DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 116137--------------------------------------------------
Civil Enforcement PCN – Payment not made – Redbridge Institute
of Adult Education
DIR By: jays86
Date: April 17, 2026, 3:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The driver entered the car park twice. The first occasion they
drove straight through the car park as they weren't sure they
were at the right location. They drove around the block and then
back into the car park where they parked, collected some items,
returned to the vehicle and left.
On 7th April, I, the registered keeper, received a PCN through
the post. I wonder if the time of entry is perhaps the time the
driver first entered the car park? Is the NtK fully complaint
with PoFA 2012, or could it be appealed on these grounds?
HTML https://i.ibb.co/QFFLfH20/Scanned-20260417-0917-1.png
HTML https://ibb.co/QFFLfH20
#Post#: 116138--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement PCN – Payment not made – Redbridge
Institute of Adult Education
DIR By: jfollows
Date: April 17, 2026, 3:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Only you can say whether or not the times reflect your first
pass through the car park!
And how long you actually parked subsequently.
#Post#: 116160--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement PCN – Payment not made – Redbridge
Institute of Adult Education
DIR By: jays86
Date: April 17, 2026, 7:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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?
#Post#: 116168--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement PCN – Payment not made – Redbridge
Institute of Adult Education
DIR By: jfollows
Date: April 17, 2026, 7:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It’s perfectly normal to record two visits as one with ANPR, in
which the first exit is “overlooked”. You can construct your
appeal accordingly, and feel free to post it here for comment
prior to submission.
#Post#: 116173--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement PCN – Payment not made – Redbridge
Institute of Adult Education
DIR By: jays86
Date: April 17, 2026, 8:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
#Post#: 116177--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement PCN – Payment not made – Redbridge
Institute of Adult Education
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: April 17, 2026, 8:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If you are confident a 'double dip' has occurred, then I would
lead with this point. Currently, your first two points are
reasons why you cannot be liable as the keeper, but if the
driver didn't breach the terms in the first place, there's no
liability to transfer, so it would make sense to lead with this.
Your point around delivery is fair enough, but absent any
compelling evidence proving it was delivered late, Civil
Enforcement will be able to rely on the presumption it was
delivered 2 working days after posting.
--- Quote from: jays86 link ---
>
> 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.
>
--- End Quote ---
This isn't quite how these periods work. You only get a grace
period added onto the end of a permitted period of parking.
Here, the allegation is that the parking was not permitted,
because the driver didn't pay/obtain a permit.
Photos of the signage would be useful for the second stage
appeal.
#Post#: 116183--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement PCN – Payment not made – Redbridge
Institute of Adult Education
DIR By: jays86
Date: April 17, 2026, 9:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
#Post#: 118976--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement PCN – Payment not made – Redbridge
Institute of Adult Education
DIR By: jays86
Date: May 17, 2026, 1:10 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
HTML 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
--- End Quote ---
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?!
#Post#: 120399--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement PCN – Payment not made – Redbridge
Institute of Adult Education
DIR By: jays86
Date: June 2, 2026, 7:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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:
HTML https://i.ibb.co/zHbz7FhX/Parking-Charge-179276300727-smallpdf.png
HTML https://ibb.co/zHbz7FhX
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.
#Post#: 121082--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement PCN – Payment not made – Redbridge
Institute of Adult Education
DIR By: jays86
Date: June 8, 2026, 5:16 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.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page