DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 86006--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from 'Civil Enforcement Ltd'
DIR By: badrav
Date: August 17, 2025, 7:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> [quote author=badrav link=topic=4166.msg85648#msg85648
date=1755168117]
> [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 ---
[/quote]
Ive already sent the previous one and she has now replied with a
very disappointing- [member=26]b789[/member] should I
send the one above?
Good Afternoon,
Thank you for your response.
We believe we have addressed the points raised and not located a
breach so, cannot correspond further.
Kind regards
Laura
Compliance Team
British Parking Association
Web: www.britishparking.co.uk
#Post#: 86007--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from 'Civil Enforcement Ltd'
DIR By: b789
Date: August 17, 2025, 8:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The above is a response to her idiotic reply.
#Post#: 102601--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from 'Civil Enforcement Ltd'
DIR By: badrav
Date: December 15, 2025, 11:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=26]b789[/member]
Got this through yesterday, not sure why they have sent despite
reply from a while back to the previous one- should I respond at
all?
HTML https://ibb.co/Jj7pcgLK
HTML https://ibb.co/hRk2VBV5
HTML https://ibb.co/Cpw7c3qk
HTML https://ibb.co/Kj7mCYcH
HTML https://ibb.co/99f9BW25
HTML https://ibb.co/Tq0GQYHm
HTML https://ibb.co/b5Cq7WV7
HTML https://ibb.co/nsbfxq6G
HTML https://ibb.co/sdb3dsgz
HTML https://ibb.co/ymsd247b
HTML https://ibb.co/f344yk7
HTML https://ibb.co/fdJgzdK2
HTML https://ibb.co/F4Cr4T9G
HTML https://ibb.co/Kx81gVbZ
HTML https://ibb.co/QFqzbFFQ
#Post#: 102643--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from 'Civil Enforcement Ltd'
DIR By: b789
Date: December 16, 2025, 6:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Reply to the LoC with the following:
--- Quote ---
> Response to Letter Before Action dated 01 December 2025
>
> Dear Sirs,
>
> I write in response to your Letter Before Action dated 01
December 2025.
>
> This response is provided pursuant to the Pre-Action Protocol
for Debt Claims. Liability is denied in full.
>
> 1. Keeper liability under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012
is denied
>
> You assert keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection
of Freedoms Act 2012.
>
> You have provided only hybrid mail material. That is not,
without more, proof of the date of posting for the purposes of
PoFA paragraph 9(6). Hybrid mail records commonly evidence only
generation, print, batching, or handover to a third party, and
do not necessarily evidence the date the notice was actually
posted or injected into the postal system.
>
> You are therefore put to strict proof of the date of posting,
meaning the date on which the Notice to Keeper was actually
posted or injected into the postal system, so that the statutory
presumption of delivery can properly arise.
>
> If you cannot prove the actual posting or injection date, you
cannot establish that the Notice to Keeper was given within the
relevant 14 day period required by PoFA paragraph 9(4), and
keeper liability does not arise.
>
> 2. Presumption of service is denied unless strict proof is
provided
>
> Any reliance on a presumed delivery date is rejected unless
and until you provide strict proof of posting as set out above.
>
> For the avoidance of doubt, I require documentary evidence
showing the actual posting or injection date, for example a
statement of mailing, certificate of posting, Royal Mail
collection manifest, or equivalent auditable dispatch log from
the hybrid mail provider identifying the item and the date it
entered the postal system.
>
> Absent that, you cannot rely on PoFA paragraph 9(6). You must
instead pursue the driver, whose identity you have neither
established nor evidenced.
>
> 3. Denial of appeal rights and failure to treat the complaint
properly
>
> No Notice to Keeper was received. The first correspondence
received was a debt recovery demand for an inflated sum. This
denied the registered keeper any meaningful opportunity to
engage with the charge at the reduced rate or to appeal within
28 days.
>
> Any suggestion that an appeal outside 28 days is solely at the
operator’s discretion is not a complete answer to defective
service and the resulting denial of process. The later provision
of a copy does not cure defective service or retrospectively
reinstate the opportunity that was lost.
>
> 4. Misleading reliance on ParkingEye v Beavis press material
>
> You have enclosed a press release or press summary relating to
ParkingEye v Beavis.
>
> Press summaries are not part of any judgment, are not
authoritative, and cannot be relied upon as legal reasoning.
Beavis turned on its own facts, including clear and prominent
signage, a legitimate interest established on evidence, and an
undisputed contractual framework. None of that is established by
providing a decade-old press handout.
>
> If you intend to rely on Beavis, you must identify the precise
proposition you say it supports in this case and provide the
evidence to prove the necessary factual foundation.
>
> 5. Inflated and unrecoverable sum
>
> The sum demanded, including any add-on above the original
parking charge, is denied. Any attempt to recover additional
sums beyond the parking charge will be challenged as
unrecoverable and as an abuse of process. Provide a full
breakdown of the sum claimed and the legal basis for each
element.
>
> 6. Documents required to narrow the issues and comply with
pre-action conduct
>
> Before the matter can be properly considered, you must supply:
>
> a. Proof of the actual posting or injection date of the Notice
to Keeper, as set out above
> b. A copy of the Notice to Keeper and all other notices sent,
in the form actually sent
> c. All photographs relied upon, including any ANPR images and
a full chronology of timestamps
> d. The signage terms relied upon, including close-ups,
entrance signage, and a site plan showing sign locations as at
the material date
> e. The landowner contract or chain of authority authorising
enforcement and litigation in your own name at this location
> f. A full breakdown of the sum claimed and the basis for any
added amounts
> g. If you allege the recipient was the driver, your evidence
of driver identity
>
> Until these are supplied, the claim is not properly
particularised and proceedings would be premature.
>
> 7. Costs warning
>
> If proceedings are issued without providing the documents
requested above and without addressing the absence of strict
proof of posting, I will seek strike out or summary disposal and
will seek costs for unreasonable conduct.
>
> This response is provided without any admission and with all
rights reserved.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Name]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 106762--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from 'Civil Enforcement Ltd'
DIR By: Mustek
Date: January 21, 2026, 3:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=3615]badrav[/member] Your MCOL password is left
unredacted in page 2. Please redact it or otherwise someone else
could file a response on your behalf.
#Post#: 106764--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from 'Civil Enforcement Ltd'
DIR By: jfollows
Date: January 21, 2026, 3:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Claim number is redacted.
#Post#: 106867--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from 'Civil Enforcement Ltd'
DIR By: badrav
Date: January 21, 2026, 3:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Mustek link ---
>
> [member=3615]badrav[/member] Your MCOL password is left
unredacted in page 2. Please redact it or otherwise someone else
could file a response on your behalf.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thanks @Mustek, how do I edit my post?
#Post#: 106932--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from 'Civil Enforcement Ltd'
DIR By: badrav
Date: January 22, 2026, 6:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks again [member=7254]Mustek[/member]
[member=26]b789[/member] Redacted versions
HTML https://ibb.co/KpRVFDK9
HTML https://ibb.co/TDYN3PFY
HTML https://ibb.co/WNjnC3gC
HTML https://ibb.co/r2wP7wKx
HTML https://ibb.co/bj7pFKDC
HTML https://ibb.co/8DCv8bjb
HTML https://ibb.co/pm541BB
HTML https://ibb.co/vGLVGzD
HTML https://ibb.co/8Sb31qH
#Post#: 108201--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from 'Civil Enforcement Ltd'
DIR By: badrav
Date: January 31, 2026, 7:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Can anyone please help with this? Any thoughts please on how to
respond ?
#Post#: 108863--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from 'Civil Enforcement Ltd'
DIR By: badrav
Date: February 5, 2026, 5:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
?Should it be on a new post
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page