fact breaches PPSCoP 8.4.4 and 11.2.
I now put the BPA on notice that this matter will be escalated to:• DVLA – for failure to enforce KADOE compliance;
• MHCLG – for BPA’s systemic failure to regulate its members;
• ICO – for potential misuse of DVLA data where PoFA conditions were not met.
Yours sincerely,
[Name]
You should also send the following to your MP, whose email address you can find at https://members.parliament.uk/FindYourMPQuoteSubject: Regulatory Failure by BPA and DVLA – PoFA and KADOE Enforcement
Dear [MP Name],
I am seeking your assistance to escalate a serious regulatory failure involving the British Parking Association (BPA) and the DVLA to the Minister at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) responsible for private parking policy.
Background:• The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) Schedule 4 allows parking companies to pursue a vehicle’s keeper only if a Notice to Keeper (NtK) is delivered within 14 days.
• “Delivered” is presumed to mean the second working day after posting — but only if the operator can prove when it was posted.
• The BPA/IPC Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) reflects this in Section 8.1.2(d) Note 2, stating that operators must retain posting records.
The Problem:• The BPA refuses to enforce this requirement, calling it “non-mandatory” because it appears in a “Note”.
• This allows operators to claim PoFA compliance without producing posting evidence, undermining statutory safeguards.
• The DVLA continues to provide registered keeper data to such operators despite their inability to prove PoFA compliance.
Consequences:
[/indent]• Motorists are being wrongly told they are liable under PoFA.
• Appeals are being denied where NtKs were never actually served.
• The DVLA’s KADOE contractual requirement for compliance with PoFA is being ignored.[/indent]
Requested Action:• Ask MHCLG to investigate the BPA’s refusal to enforce a statutory evidential safeguard.
• Ask DVLA to confirm how they audit operators’ compliance with PoFA delivery requirements.
• Require both bodies to ensure that posting records are retained and produced on demand.
I am happy to provide the correspondence showing the BPA’s position, the operator’s claim, and the statutory and Code provisions involved.
Yours sincerely,
[Name]
[Address]
Here is a timeline you can include with the MP email that helps explain the issue:QuoteTimeline – BPA / CEL / PoFA Delivery Breach Complaint
[Incident Date] – Alleged parking contravention at [Site Name] by Civil Enforcement Ltd (CEL).
[NtK Date] – Original Notice to Keeper (NtK) never received. No opportunity to appeal within 28 days.
[Debt Recovery Date] – First contact was a £170 debt recovery letter (months later). No reduced amount offered, no appeal information.
Complaint to CEL• Formal complaint sent to CEL:• Failure to serve NtK.• CEL response: Refused to consider appeal, claimed it was “too late” to appeal.
• Denial of appeal rights.
• No evidence of contravention.
• Excessive charge.
Complaint to BPA• Raised formal complaint with BPA after exhausting CEL’s process.
• Alleged breaches of PPSCoP: 8.4.1, 8.4.4, 8.4.8, 11.2, 17.3.4, 17.4.6, and PoFA 2012 (Schedule 4).
• Requested BPA demand proof of posting from CEL and address denial of appeal rights.
BPA’s First Response• Claimed NtK was “issued within 14 days” and therefore PoFA-compliant.
• Refused to require proof of posting.
• Said appeal outside 28 days is at operator’s discretion.
• Treated complaint as a “late appeal” and did not address core issues.
• Said adding £70 debt recovery fee is permitted.
Rebuttal to BPA• Pointed out PoFA requires delivery within 14 days, not just “issue.”
• Highlighted PPSCoP 8.1.2(d) Note 2: operators must retain posting records.
• Argued BPA’s refusal to require proof of posting undermines PoFA and KADOE.
• Reiterated denial of appeal rights breaches PPSCoP 8.4.4 and 11.2.
• Stated intent to escalate to DVLA, MHCLG, and ICO.
BPA’s Second Response• Asserted NtK was “presumed delivered” on their chosen date — despite no proof of posting.
• Claimed “Notes are not mandatory” in the PPSCoP, even when they contain the word “must.”
• Repeated that appeals outside 28 days are at operator’s discretion.
• Again refused to identify any breach of the Code or investigate further.
Current Status:• BPA refuses to enforce its own evidential requirements for PoFA delivery.
• DVLA continues to provide CEL with keeper data despite lack of proof of timely NtK service.
• Preparing escalation to MP for referral to MHCLG minister and DVLA Chief Executive. -
-
CEL often use historic addresses (ie original DVLA search address) to make court claims. Ensure they are given updated details if needed.
-
-
@b789 received this from BPA
1 – I can see that the Notice to Keeper was issued on 02/10/2024 which would have been presumed delivered on 07/20/2024 which is within the timescales of the Protection of Freedoms Act
Please confirm whether these are the actual dates in the BPA response or are they typos made when transcribing to this post?
If this is meant to be “07/10/2024” (7 October), it still raises the question of how they’ve calculated the delivery date without any proof of posting. They are simply inserting a presumed delivery date to fit within the 14-day limit without requiring CEL to produce the mandated evidence.
Yes this is exactly what was in the reply surprisingly
-
-
CEL often use historic addresses (ie original DVLA search address) to make court claims. Ensure they are given updated details if needed.
Thanks, they have sent the paperwork so far to the correct address and I have replied, DVLA also has the right address so hopefully not an issue -
-
In this Code of Practice, a “NOTE” that uses the word “must” cannot be waved away as optional when it is the only practical means of evidencing compliance with statute.
1) What the BPA/IPC Private Parking Code of Practice (PPSCoP) actually says about “NOTES”
The PPSCoP includes a meta-clause: “Where ‘NOTES’ within the Code purport to impose a standard on an operator they are not mandatory… Not complying with a ‘NOTE’ is not a breach of the Code”.
However, the very same Code’s NOTE 2 under the parking charge section 8.1.2(e) states (in substance): because PoFA presumes postal delivery on the second working day after posting, operators must retain a record of the date of posting, not merely of notice generation (e.g. the date a mail consolidator actually injected it into the postal system). This is written using the word “must”.
Interpreting these together: the ATAs try to classify all “NOTES” as non-mandatory Code text. But when a NOTE uses “must” to operationalise a statutory presumption (PoFA service), treating that as optional is untenable, for the reasons below.
2) Statute controls: PoFA requires delivery within 14 days, not mere “issue”
PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9 requires a Notice to Keeper to be given within the relevant period (14 days from the day after the parking ended). It further provides the postal presumption: a notice sent by post is presumed delivered on the second working day after posting. These are statutory rules of delivery and presumption, not trade-body preferences.
Therefore:• If an operator wants to rely on PoFA keeper liability, it must be able to prove when it posted the NtK (to anchor the “second working day” presumption).
• Without a posting record, the “delivered within 14 days” requirement cannot be evidenced. Saying “we issued it within 14 days” is irrelevant to PoFA.
3) Why the NOTE states “must keep posting records” is, in effect, compulsory
Even if the ATA labels NOTES as “not mandatory”, the PoFA presumption only engages if there was posting and you can show when. The NOTE simply translates that legal reality into an evidential control: keep posting logs (e.g., third-party mail consolidator reports). If an operator doesn’t keep them, they can’t substantiate PoFA compliance. In other words, the NOTE’s “must” is functionally mandatory for any operator who wishes to rely on PoFA keeper liability.
4) The Code of Practice itself expects evidential records elsewhere
The PPSCoP imposes hard obligations outside the “NOTE” box, including record-keeping for 36 months where records are required, and it sets audit/monitoring expectations. If you must evidence compliance, you must keep the evidence. Posting logs fall squarely within that logic.
5) The PPSCoP’s sanctions show timing under PoFA is serious
Annex H lists non-conformances including sending notices implying PoFA keeper pursuit outside PoFA timescales. If timing is sanctionable, then proving the posting date is inseparable from compliance. It is incoherent to sanction late service yet treat the only practical proof of service timing as “non-mandatory”.
6) DVLA/KADOE context reinforces the need for auditable records
Access to DVLA keeper data depends on membership and adherence to PPSCoP standards, with reasonable cause and auditability. The KADOE framework expects operators to be able to show compliance to regulators. In the context of PoFA timing, that means retaining reliable posting evidence.
7) Bottom line on the BPA’s claim
• Saying “NOTES aren’t mandatory” does not permit operators (or the BPA) to ignore statutory requirements or the evidential controls that make those requirements provable.
• Where a NOTE restates or operationalises a legal presumption, the operator’s failure to follow it may not be a “Code breach” per the ATAs’ own disclaimer, but it is fatal to PoFA keeper liability and undermines DVLA audit expectations. The BPA cannot properly rely on a presumption of delivery without demanding the operator’s posting records.
The correct analytical position to put back to BPA (succinctly)
• PoFA 9(4)–(6) requires delivery within 14 days and presumes delivery on the second working day after posting; “issued within 14 days” is immaterial.
• The PPSCoP’s referenced NOTE 2 mirrors PoFA and states operators must keep posting records; without them, the PoFA presumption cannot be relied upon.
• The “NOTES are not mandatory” clause cannot disapply statute; at most, it downgrades some best-practice guidance. It does not excuse the BPA from requiring proof of posting where an operator asserts PoFA compliance.
• The Code’s own sanctions regime treats PoFA timing seriously, which presupposes auditable posting evidence.
You can respond to that ridiculous BPA fob-off with the following:QuoteSubject: BPA’s Misinterpretation of PoFA and Refusal to Require Evidence of Posting – Further Response
Dear Ms Staunton,
Your latest reply again fails to address the core issue and, in doing so, undermines the BPA’s credibility as an Accredited Trade Association.
1. PoFA Requirement – Delivery, not Issue
The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Schedule 4) requires that a Notice to Keeper be given (delivered) within 14 days, not merely “issued”. The statutory presumption of delivery on the second working day applies only if the notice was actually posted and the operator can show when that posting occurred. Your assertion that “issued within 14 days” satisfies PoFA is incorrect in law.
2. “NOTE” in the PPSCoP – Use of “Must” Cannot Be Optional
The BPA/IPC Private Parking Single Code of Practice, Section 8.1.2(d) Note 2, states:“Parking operators must retain a record of the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice having been generated.”
This wording exists because, without a posting record, PoFA’s delivery presumption cannot be substantiated. Calling this “non-mandatory” is regulatory abdication. The BPA cannot declare statutory evidential requirements optional.
3. Refusal to Require Proof of Posting
You have relied solely on CEL’s unverified assertion of “issue” and refused to obtain posting evidence. This is unacceptable for a regulator claiming to enforce compliance with PoFA and KADOE audit standards.
4. Denial of Appeal Rights
CEL’s failure to serve the NtK denied the keeper their statutory right to appeal. The later provision of a “copy” does not cure this breach. Your dismissal of this fact breaches PPSCoP 8.4.4 and 11.2.
I now put the BPA on notice that this matter will be escalated to:• DVLA – for failure to enforce KADOE compliance;
• MHCLG – for BPA’s systemic failure to regulate its members;
• ICO – for potential misuse of DVLA data where PoFA conditions were not met.
Yours sincerely,
[Name]
You should also send the following to your MP, whose email address you can find at https://members.parliament.uk/FindYourMPQuoteSubject: Regulatory Failure by BPA and DVLA – PoFA and KADOE Enforcement
Dear [MP Name],
I am seeking your assistance to escalate a serious regulatory failure involving the British Parking Association (BPA) and the DVLA to the Minister at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) responsible for private parking policy.
Background:• The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) Schedule 4 allows parking companies to pursue a vehicle’s keeper only if a Notice to Keeper (NtK) is delivered within 14 days.
• “Delivered” is presumed to mean the second working day after posting — but only if the operator can prove when it was posted.
• The BPA/IPC Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP) reflects this in Section 8.1.2(d) Note 2, stating that operators must retain posting records.
The Problem:• The BPA refuses to enforce this requirement, calling it “non-mandatory” because it appears in a “Note”.
• This allows operators to claim PoFA compliance without producing posting evidence, undermining statutory safeguards.
• The DVLA continues to provide registered keeper data to such operators despite their inability to prove PoFA compliance.
Consequences:
[/indent]• Motorists are being wrongly told they are liable under PoFA.
• Appeals are being denied where NtKs were never actually served.
• The DVLA’s KADOE contractual requirement for compliance with PoFA is being ignored.[/indent]
Requested Action:• Ask MHCLG to investigate the BPA’s refusal to enforce a statutory evidential safeguard.
• Ask DVLA to confirm how they audit operators’ compliance with PoFA delivery requirements.
• Require both bodies to ensure that posting records are retained and produced on demand.
I am happy to provide the correspondence showing the BPA’s position, the operator’s claim, and the statutory and Code provisions involved.
Yours sincerely,
[Name]
[Address]
Here is a timeline you can include with the MP email that helps explain the issue:QuoteTimeline – BPA / CEL / PoFA Delivery Breach Complaint
[Incident Date] – Alleged parking contravention at [Site Name] by Civil Enforcement Ltd (CEL).
[NtK Date] – Original Notice to Keeper (NtK) never received. No opportunity to appeal within 28 days.
[Debt Recovery Date] – First contact was a £170 debt recovery letter (months later). No reduced amount offered, no appeal information.
Complaint to CEL• Formal complaint sent to CEL:• Failure to serve NtK.• CEL response: Refused to consider appeal, claimed it was “too late” to appeal.
• Denial of appeal rights.
• No evidence of contravention.
• Excessive charge.
Complaint to BPA• Raised formal complaint with BPA after exhausting CEL’s process.
• Alleged breaches of PPSCoP: 8.4.1, 8.4.4, 8.4.8, 11.2, 17.3.4, 17.4.6, and PoFA 2012 (Schedule 4).
• Requested BPA demand proof of posting from CEL and address denial of appeal rights.
BPA’s First Response• Claimed NtK was “issued within 14 days” and therefore PoFA-compliant.
• Refused to require proof of posting.
• Said appeal outside 28 days is at operator’s discretion.
• Treated complaint as a “late appeal” and did not address core issues.
• Said adding £70 debt recovery fee is permitted.
Rebuttal to BPA• Pointed out PoFA requires delivery within 14 days, not just “issue.”
• Highlighted PPSCoP 8.1.2(d) Note 2: operators must retain posting records.
• Argued BPA’s refusal to require proof of posting undermines PoFA and KADOE.
• Reiterated denial of appeal rights breaches PPSCoP 8.4.4 and 11.2.
• Stated intent to escalate to DVLA, MHCLG, and ICO.
BPA’s Second Response• Asserted NtK was “presumed delivered” on their chosen date — despite no proof of posting.
• Claimed “Notes are not mandatory” in the PPSCoP, even when they contain the word “must.”
• Repeated that appeals outside 28 days are at operator’s discretion.
• Again refused to identify any breach of the Code or investigate further.
Current Status:• BPA refuses to enforce its own evidential requirements for PoFA delivery.
• DVLA continues to provide CEL with keeper data despite lack of proof of timely NtK service.
• Preparing escalation to MP for referral to MHCLG minister and DVLA Chief Executive.
@b789 thanks so much will send across and update -
-
Where possible please try to avoid quoting the entire post you are replying to every time - it makes the thread incredibly difficult to read.
-
-
Please confirm whether these are the actual dates in the BPA response or are they typos made when transcribing to this post?
If this is meant to be “07/10/2024” (7 October), it still raises the question of how they’ve calculated the delivery date without any proof of posting. They are simply inserting a presumed delivery date to fit within the 14-day limit without requiring CEL to produce the mandated evidence.
Yes this is exactly what was in the reply surprisingly
In which case I suggest you respond to Ms Staunton with the following:QuoteSubject: BPA’s Deliberate Misapplication of PoFA Delivery Presumption
Dear Ms Staunton,
Your dismissal of the rebuttal to the statutory presumption of service is precisely the reason PPSCoP Section 8.1.2(d) Note 2 exists in the first place.
You know full well that under PoFA Schedule 4, the “second working day” presumption in 9(6) only applies if the parking operator can prove the date of posting. That statutory safeguard exists to prevent operators from simply claiming a convenient delivery date without evidence. The PPSCoP Note reflects this in mandatory language:“Parking operators MUST retain a record of the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice having been generated.”
This is not an optional “best practice” nicety. It is the only practical means by which PoFA compliance on delivery timing can be evidenced.
By refusing to require Civil Enforcement Ltd to produce posting records — and by instead fabricating a “presumed delivery” date that either precedes the issue date by over two months (20 July 2024) or, if corrected to 7 October 2024, is still wrong in law — you have:• Destroyed the evidential basis for the presumption;
• Enabled an operator to rely on PoFA without satisfying its statutory preconditions;
• Acted contrary to the PPSCoP’s stated purpose of upholding statutory compliance; and
• Demonstrated why public confidence in the BPA’s impartiality is non-existent.
The very fact that you dismiss the rebuttal of presumption is itself proof of the BPA’s regulatory failure. If you genuinely believed in upholding PoFA, you would treat posting evidence as non-negotiable — as the PPSCoP Note requires — rather than dismissing it to shield a member from scrutiny.
This correspondence, along with your stated position, will be provided to the DVLA, the MHCLG minister, and the ICO as evidence of systemic bias and failure to enforce statutory safeguards.
Your next reply should confirm either that:(a) The operator has provided actual posting records for the NtK; or
(b) You accept that PoFA keeper liability cannot apply in the absence of such records.
Anything less will be taken as further confirmation of the BPA’s unwillingness to regulate its members in accordance with statute.
Yours sincerely,
[Name] -
Like x 1
View List
Like x 1
View List
Agree x 1
View List