DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 50303--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from 'Civil Enforcement Ltd'
DIR By: b789
Date: December 17, 2024, 10:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
So now you make a formal complaint to the BPA pointing out the
failure of CEL to respond properly to your formal complaint to
them.
Have a read through the Private Parking Single Code of Practice
(SCoP) on what sections they have breached and rake those in
your BPA complaint.
Private Parking Single Code of Practice
HTML https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/NEW%20Redesigned%20Documents/sectorsingleCodeofPractice.pdf
#Post#: 50304--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from 'Civil Enforcement Ltd'
DIR By: badrav
Date: December 18, 2024, 1:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks, ill send something to them, should I just wait for court
proceedings?
#Post#: 50956--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from 'Civil Enforcement Ltd'
DIR By: badrav
Date: December 24, 2024, 7:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=26]b789[/member]
@Dave765
[member=103]DWMB2[/member]
I am going to submit this, any thoughts? Once I submit this, do
I not need to reply to debt recovery of CE about the threatened
court proceedings?
Dear BPA
Re Parking charge notice ___________
I am writing as a formal complaint against Civil enforcement
limited. I have raised a complaint with them as the keeper of
the vehicle regarding the lack of documentation supplied to
determine the exact alleged contravention.
• No evidence has been supplied of actual parking within the
site, rather the vehicle was turning within the area and
obstructed by other vehicles requiring a protracted period to
exit. The driver it is possible may have entered and re-entered
the park to manoeuvre from passing traffic which may also have
affected the duration being displayed as site entry and exit.
• 8.1.2 No notices were received, with the first documentation
being a notice of debt recovery months from the alleged
contravention. This in turn has not allowed any appeal within
the first 28 days to be submitted and confirmed as the case in
the response from CE ltd.
• 7.3 a)The photographic evidence supplied does not provide a
VRM number
• 8.1.1 d) in the response from CE ltd they state that under
POFA 2012 the keeper is liable for the charge
• 8.2.1 The only charge notice received is for £170
• 8.2.2 There has been no reduction offered
• 8.4.1 There has not been any opportunity to appeal the charge
• 8.4.4 No appeal has been considered
• 8.4.8 No appeals have been considered
• 10.2 No offer of appeal has been given despite confirming that
notices have not been receive for the charge and the first the
keeper was aware of this PCN was a debt recovery reminder.
• 11.2 no appeal opportunity was provided
• 17.3.4 The complaint and appeal submitted was not considered
without any outcome given, citing it is too late to make
representation despite not receiving the necessary information
to be made aware the PCN was raised
• 17.4.6 No corrective action has been submitted or suggested
#Post#: 50979--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from 'Civil Enforcement Ltd'
DIR By: b789
Date: December 24, 2024, 12:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I haven't double checked your BPA CoP sections, but assuming you
have done your homework, here is a refinement of your formal
complaint about CEL to the BPA. Please read it carefully and
fill in the dates and other information necessary as required:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Formal Complaint Against Civil Enforcement Ltd (CEL)
– Parking Charge Notice [Insert PCN Reference]
>
> Dear BPA Complaints Team,
>
> I am writing to lodge a formal complaint against Civil
Enforcement Ltd (CEL), a member of the BPA. This complaint
follows the exhaustion of CEL’s complaints process, as evidenced
by their response to my formal complaint (dated [insert date]),
in which they failed to adequately address the issues raised and
declined to provide any resolution. As such, I now request that
the BPA investigates their conduct and non-compliance with the
BPA Code of Practice.
>
> Background of Complaint
>
> Civil Enforcement Ltd has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN)
for an alleged contravention at [Site Name] on [Incident Date].
However, CEL has failed in several key areas of compliance, as
outlined below:
>
> [indent]1. Failure to Provide Original Notice to Keeper (NtK):
>
> [indent] I did not receive the original NtK; instead, I
received a debt recovery notice months after the alleged
contravention.
>
> • This omission denied me the opportunity to appeal within the
required 28-day period, in breach of Section 8.4.1 of the BPA
Code of Practice.[/indent]
>
> 2. Lack of Evidence for the Alleged Contravention:
>
> [indent]• CEL has not provided any evidence that the vehicle
was parked or breached any terms.
>
> • The vehicle did not park but merely manoeuvred within the
area to turn around, obstructed by other vehicles. CEL’s
photographic evidence fails to substantiate any contravention or
even display the vehicle's registration number (VRM), violating
Section 7.3(a) of the Code.[/indent]
>
> 3. Non-Compliance with POFA 2012:
>
> [indent]• CEL has stated that I, as the keeper, am liable
under POFA 2012. However, their procedural failings (failure to
issue an NtK and denial of an appeal opportunity) invalidate any
claim under POFA 2012.
>
> • The debt recovery demand for £170 significantly exceeds the
initial charge and does not include the mandatory reduced amount
for prompt payment, contrary to Sections 8.2.1 and 8.2.2 of the
Code.[/indent]
>
> 4. Denial of Appeal Opportunities:
>
> [indent]• CEL has failed to provide an opportunity to appeal
the PCN, despite my formal request. This breaches Sections
8.4.4, 8.4.8, and 11.2 of the BPA Code.
>
> • Their response to my complaint dismisses my concerns on the
basis that it is "too late to make representations," despite the
fact that I was never given the required information to appeal
in the first place.[/indent]
>
> 5. Failure to Properly Address a Formal Complaint:
>
> [indent]• My formal complaint to CEL was not properly
addressed, and they failed to take any corrective action, in
breach of Sections 17.3.4 and 17.4.6 of the
Code.[/indent][/indent]
>
> Exhaustion of CEL Complaints Process
>
> As per the BPA Code of Practice (v9 as applicable at the time
of the alleged contravention), I have followed the correct
procedure by first raising my concerns directly with CEL. Their
response, however, was dismissive and failed to resolve the
issues raised. Consequently, I now escalate this matter to the
BPA for investigation and action against their member.
>
> Requested Action
>
> I request that the BPA:
>
> [indent]• Investigate Civil Enforcement Ltd’s breaches of the
BPA Code of Practice, including their failure to issue an NtK,
lack of evidence for the alleged contravention, denial of appeal
opportunities, and failure to properly address a formal
complaint.
>
> • Take appropriate enforcement action to ensure that CEL
complies with the standards expected of BPA members.
>
> • Provide a detailed response outlining the steps the BPA will
take to address these concerns and prevent similar issues in the
future.[/indent]
>
> Please find attached all relevant correspondence and evidence
to support this complaint. If further information is required, I
will be happy to provide it.
>
> I trust the BPA will take this matter seriously, as CEL’s
behaviour undermines the integrity of its membership and the
Code of Practice.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Your Full Name]
> [Your Contact Information]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 51075--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from 'Civil Enforcement Ltd'
DIR By: badrav
Date: December 27, 2024, 12:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks so much [member=26]b789[/member], what a legend
👌.
#Post#: 83037--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from 'Civil Enforcement Ltd'
DIR By: badrav
Date: July 27, 2025, 5:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=26]b789[/member] 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
#Post#: 83038--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from 'Civil Enforcement Ltd'
DIR By: badrav
Date: July 27, 2025, 5:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I have also received this in the post
[member=26]b789[/member]
HTML https://imgur.com/a/S0lMQ9e
#Post#: 83084--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from 'Civil Enforcement Ltd'
DIR By: b789
Date: July 28, 2025, 6:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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:
>
> [indent]“Parking operators must retain a record of the date of
posting of a notice, not simply of that notice having been
generated.”[/indent]
>
> 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:
>
> [indent]• 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.[/indent]
>
> 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]
--- End Quote ---
As for the LoC, you can respond with the following (also CC in
yourself):
--- Quote ---
> Dear 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:
>
> [indent]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[/indent]
>
> 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]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 83095--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from 'Civil Enforcement Ltd'
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: July 28, 2025, 7:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
#Post#: 83275--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from 'Civil Enforcement Ltd'
DIR By: badrav
Date: July 29, 2025, 6:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=26]b789[/member] 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?
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page