DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 32454--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement - No permit - Sacred Heart Church Wimbledo
n
By: Keeper Date: August 6, 2024, 11:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=b789 link=topic=2323.msg32448#msg32448
date=1722958103]
[quote author=Keeper link=topic=2323.msg32443#msg32443
date=1722955839]
It's just a comment box - can't upload or attach anything so
mentioning is the best I can do...
[/quote]
I meant did you highlight the doctored photos in your original
appeal? If you didn't, you must try and describe what is
obviously an alteration of the evidential photo which is in
breach of the CoP.
It may need painting out to the local priest that the landowner
is jointly and severally liable for the actions of their agents.
Maybe there's a religious metaphor that can be used. :o
[/quote]
Yes I did highlight the doctored photos:
[quote]Evidence Tampering by the operator
The operator has submitted as supposed evidence a photograph of
the sign that is alleged to have formed the contract. The BPA
CoP specifically Staes at 21.5a as follows:
Use of photographic evidence: Photographic evidence must not be
used by you as the basis for issuing a parking charge unless: b)
the images bear an accurate time and date stamp applied at the
point the picture was taken;
It is obvious from the photograph above, provided by the
operator, that it has been tampered with and altered. There are
two different timestamps, one of which has, without a doubt,
been added after the point the picture was taken. Additionally,
in section 21.5a it states:
Alteration of photographic evidence: You must not digitally or
by other means alter images used as photographic evidence other
than: e) to blur faces or the VRMs of other vehicles in the
image in accordance with your GDPR obligations; or f) to enhance
the image of the VRM for clarity, but not to alter the letters
and numbers displayed.
It is obvious that this breach of the BPA CoP must invalidate
the PCN as it has been issued incorrectly.[/quote]
[quote author=DWMB2 link=topic=2323.msg32451#msg32451
date=1722959592]
[quote author=b789 link=topic=2323.msg32448#msg32448
date=1722958103]
Maybe there's a religious metaphor that can be used. :o
[/quote]
"He who is without sin can cast the first Parking Charge Notice"
[/quote]
Something about flocks and who thou leaves in charge of thy
sacred land... I don't think the argument that CEL are agents of
the Lord will fly though!
#Post#: 39916--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement - No permit - Sacred Heart Church Wimbledo
n
By: Keeper Date: October 9, 2024, 3:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
POPLA Appeal has come back - unsuccessful (explanation below for
those interested) - what should be my next steps?
Many thanks!
[quote]Assessor summary of operator case
The operator has issued the PCN because the vehicle was parked
on the site and failed to obtain a permit during the notified
period.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal: • The
signage on the site does not comply with Section 19.3 and 19.4
of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. • The
evidence provided by the operator has been tampered with. • The
operator has not provided adequate evidence of their authority
to issue parking charges at this location. In the comments the
appellant has advised the following: • The confirmation of
appointment is not a contract. • The images provided by the
operator show different timestamps which indicates potential
tampering. • The signage does not comply with Section 19.4 of
the BPA Code of Practice. The appellant has provided a document
detailing their appeal.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
When assessing an appeal POPLA considers if the operator has
issued the parking charge notice correctly and if the driver has
complied with the terms and conditions for the use of the car
park. The operator has provided evidence of the vehicle parked
on the site for one hour and 11 minutes on the day in question.
The data from the permit system shows that the vehicle had not
been registered for a permit on the day of the incident. In this
case, it is not clear who the driver of the appellant’s vehicle
is, so I must consider the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA)
2012, as the operator issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to
the keeper of the vehicle. The operator has provided me with a
copy of the notice to keeper sent to the appellant. I have
reviewed the notice to keeper against the relevant sections of
PoFA 2012 and I am satisfied that it is compliant. I will
therefore be assessing keeper liability. The appellant has
advised that the signage on the site is not compliant. The
British Parking Association (BPA) has a Code of Practice which
set the standards its parking operators need to comply with.
Section 19.3 of the code states that signs must be placed
throughout the car park so that drivers have the chance to
review the terms and conditions. The code confirms that these
signs must be conspicuous and legible and written in
intelligible language so that they are easy to see read and
understand. The operator has provided multiple images of the
signs within the car park and after reviewing these, I am
satisfied that there are plenty of signs located within the car
park and that these signs meet the requirements of section 19.3
of the Code of Practice.The signage clearly advises that a
permit is required to park and failing to obtain one is a breach
of the terms. Further to the appellant’s statement that the
operator’s evidence has been tampered with I am satisfied that
the evidence the operator has provided is correct and has not
been tampered with. The fact that there are different timestamps
on some of the images does not invalidate the PCN in any way.
Section 19.4 of the Code of Practice states that if parking
operators intend to use the keeper liability provisions in
Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, the
signs must give adequate notice of the charge. I have reviewed
the signs and I am satisfied that the charge amount is clear as
it has been highlighted to draw motorist’s attention to the
amount. The appellant has questioned landowner authority .I note
the appellant’s comments and I refer to Section 7 of the British
Parking Association(BPA) Code of Practice which states in 7 .1
“If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out
parking management, you must have the written authorisation of
the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written
confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the
land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the
aspects of car park management for the site that you are
responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner
(or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of
Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding
parking charges. 7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action
on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they
have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed
agent) prior to legal action being taken. 7.3 The written
authorisation must also set out: a the definition of the land on
which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be
clearly defined b any conditions or restrictions on parking
control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions
on hours of operation c any conditions or restrictions on the
types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking
control and enforcement d who has the responsibility for putting
up and maintaining signs e the definition of the services
provided by each party to the agreement”. The operator has
provided a confirmation of appointment document and I am
satisfied that the operator has the authority to issue PCN’s on
this site. The operator does not need to provide a full copy of
the full contract as it may contain commercially sensitive
information. The evidence provided in relation to this appeal
meets the criteria POPLA requires, and therefore I am satisfied
that the operator has sufficient authority at the site on the
date of the parking event. After considering the evidence from
both parties the vehicle was parked on the site and failed to
obtain a permit during the notified period and therefore did not
comply with the terms and conditions of the site. Based on the
evidence provided, I am satisfied the parking charge has been
issued correctly therefore, I must refuse the appeal.[/quote]
#Post#: 39944--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement - No permit - Sacred Heart Church Wimbledo
n
By: b789 Date: October 9, 2024, 5:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Fairly typical and fails to fully address the points raised in
your POPLA submission. POPLA have to justify their paymasters
and do so by obfuscation in their responses, as you can see.
Nothing to worry about. This has no bearing on anything going
forward and you are not bound by the POPLA decision. Don't pay
CEL.
For the time being, you now have to ignore all the debt
collector letters they are going to send you. Whilst these may
appear to be scary, they are in fact powerless to do anything
and are simply employed on a no-win, no-fee basis by the
operator and use words such as "bailiff" and "CCJ" to try and
scare low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into pooping their
pants and paying up. Never, ever engage with a debt collector.
You can safely ignore them. You should use their letters to line
the bottom of a cat litter tray.
What you are waiting for is to see if when they send a Letter of
Claim (LoC). They hope that the initiation of litigation will be
another step in scaring the gullible into paying up. Of course,
you are not gullible as you are here receiving well worn advice
on how to deal with these scams.
Even if the do escalate to a claim, that is a good thing as the
county court is the ultimate dispute resolution service. Not
that most claims ever reach a hearing when we deal with them.
The majority of (over 99%) them end up being discontinued once
they realise that you intend to go all the way and they know
they are in fact on shaky ground and so go off in search of
lower-hanging fruit to go pick on. Most of the few other claims
that aren't discontinued are struck out due to procedural
deficiencies in the actual claim.
In the remote, worst case scenario, should you be on of the less
than one percenters who actually make it to a hearing and are
unsuccessful, there is no danger of a CCJ.
So, are you aggrieved enough to want to fight them on this?
#Post#: 40034--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement - No permit - Sacred Heart Church Wimbledo
n
By: Keeper Date: October 9, 2024, 2:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely.
I have had a similar experience with a different operator,
guided expertly by those on this forum and they pulled out at
the last minute.
Quite ready to receive (and ignore) debt collection letters.
So for now, wait till the actual letter of claim - got it!
Many thanks as always
#Post#: 40038--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement - No permit - Sacred Heart Church Wimbledo
n
By: DWMB2 Date: October 9, 2024, 2:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
As I noted on a previous thread, if you move house before the
matter is resolved, make sure you tell CEL your new address for
service.
#Post#: 91175--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement - No permit - Sacred Heart Church Wimbledo
n
By: Keeper Date: September 23, 2025, 1:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello! Hope all are doing well!
Well here we are, nearly a year since the last update and after
ignoring several debt collection service letters, I'm now the
lucky recipient of a Letter before action from CE.
Letter attached (note that it's dated 04 September but received
just a few days ago, probably around the 18th.
They've also included Annex 1 from here
HTML https://www.justice.gov.uk/documents/debt-pap.pdf
and a Press
Summary of two cases: Cavendish Square Holding v Talal El
Makdessi and ParkingEye ltd v Beavis as well as some paperwork
to fill in if one is unable to pay.
HTML https://www.justice.gov.uk/documents/debt-pap.pdf
Letter: (not sure how to get it to embed?)
HTML https://imgur.com/a/qC1ILkW
#Post#: 91246--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement - No permit - Sacred Heart Church Wimbledo
n
By: b789 Date: September 24, 2025, 6:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You do not use any of the forms that demand. Simply respond with
the following in an email and CC yourself:
[quote]Subject: Response to your Letter of Claim Ref: [reference
number]
Re: PCN at Sacred Heart Wimbledon, Edge Hill – VRM [reg] – LBC
dated 04/09/2025
Dear Sirs,
1) Protocol non-compliance
Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail and omits
the key documents required to enable informed engagement. It
fails to comply with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims
(paras 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1–5.2) and the Practice Direction –
Pre-Action Conduct and Protocols (PD-PAC), including the duty to
exchange key documents before proceedings.
2) Documents required
Pursuant to PAPDC 5.1–5.2 and PD-PAC 6, provide in a single
paginated PDF bundle:
[indent](1) The original NtK (both sides) and all subsequent
notices.
(2) The precise legal basis relied on (keeper liability under
PoFA 2012 or driver liability) and strict proof of PoFA
compliance, including the statutory warning and an identified
period of parking.
(3) All photographs/ANPR images and full VRM [reg] in/out logs
covering at least one hour either side of the material times,
plus any manual checks.
(4) Contemporaneous photographs of the actual signs in situ on
the material date, the full terms in readable close-ups, and a
site plan showing location/number of signs and the entrance
signage.
(5) An unredacted landowner contract/chain of authority showing
your standing to offer contracts, issue PCNs and litigate in
your own name at this site on the material date.
(6) Machine/payment records and audit logs for the relevant
period (or confirmation none existed).
(7) A full breakdown of the sum claimed and the legal basis for
any sums over the core PCN, identifying whether the principal is
alleged consideration or damages and whether the £70 “debt
recovery” add-on attracts VAT (and if so, on what basis).
(8) The name, role and regulatory status of the person with
conduct of this matter.[/indent]
3) Timing and hold
Given the late receipt of your LBC, confirm that the 30-day
period runs from service of a compliant, document-supported LBC.
In accordance with PAPDC 5.2, place the matter on hold for a
minimum of 30 days after you have supplied the above.
4) Next steps
Upon receipt of a compliant Letter Before Claim and the
requested documents I will seek advice and provide a substantive
response within 30 days. If you issue proceedings prematurely, I
will apply for a stay and appropriate sanctions for
non-compliance, relying on Webb Resolutions v Waller Needham &
Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments v Park West Club
(Part 20) Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, and Charles Church
Developments v Stent Foundations & Peter Dann [2007] EWHC 855,
together with PD-PAC paras 13, 15(b)–(c) and 16 and PAPDC 7.2.
5) Address for service & data accuracy
Record the address after my signature as my address for service.
If you hold any other address, rectify your records and confirm
erasure of incorrect data.
Yours faithfully,
[Your name]
[Address for service][/quote]
#Post#: 91318--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement - No permit - Sacred Heart Church Wimbledo
n
By: Keeper Date: September 24, 2025, 10:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Brilliant, thanks! I got half way through point 2 and started
chuckling.
Do you think they will back down, or send me everything
requested?
I have used the following email addresses for CE
office@ce-service.co.uk
Legal3@ce-service.co.uk
I've also seen that the email has been opened (possibly
automatically) 1 minute after sending
#Post#: 112159--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement - No permit - Sacred Heart Church Wimbledo
n
By: Keeper Date: March 5, 2026, 8:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Update on this one! Received this letter by post
[img width=180
height=165]
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/Yvmd4QPd/Letterfrom-CE.png[/img]
HTML https://postimg.cc/Yvmd4QPd
I feel they've not responded adequately to my previous
correspondence, so I assume the next step is to respond
basically pointing out their non-compliance with the PD-PAC.
Anything else at this stage?
OR, no response at all?
THANKS for the continued advice
#Post#: 112164--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement - No permit - Sacred Heart Church Wimbledo
n
By: DWMB2 Date: March 5, 2026, 8:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Is this the first response you've received? If so, yes I would
do as you suggest, but also make clear that it has taken them 5
months to issue a 3 paragraph response that neither properly
engages with the issues you raised nor complies with the PAPDC.
You don't want to end up in an endless letter ping-pong, but if
you can create a clear paper trail that evidences their shoddy
conduct this is advantageous.
As ever feel free to show us a draft.
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page