DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 66616--------------------------------------------------
Civil Enforcement (Permit holders only) NTK
DIR By: Foxy01
Date: April 11, 2025, 6:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Civil Enforcement, NTK received on 09/04/25. Vehicle is
registered in name of limited company.
The driver was using a permit holders car park whilst staying in
an Air B&B at the address. The instructions given were to
photograph the reg plate and send it via text. An
acknowledgement was then received as attached.
It now appears that the permit is only valid for the day of the
stay and expires at 23.59.
The driver was not made aware that this was the case or that
they would need to gain an additional permit for 28/03/25. They
stayed 3 nights and obtained 3 permits.
GSV
HTML https://www.google.com/maps/@52.3082616,-1.1252039,3a,75y,302.53h,77.09t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sAelgzzwbo4Uqpb8koFQuhg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D12.914909531388616%26panoid%3DAelgzzwbo4Uqpb8koFQuhg%26yaw%3D302.52801075266797!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDQwOC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 66629--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement (Permit holders only) NTK
DIR By: b789
Date: April 11, 2025, 8:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Do you have permits that cover the duration of the stay? The
text clearly states that the exemption is only valid to 23:59.
What does the owner the of Air B&B say about it when you
complained? What were the instructions regarding parking that
were given to you when you agreed to rent the Air B&B? Your Plan
A is to get the owner to cancel the PCN. Threaten lots of
negative reviews if they fail to do so.
What to the signs say at the location where the vehicle was
parked? Do they clearly state about the midnight limit for
permits? Do the signs make any mention of the extra £70 CEL is
threatening to charge you?
The NtK is PoFA compliant. The only deficiencies I can see are
breaches of the PPSCoP which you could argue at POPLA invalidate
the PCN.
As any initial appeal is going to be rejected, if PlAN A does
not work by Tuesday 6th May, appeal to CEL tithe following:
--- Quote ---
> I am appealing as the Registered Keeper.
>
> The driver was staying at the address as a guest and followed
the host’s instructions to register the vehicle by text. A
confirmation was received, and no expiry time was mentioned. The
driver reasonably believed the permit covered the full stay. If
there was a restriction ending at 23:59, this was not disclosed
and cannot be enforced.
>
> Additionally, the Notice to Keeper misrepresents liability
because it states an incorrect appeal deadline, contrary to the
Code’s requirement to allow 28 days from date of receipt, not
date of issue.
>
> CEL have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a
complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
>
> [Name]
> [For and on behalf of: Company Name]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 66705--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement (Permit holders only) NTK
DIR By: Foxy01
Date: April 12, 2025, 3:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Air B&B have been contacted. As the company are not based in
that area getting pictures of the signs will be difficult. The
driver says that they were only told to submit the picture of
the registration each day.
Not taking away from what b789 has said, is there an argument in
the fact that the notice says the incident was on the 27th March
and that there was in fact a permit in place on that day until
23.59 as per the screenshot?
#Post#: 66729--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement (Permit holders only) NTK
DIR By: b789
Date: April 12, 2025, 7:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes, that is a strong factual argument. If the permit for 27
March 2025 was valid until 23:59, and a separate permit was
needed for 28 March (which, based on your notes, was not
obtained), then any alleged breach could only have occurred
after midnight — i.e. on 28 March, not the 27th.
By stating the "incident date" as 27 March 2025, CEL creates a
procedural discrepancy:
[indent]• The period of authorised parking (with the 27th
permit) runs to 23:59 on 27 March, and therefore the first 5+
hours of the recorded period (17:57–23:59) were clearly covered.
• Any overstay, if one occurred, would have been on 28 March,
for which (as noted) a separate permit was not in
place.[/indent]
Thus, the “incident date” of 27 March 2025 is inaccurate and
misleading, since no unauthorised parking took place on that
date. PoFA Schedule 4 requires the date and period of parking to
be specified with clarity.
Amend the suggested appeal to:
--- Quote ---
> I am appealing as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle.
>
> The driver was staying at the property and followed the host’s
instructions to text the registration to a designated number. A
confirmation was received for each day of the stay, including 27
March 2025. The permit for that date was valid until 23:59.
>
> Your notice alleges an “incident date” of 27 March 2025, but
your own evidence shows that any unauthorised parking could only
have occurred after midnight, on 28 March — a date for which the
driver was not informed that a separate permit would be
required. No breach occurred on the date stated.
>
> Furthermore, the NtK misrepresents the keeper’s potential
liability by threatening £70 in recovery fees, in breach of the
Private Parking Single Code of Practice. It also shortens the
appeal deadline contrary to paragraph 9.4 of the Code.
>
> CEL have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a
complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
>
> [Name]
> [For and on behalf of: Company Name]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 67277--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement (Permit holders only) NTK
DIR By: Charitynjw
Date: April 15, 2025, 2:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
>
> Amend the suggested appeal to:
>
> [quote]It also shortens the appeal deadline contrary to
paragraph 9.4 of the Code.
>
>
--- End Quote ---
[/quote]
I believe this is correctly stated on the rear side of the
postal PCN?
I'm speculating, having seen other CEL postal PCN's.
#Post#: 67331--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement (Permit holders only) NTK
DIR By: b789
Date: April 16, 2025, 5:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It is not enough for the correct PoFA wording to appear
somewhere on the Notice to Keeper (NtK). The issue is not simply
whether the statutory wording is included — it’s about whether
the notice conveys a clear, unambiguous and consistent
instruction to the recipient regarding their liability and the
statutory time limits under Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(f) of PoFA requires the NtK to “state
that the keeper is required to pay the parking charge in full
within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that
on which the notice is given.”
If the front of the NtK incorrectly demands payment within 28
days of the date of issue, that misstates the legal time period
by at least two days. The "date of issue" and the date the
notice is deemed "given" are not the same in law. According to
Paragraph 9(6), a notice sent by post is considered “given” two
working days after posting, not on the day it was issued.
This kind of contradiction is not a harmless oversight. It
creates a clear conflict between:
[indent]• a false, immediate deadline on the front (designed to
provoke early payment), and
• the statutory timeframe tucked away elsewhere.[/indent]
This fails the statutory test. The law does not say the correct
words must appear “somewhere” — it says the notice must specify
them. That means the entire notice must be read as a consistent,
compliant document. A conflicting statement on the front renders
the notice incoherent, and therefore non-compliant.
It’s a basic principle of consumer protection law that a notice
must be clear, accurate and unambiguous. This is echoed in:
[indent]• Schedule 4 of PoFA itself,
• The Private Parking Code of Practice (PPSCoP) – which requires
clear communication of obligations, and
• Contract law in general, where ambiguity is construed against
the party drafting the notice (the parking firm).[/indent]
Therefore, it is legally irrelevant that the correct wording may
appear on the reverse if the front of the NtK undermines or
misstates it. The keeper cannot be expected to resolve
contradictions, and the operator must bear the burden of any
resulting uncertainty.
#Post#: 67371--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement (Permit holders only) NTK
DIR By: Charitynjw
Date: April 16, 2025, 8:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Charitynjw link ---
>
> [quote author=b789 link=topic=5900.msg66729#msg66729
date=1744460420]
>
> Amend the suggested appeal to:
>
> [quote]It also shortens the appeal deadline contrary to
paragraph 9.4 of the Code.
>
>
--- End Quote ---
[/quote]
I believe this is correctly stated on the rear side of the
postal PCN?
I'm speculating, having seen other CEL postal PCN's.
It is not enough for the correct PoFA wording to appear
somewhere on the Notice to Keeper (NtK). The issue is not simply
whether the statutory wording is included — it’s about whether
the notice conveys a clear, unambiguous and consistent
instruction to the recipient regarding their liability and the
statutory time limits under Schedule 4 of the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA).
Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(f) of PoFA requires the NtK to “state
that the keeper is required to pay the parking charge in full
within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that
on which the notice is given.”
If the front of the NtK incorrectly demands payment within 28
days of the date of issue, that misstates the legal time period
by at least two days. The "date of issue" and the date the
notice is deemed "given" are not the same in law. According to
Paragraph 9(6), a notice sent by post is considered “given” two
working days after posting, not on the day it was issued.
This kind of contradiction is not a harmless oversight. It
creates a clear conflict between:
[indent]• a false, immediate deadline on the front (designed to
provoke early payment), and
• the statutory timeframe tucked away elsewhere.[/indent]
This fails the statutory test. The law does not say the correct
words must appear “somewhere” — it says the notice must specify
them. That means the entire notice must be read as a consistent,
compliant document. A conflicting statement on the front renders
the notice incoherent, and therefore non-compliant.
It’s a basic principle of consumer protection law that a notice
must be clear, accurate and unambiguous. This is echoed in:
[indent]• Schedule 4 of PoFA itself,
• The Private Parking Code of Practice (PPSCoP) – which requires
clear communication of obligations, and
• Contract law in general, where ambiguity is construed against
the party drafting the notice (the parking firm).[/indent]
Therefore, it is legally irrelevant that the correct wording may
appear on the reverse if the front of the NtK undermines or
misstates it. The keeper cannot be expected to resolve
contradictions, and the operator must bear the burden of any
resulting uncertainty.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Excellent. :)[quote author=b789
link=topic=5900.msg67331#msg67331 date=1744798872]
#Post#: 70024--------------------------------------------------
Re: Civil Enforcement (Permit holders only) NTK
DIR By: Foxy01
Date: May 5, 2025, 4:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Update: The Air B&B host was contacted and although pro active
no progress was made. The suggested appeal was emailed to CEL
and a cancellation notice has been received.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1