DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 83304--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from 'Civil Enforcement Ltd'
DIR By: b789
Date: July 29, 2025, 9:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
#Post#: 85008--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from 'Civil Enforcement Ltd'
DIR By: badrav
Date: August 10, 2025, 10:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=26]b789[/member] 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
#Post#: 85018--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from 'Civil Enforcement Ltd'
DIR By: b789
Date: August 10, 2025, 12:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: badrav link ---
>
> [member=26]b789[/member] 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
>
--- End Quote ---
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.
#Post#: 85024--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from 'Civil Enforcement Ltd'
DIR By: b789
Date: August 10, 2025, 1:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
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:
[indent]• 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.[/indent]
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:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: 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:
>
> [indent]“Parking operators must retain a record of the date of
posting of a notice, not simply of that notice having been
generated.”[/indent]
>
> 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:
>
> [indent]• 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.[/indent]
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> [Name]
--- End Quote ---
You should also send the following to your MP, whose email
address you can find at
HTML https://members.parliament.uk/FindYourMP
--- Quote ---
> Subject: 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:
>
> [indent]• 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.[/indent]
>
> The Problem:
>
> [indent]• 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.[/indent]
>
> 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:
>
> [indent]• 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.[/indent]
>
> 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]
--- End Quote ---
Here is a timeline you can include with the MP email that helps
explain the issue:
--- Quote ---
> Timeline – 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
> [indent]• Formal complaint sent to CEL:
> [indent]• Failure to serve NtK.
> • Denial of appeal rights.
> • No evidence of contravention.
> • Excessive charge.[/indent]
> • CEL response: Refused to consider appeal, claimed it was
“too late” to appeal.[/indent]
>
> Complaint to BPA
> [indent]• 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.[/indent]
>
> BPA’s First Response
> [indent]• 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.[/indent]
>
> Rebuttal to BPA
> [indent]• 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.[/indent]
>
> BPA’s Second Response
> [indent]• 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.[/indent]
>
> Current Status:
> [indent]• 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.[/indent]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 85027--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from 'Civil Enforcement Ltd'
DIR By: Charitynjw
Date: August 10, 2025, 1:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
CEL often use historic addresses (ie original DVLA search
address) to make court claims. Ensure they are given updated
details if needed.
#Post#: 85648--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from 'Civil Enforcement Ltd'
DIR By: badrav
Date: August 14, 2025, 5:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> [quote author=badrav link=topic=4166.msg85008#msg85008
date=1754839868]
> [member=26]b789[/member] 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
>
--- End Quote ---
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.
[/quote]
Yes this is exactly what was in the reply surprisingly
#Post#: 85649--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from 'Civil Enforcement Ltd'
DIR By: badrav
Date: August 14, 2025, 5:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Charitynjw link ---
>
> CEL often use historic addresses (ie original DVLA search
address) to make court claims. Ensure they are given updated
details if needed.
>
--- End Quote ---
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
#Post#: 85653--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from 'Civil Enforcement Ltd'
DIR By: badrav
Date: August 14, 2025, 5:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> 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:
>
> [indent]• 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.[/indent]
>
> 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:
>
> [quote]Subject: 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:
>
> [indent]“Parking operators must retain a record of the date of
posting of a notice, not simply of that notice having been
generated.”[/indent]
>
> 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:
>
> [indent]• 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.[/indent]
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> [Name]
--- End Quote ---
You should also send the following to your MP, whose email
address you can find at
HTML https://members.parliament.uk/FindYourMP
--- Quote ---
> Subject: 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:
>
> [indent]• 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.[/indent]
>
> The Problem:
>
> [indent]• 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.[/indent]
>
> 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:
>
> [indent]• 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.[/indent]
>
> 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]
--- End Quote ---
Here is a timeline you can include with the MP email that helps
explain the issue:
--- Quote ---
> Timeline – 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
> [indent]• Formal complaint sent to CEL:
> [indent]• Failure to serve NtK.
> • Denial of appeal rights.
> • No evidence of contravention.
> • Excessive charge.[/indent]
> • CEL response: Refused to consider appeal, claimed it was
“too late” to appeal.[/indent]
>
> Complaint to BPA
> [indent]• 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.[/indent]
>
> BPA’s First Response
> [indent]• 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.[/indent]
>
> Rebuttal to BPA
> [indent]• 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.[/indent]
>
> BPA’s Second Response
> [indent]• 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.[/indent]
>
> Current Status:
> [indent]• 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.[/indent]
--- End Quote ---
[/quote]
[member=26]b789[/member] thanks so much will send across and
update
#Post#: 85654--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from 'Civil Enforcement Ltd'
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: August 14, 2025, 5:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Where possible please try to avoid quoting the entire post you
are replying to every time - it makes the thread incredibly
difficult to read.
#Post#: 85655--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from 'Civil Enforcement Ltd'
DIR By: b789
Date: August 14, 2025, 6:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: badrav link ---
>
> [quote author=b789 link=topic=4166.msg85018#msg85018
date=1754847607]
> 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.
>
--- End Quote ---
Yes this is exactly what was in the reply surprisingly
[/quote]
In which case I suggest you respond to Ms Staunton with the
following:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: 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:
>
> [indent]“Parking operators MUST retain a record of the date of
posting of a notice, not simply of that notice having been
generated.”[/indent]
>
> 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:
>
> [indent]• 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.[/indent]
>
> 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:
>
> [indent](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.[/indent]
>
> Anything less will be taken as further confirmation of the
BPA’s unwillingness to regulate its members in accordance with
statute.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> [Name]
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page