PCN reminder before further action - CEL

Tephra12

The contract was signed by the Parish Council Clerk on behalf of the Parish Council. I assume they didnt really look through it with a fine toothcomb and just saw the £400 and an easy answer to the parking issues caused by the car showroom across the road.

The Parish Council 'can' cancel 5 PCNs per month but that's not free, they have to pay all cancelled PCNs in full within 21 days, at the rate the PCN stands at (which is why they are refusing);

@Coupon-mad I've also noted this clause, and I can't believe someone would actually agree to this - essentially the 5 cancellations don't exist, they're just a transfer of charge.

I honestly don't think they're aware of what they've signed up to. At no point have they refused to cancel the charge on this basis. They started by saying the cant do anything, then changed to "well we can but its now too late" (referencing a 28day cut off point to use CEL's cancellation portal).

Clause 3.3 speaks of neccessary consents from the Local Planning Authority. The ANPR camera is on a newly erected monopole of a good few metres - it is development and requires planning permission except no such permission exists - would this not make them in breach of their own contract?

@Johnersh @GrannyKate I have the minutes for the councillors requesting permission for parking enforcement (June 2024) and the minutes for when it went live (Septemeber 2024). The below is an extract from the June 2024 minutes

It doesn't appear that any procurement process happened (i've not asked this as of yet though). Reading the minutes, its as if the village hall wanted this and then basically came to the Pairsh Council and Councillors for their perission, but then the Parish Council are the ones that actually had to take out the contract (it being their land).

Also, back to Coupon's break down of the contract, I'm of the view this is potentially in conflict with the Field in Trust protection, partucularly if the Parish Council has handed over extended tennancy rights.

@Car1980 I need to get back up there and document it all, however, there is this sign at the entrance:

Coupon-mad

This is soooo stupid of the Parish Council. Almost unbelievable that they signed this joke of a contract for TWENTY YEARS making them liable for all unpaid PCNs the minute the agreement terminates.

GrannyKate

I thought I had probably missed the minute proposing and approving the scheme. I saw the brief reference in the September minutes. The June minute is somewhat lacking in detail about the scheme and you wonder if it was just put verbally to the council meeting without a back up paper and also whether their solicitor ever read the contract.

GrannyKate

The traditional gateposts and plaques for George V Playing fields are at the very front of the site on High Street and suggest everything beyond that including the hall and car park are within the area accountable to the Fields In Trust. If the contract amounts to a tenancy then I would think their consent is needed.

Coupon-mad

The contract says it creates a tenancy. It's near the end, I recall reading it.

Tephra12

might be a bit of a long update.

I now have photographs of the signage. There are 11 signs from what I could see. Interestingly, the sign CEL keep sending me doesn't actually appear to exist on site anymore (or at least I couldn't find it). All the signs seem to say the exact same thing referring to entering vehicle details "inside the premises", but don't identify a particular building or location. I geneuinely can't remember what the signage was like when i parked there last November.

I also received a response from the Parish Council advising that my formal complaint would be considered at the Parish Council meeting on the 16th. I attended and sat in the public gallery (if you can call five chairs at the front a public gallery).

Long story short, they discussed the fact they had received the complaint but none of the issues raised. A few councillors seemed to be taking it seriously and understood that the Parish Council has responsibilities here. A couple of others seemed to be of the view that this is what the parking operator is for, and one councillor was effectively suggesting they should just tell me they'll look into it and hope I go away.

They'll be setting up a working group of councillors to investigate and respond to the complaint.

In other news, I'm still chasing the BPA on what they specifcally found CEL in breach of and what the repercussions are.

Interestingly, I've now heard back from CEL Legal with the following in repsosne to my cormal compaint to them:

Thank you for your email of 24 April 2026 regarding PCN *** and complaint reference ***. We respond to each of your points below, and we have paused debt-recovery activity on this charge while this complaint is resolved.

By way of background: the PCN was issued on 30 October 2025 for a parking event on 25 October 2025 at Clapham Village Hall, the notified free period having been exceeded without a permit being obtained or vehicle details registered. You appealed as keeper on 10 November 2025; that appeal was rejected on 30 November 2025 and a POPLA code was issued. You wrote again on or around 1 December 2025 requesting evidence and a reconsideration, and a further response issued on 18 December 2025.

Evidence requested.

We accept that the evidence you asked for in your December 2025 correspondence ought to have been provided to you, and we apologise that it was not. We now enclose / attach: (i) the ANPR entry and exit images and timestamp data for (license plate) on 25 October 2025; (ii) photographs of the signage in place at the site on that date and the wording governing the permit/registration process.

POPLA.

We acknowledge that our correspondence on the availability of an independent appeal was not consistent, and we apologise. So that you are not prejudiced by that, we are content for you to refer this matter to POPLA for independent adjudication, and we will issue a current verification code and a fresh time period for you to do so. POPLA's decision is binding on Civil Enforcement Limited.

Should you instead wish to resolve the matter now, payment can be made online at www.ce-service.co.uk, quoting PCN reference 147818810237. Payment cannot be taken by telephone.

Yours sincerely,

Legal Team

for and on behalf of Civil Enforcement Limited

They say I appealed "as keeper". I don't believe I ever identified myself as the registered keeper.

Secondly, they've attached the same entry/exit photographs and the same sign - the sign which doesnt exist anymore (curtesy of my site visit on Tuesday).

I then received the following response from CEL legal in regard to the NEWBIES draft response to the LBC

Dear Sir/Madam,

Hope this email finds you well

Please find attached the signage. We dictate the terms and conditions at the time of contravention.

The evidence already provided demonstrates that the site relies entirely on signage to communicate the terms, including any requirement for permits or registration.

The signage in place clearly sets out the applicable parking terms and conditions. There is no additional contractual mechanism beyond what is displayed on those signs.

Accordingly:

The only method by which any driver would be made aware of a permit or registration requirement is via the signage itself.

The signage constitutes the complete and operative terms of the parking arrangement.

No separate or supplementary system (such as prior notice, external instructions, or off-site communication) is identified outside of the signage.

In light of this, reliance is placed on the signage alone as evidence of:

The existence (or absence) of any requirement to input vehicle details;

The clarity and adequacy of instructions to drivers; and

Whether any such system was sufficiently brought to the attention of motorists on the date in question.

If the signage does not clearly and prominently describe the permit or registration process, then no such obligation can be said to have been properly communicated or agreed.

Accordingly, the matter must be assessed solely by reference to the signage, which forms the entire contractual basis.

Additionally as a gesture of goodwill and without admission of liability, a reduced settlement amount of £100 in place of the current outstanding balance of £170.

Yours faithfully,

Legal Team on behalf of Civil Enforcement Ltd

Again they attached the same site which does exist on the site anymore.

and both these emails do not provide the landowner authority details I asked of them, nor the site plan, nor where to actually register the details still.

I also emailed three local news outlets with the story on Tuesday and am waiting to see whether any of them are interested.

The funniest part of attending the Parish Council meeting was learning that the parking scheme hasnt stopped the motor sales company parking there. In fact, it almost sounded as though they may actually have some sort of legal right to park there. Bizarre and entirely incompetent if true.

Jame4ters

They knew who the “Keeper” was as the original letter would have been sent to them

The “Gesture of Goodwill” is a fake reduction back to the original £100 presumably on the signage

Also it reads like CEL are providing copies of non existent signs

The Parish Council are clearly out of their depth

What an absolute shambles

Tephra12

sorry, I forgot to add the photos of the non-existent signs.

so this is what they have given to me as their signage evidence

and this building is supposed to be where this sign is (wish i got a better photos of it:

i also note their timestamp is Dec, after the date of the alleged breach so there has clearly been some sort of change to signage between the date of the alleged breach and now.

Coupon-mad

What on earth is this gobbledegook from CEL's legal team?!

🤣

"Dear Sir/Madam,

Hope this email finds you well

Please find attached the signage. We dictate the terms and conditions at the time of contravention.

The evidence already provided demonstrates that the site relies entirely on signage to communicate the terms, including any requirement for permits or registration.

The signage in place clearly sets out the applicable parking terms and conditions. There is no additional contractual mechanism beyond what is displayed on those signs.

Accordingly:

The only method by which any driver would be made aware of a permit or registration requirement is via the signage itself.

The signage constitutes the complete and operative terms of the parking arrangement.

No separate or supplementary system (such as prior notice, external instructions, or off-site communication) is identified outside of the signage.

In light of this, reliance is placed on the signage alone as evidence of:

The existence (or absence) of any requirement to input vehicle details;

The clarity and adequacy of instructions to drivers; and

Whether any such system was sufficiently brought to the attention of motorists on the date in question.

If the signage does not clearly and prominently describe the permit or registration process, then no such obligation can be said to have been properly communicated or agreed.

Accordingly, the matter must be assessed solely by reference to the signage, which forms the entire contractual basis."

So funny! They are getting worse.

Now, put in the POPLA Appeal as per the advice in post 3 of the NEWBIES thread but note that the linked example wording about landowner agreements is out of date, as it quotes para 7 of the old BPA CoP.

Instead search the forum for:

POPLA clause 14 landowner Annex F.

Tephra12

Exciting news!!

So instead of chasing them for a POPLA appeal code I repsonded to their emails (post 16) again chasing for the details they've continually not provided.

Additionally as a gesture of goodwill and without admission of liability, a reduced settlement amount of £100 in place of the current outstanding balance of £170.

And where they offered me the 'reduced settlement' I basically repsonded by attaching the email where BPA found them in breach of the COP and suggested that, actually, the appropriate gesture of goodwill would be to cancel the Parking Charge Notice in its entirety.

I can confirm, as of this midday today, they have issued me with a notice of discontinuence!

Dear Sir/Madam,
Hope this email finds you well
Following the BPA's recommendation, we have cancelled the charge.
Please find attached our Notice of Discontinuance for you to file with the court.
Yours faithfully,Legal Team on behalf of Civil Enforcement Ltd

The only issue is, I have no clue how to go about this 😬
Iv'e not yet been hit with a court claim or anything that would direct me on where to go yet. The most recent letter I have is the Letter Before Action (LBA).

After months and months I feel like we're alsmost there, any advice on what to do now would be greatly appreciated!