Civil Enforcement & KFC

Coupon-mad

You follow the 8 steps which tell you!

🙂

TheFox1948

Thank you Coupon-mad N180 completed and emailed today.

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82076335#Comment_82076335

When was this happening (month please?).

TheFox1948

In January This year, I kept trying it for about 2 weeks from 16th ever time it went to a fault, then when it started to work it went straight to Payment.

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82082559#Comment_82082559

@TheFox1948
"In January This year, I kept trying it for about 2 weeks from 16th ever time it went to a fault, then when it started to work it went straight to Payment."

I suspect the signage has small print? Was it dark too?

So, one more thing and it's a biggie:

Please report CEL to the CMA this week. This is important. This will make a difference and could see CEL fined.

The CMA have already opened a consumer protection case against another BPA firm, Euro Car Parks, evaluating the legality and fairness of the company's internal appeals processes.

Please Google to read about the CMA's open letter to the parking industry last week. Read the news about it. You'll see!

Points for you to ask the CMA to investigate:

• Your wife is a Type1 diabetic, suffering a hypoglycaemia so she had to stop driving and could not see any terms (it was dark in December and the signs are in small print and unlit which is unfair in itself - show pictures taken at night, if possible, otherwise just say it).
• Is it contrary to good faith (as well as being clearly illegal under the Equality Act 2010) to apply a blanket fixed time limit and rules against disabled, elderly or ill motorists, by remote ANPR surveillance which takes no account of age, infirmity, medical episodes or disability?
• It has already been established 15 years ago that applying a fixed time limit to disabled drivers is illegal and councils are including mechanisms to advertise reasonable adjustments of time:
• https://www.wake-smith.co.uk/latest-news/news-archive/2011/06/20/Council-Car-Park-Case-Settled-A-Victory-for-Blue-Badge-Holders
• Councils are banned under the Deregulation Act 2015 from using camera surveillance in car parks to issue penalties. In car parks, it was decided by Parliament that councils can only use camera systems if they work for the consumer (to show them material facts such as displaying the exact arrival time and interfacing with machines to calculate tariffs fairly).
• Whilst this point would need the ICO's opinion too due to the DUA Act and ICO surveillance camera guidance coming into play, does the CMA agree that there is a valid overarching consumer protection concern here and that private parking firms should be held to the same consumer-friendly and robust restrictions on cameras; stopping them from using ANPR as automated-decision-making to churn out penalties without human checks and only to use camera surveillance where it acts for the motorist, not to punish?
• Is it fair to run car parks with a lack of fair and flexible consideration and grace periods, noting the inability of auto-decision-making ANPR systems to take into account facts about a person's circumstances, not limited to disability?
• Is it fair to hide screens or VRM keypads inside premises with no prominent arrows & warnings pointing to them? Lord Denning's 'red hand rule' surely applies to VRM screens, keypads, payment machines and indeed covert cameras, as much as it does to signage. Everything should be conspicuous and bound to be seen.
• What is happening at all the KFCs and other car parks that CEL monitor - including many GP surgeries (more worryingly than KFC sites, due to the added likelihood of most attendees being elderly, ill, pregnant, disabled or otherwise vulnerable motorists not likely to see poor signs and hidden keypad screens on a desk or wall) - is similar to the unfair camera operations and poor appeals handling by Euro Car Parks that the CMA have recently announced they are particularly concerned about.
• The online appeals screen used by CEL for all PCNs failed in January which is why they are suing us, because any appeal was impossible and there is no ADR with this sector (POPLA is not accredited ADR and was denied us, anyway, because to reach it you have to do an internal appeal first). I kept trying it for about 2 weeks from 16th January. Every time it went to a fault, then when it started to work it went straight to Payment. EVIDENCE ATTACHED of the failed appeals screen.
• The CMA must recognise that ignoring PCNs is a valid option for consumers if there is no fair ADR. The discount is irrelevant if the PCN is unfair and/or breaches the Equality Act 2010 as this one did, but we couldn't stop CEL. Good people like us will not pay and would far rather - quite rightly and as a matter of principle - sit tight and easily defend a court claim to see CEL (or Euro Car Parks) inevitably discontinue as they always do, with the consumer paying nothing in the end. Even if cases like ours went to hearings, no judges would uphold the charge and we have defended the claim so we know we are not risking a CCJ with our stance of refusing to pay it.
• Our research has found that we are not the only ones who weren't able to appeal (or lost at appeal because POPLA and the IAS are a sector-funded non-impartial farce) and who are defending court claims from CEL. They operate at a lot of KFC sites, gyms and GP surgeries and we think the CMA should look at opening a consumer protection investigation into CEL (aka Creative Car Parks). Specifically scrutinising how they operate places with a hidden keypad indoors and unlit small-print signs outside, unremarkable in daylight and shrouded in darkness at night. And please consider how remote camera surveillance and fixed time limits unfairly cause detriment to disabled or ill motorists.
• Type 1 diabetes does meet the Equality Act 2010 definition of disability so my wife would never have been penalised if there had been a warden patrolling on foot, as local authorities have to provide in car parks. Why not this rogue industry too?

It is vital that you tell the CMA this and show them your evidence about the unfair PCN, the broken appeals page, the claim form and your wife's medical condition which is a disability under the Equality Act 2010.


Please, could you kindly take the time this week to read the news about the above and then email the CMA with your summary of issues, your photos and evidence?

Use my bullet point list above, word for word. Those are the main points to raise and the CMA won't know about some of that law and case law so they need a steer!

CMA Contact emails (use both, the first one goes directly to their parking investigation) :

• parking@cma.gov.uk
• general.enquiries@cma.gov.uk 

I am also writing to the CMA but far better if actual victims also show your evidence and express your concerns and open the CMA's eyes.

TheFox1948

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82082895#Comment_82082895

I have sent this off to CMA today, it's long hopefully got all the points.

To: Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)
Subject: Request for consumer-protection investigation into Creative Car Parks (CEL) – application
of the CMA’s Open Letter to Private Parking Operators dated 16 July 2026

Scan_20260803.jpg

Scan_20260803_2.jpg

Scan_20260803_3.jpg

Scan_20260803_4.jpg

Coupon-mad

Can't see your links. It says 'access denied'.

Please show your CMA complaint as a screenshot or two directly visible as pictures here, instead.

Le_Kirk

……. and mine states "media not found"

TheFox1948

Here it is

I am writing in response to the CMA’s Open Letter to Private Parking Operators dated 16 July 2026, and in particular to ask the CMA to consider whether the conduct of Civil Enforcement Limited (CEL), also known as Creative Car Parks, warrants investigation in light of the concerns and expectations set out in that letter.

I believe our experience raises a number of the precise consumer-protection issues identified by the CMA, but also raises a wider question about whether automated ANPR parking enforcement can operate fairly where the motorist is disabled, unwell or experiencing a medical episode. The CMA states in its letter that it has identified practices which may indicate potential non-compliance with consumer law, including PCNs which should have been cancelled or reduced, inadequate consideration of evidence during appeals, inconsistent appeal outcomes, confusing communications and potentially unfair additional charges. Our experience with CEL appears to raise several of these concerns.

1. A disabled motorist experiencing a medical episode

My wife has Type 1 diabetes and experienced a hypoglycaemic episode while driving. As a consequence, she had to stop driving and was unable to deal with the parking arrangements in the ordinary way. The Law forbids anyone who as suffered a hypoglycaemic episode while driving, from driving for a minimum of 45 minutes after sugar-blood levels have returned to normal. This is important because the circumstances were not simply a case of a motorist choosing to ignore parking terms. Her medical condition directly affected her ability to drive, read the terms and deal with the parking arrangements. The signs at the location were particularly problematic. The incident occurred in December, when it was dark. The signs were in small print and were not illuminated. Consequently, the terms were not reasonably visible to my wife in the circumstances. The CMA itself recognises in its 16 July letter that operators must take account of consumers' legitimate interests and expectations and provide a reasonable standard of service and fair treatment.

I therefore ask the CMA to consider whether it is compatible with those principles for a private parking operator to apply a rigid, automated time limit without any meaningful mechanism for taking account of a medical episode or disability.

2. Fixed time limits and disability

I ask the CMA to investigate whether the use of a blanket fixed time limit, enforced through remote ANPR surveillance, can be fair where the system takes no account of disability, age, infirmity or an unexpected medical episode. An automated ANPR system cannot itself understand that a motorist has experienced hypoglycaemia, needs additional time, cannot safely continue driving, or cannot immediately read and comply with the parking conditions. This is particularly concerning where the operator has no effective human intervention before a PCN is issued or pursued. The issue is not confined to diabetes. The same problem could arise for elderly motorists, disabled motorists, pregnant motorists, people suffering sudden illness, or anyone whose circumstances temporarily prevent them from complying with a rigid time-based process.

I ask the CMA to consider whether such systems provide adequate flexibility and whether operators should be required to have an effective process for reasonable adjustments and exceptional circumstances.

3. The CMA's findings on consideration periods

The CMA's 16 July letter is particularly relevant here. The CMA states that the consideration period is a minimum and should not be interpreted as a hard cut-off, and that operators must consider factors affecting the appropriate duration of that period. The CMA also identifies circumstances such as difficulty making payment, problems with payment machines, and difficulties finding a suitable parking space.

I ask the CMA to consider the further issue raised by our case: What consideration is given where the reason for delay is not simply a payment or parking problem, but a genuine medical episode or disability? A system which automatically measures a vehicle's presence and then issues a PCN cannot, without appropriate safeguards, distinguish between a motorist deliberately overstaying and a disabled or ill motorist who has been prevented from complying by circumstances beyond their control.

4. Signage and hidden payment arrangements

There is also a serious issue concerning how the parking terms were presented. The signs were in small print and unlit. At night they were therefore substantially less conspicuous than they might appear in daylight. The signage was not adequately identified from outside by prominent arrows or warnings. The question is not merely whether a sign technically existed somewhere on the site. The question is whether the relevant terms and the means of complying with them were sufficiently conspicuous and accessible to a consumer in the actual circumstances.

I ask the CMA to consider whether such arrangements provide consumers with the information they reasonably need before becoming bound by the alleged contractual terms. This is particularly important when the CMA itself has emphasised that information concerning parking terms and the consumer's rights must enable motorists to make informed decisions.

5. CEL's online appeal system failed

There is a further and particularly serious issue concerning CEL's internal appeal process. CEL's online appeals screen failed during January. I repeatedly attempted to use the system for approximately three weeks from 16 January. Each time I attempted to appeal, the system produced a fault. When the system eventually appeared to work, it directed me straight to payment rather than providing a functioning opportunity to submit an appeal. I have retained evidence of the failed appeals screenshots and attach it to this correspondence. The consequence was that I was denied a meaningful opportunity to place the relevant circumstances before CEL through its internal appeals process. This appears especially significant in light of the CMA's findings that some operators' internal appeals processes may reject appeals without properly considering the grounds raised or seeking further evidence where appropriate.

The CMA states that operators should properly engage with all grounds of appeal and seek additional evidence where necessary. I therefore ask the CMA to consider whether CEL's failed online appeal facility amounts to a systemic consumer-protection concern, rather than treating it simply as an isolated technical problem.

6. The absence of a meaningful opportunity for independent review

I also ask the CMA to consider the practical consequences of requiring a consumer to go through the operator's internal appeal process before progressing to alternative dispute resolution. The CMA itself records that consumers must first use the operator's internal appeals process before becoming eligible to seek alternative dispute resolution. In our case, the internal online appeal facility was not functioning properly. That creates a fundamental problem: if the operator's own appeal system prevents the consumer from lodging the appeal, the consumer may effectively be denied the route that is supposed to precede any further dispute-resolution process.

I ask the CMA to consider whether there should be safeguards requiring an alternative means of appeal whenever an operator's online appeal system is unavailable or defective.

7. CEL sites used by vulnerable consumers

Our research indicates that CEL operates at numerous locations including KFC sites, gyms and GP surgeries. The GP surgery sites are particularly concerning because they are locations where there is a foreseeable likelihood of motorists being elderly, ill, disabled, pregnant or otherwise vulnerable.

I ask the CMA to consider whether the same issues identified in our case may be occurring elsewhere at CEL-controlled sites, particularly where there are:

• Small-print or poorly illuminated signage

• Hidden or insufficiently prominent payment/VRM facilities

• Automated ANPR enforcement

• Rigid time limits

• Inadequate consideration of medical or disability-related circumstances

• Ineffective or inaccessible appeal arrangements.

This may indelicate wider consumer-protection issue beyond an individual dispute.

8. Automated ANPR enforcement and human oversight

I respectfully ask the CMA to consider whether private parking operators should be required to ensure that ANPR systems are not effectively used as automated penalty-generating tools without appropriate human oversight.

While I recognise that this question may also involve issues falling within the ICO's remit and surveillance camera/data-protection guidance. However, I ask the CMA to consider the consumer-protection dimension of the issue.

In particular: Is it fair for a private parking operator to use automated ANPR surveillance to impose or pursue a financial penalty without a meaningful human assessment of circumstances such as disability, illness, medical episodes, accessibility problems or other exceptional circumstances?

The CMA's own letter recognises that operators must consider consumers' legitimate interests and expectations and that internal processes should be fit for purpose.

9. The wider significance of the CMA's 16 July letter

The CMA states that operators must comply with consumer law now, not wait for the Government's new code before reviewing their practices because the relevant consumer-law provisions are already in force. It further warns that failure to comply with consumer law could result in enforcement action by the CMA or other enforcers.

The CMA's Annex A specifically requires operators to consider the flexibility of consideration periods, transparency and proper handling of appeals and fairness of contractual terms.

Against that background, I respectfully ask the CMA to investigate whether CEL's practices warrant further consumer-protection action.

10. Matters for CMA consideration

I would be grateful if the CMA would specifically consider:

1. Whether CEL adequately protects disabled and medically vulnerable motorists.
2. Whether a rigid ANPR enforcement system is fair where the motorist experiences an unexpected medical episode.
3. Whether CEL's signage and payment arrangements provide sufficient and conspicuous information to consumers, particularly at night.
4. Whether locating payment/VRM facilities inside premises without sufficiently prominent external directions creates a consumer-protection concern.
5. Whether CEL's online appeals system being unavailable for approximately three weeks deprived consumers of a meaningful internal appeal.
6. Whether CEL's appeal process complies with the CMA's expectations concerning proper consideration of appeal grounds and the seeking of further evidence.
7. Whether consumers should have an alternative method of submitting an appeal whenever an operator's online appeal system fails.
8. Whether the use of ANPR to issue PCNs without adequate human consideration of disability, illness and exceptional circumstances creates a wider consumer detriment.
9. Whether similar practices are occurring at other CEL sites, particularly GP surgeries and other locations likely to be used by vulnerable consumers.
10. Whether the CMA considers that CEL's practices warrant a formal consumer-protection investigation.

Evidence

I am able to provide evidence relating to the matters described above, including:

• Medical evidence concerning my wife's Type 1 diabetes and the medical circumstances;
• photographs/evidence concerning the signage and its visibility;
• evidence concerning the location and visibility of the payment/VRM facility;
• screenshots/evidence showing the failure of CEL's online appeal system;
• the relevant PCN documentation; the court claim documentation;
• and correspondence and other material relating to the attempted appeal.

I would be grateful if the CMA would confirm whether it would like these documents supplied as part of its assessment.

I appreciate that the CMA may not be able to intervene directly in an individual parking dispute. My request is instead that the CMA considers whether the circumstances described above provide evidence of wider consumer harm or potentially systemic practices by CEL, particularly when considered alongside the CMA's findings and concerns expressed in its Open Letter of 16 July 2026.

This case demonstrates the potential consequences of an automated parking system which is unable to recognise the difference between deliberate non-compliance and a genuine medical emergency.

A disabled motorist experiencing hypoglycaemia should not be treated in the same way as an able bodied motorist who simply chooses to ignore the terms, particularly where the signage and payment arrangements themselves may not be sufficiently accessible or conspicuous.

I therefore respectfully request that the CMA consider whether a formal investigation into CEL is warranted

Yours faithfully,

Coupon-mad

Wow! What a good example.

Us regulars can bookmark/remember this one.

I've already signposted someone to mimic but adapt your CMA complaint, in a case involving disability, lack of fair appeals processes and a complete lack of consideration period by ParkingEye, who persisted when they should have cancelled the PCN on appeal in 2024, even caused someone a CCJ then ParkingEye discontinued in 2026, leaving the carer £400 out of pocket (CCJ set aside application succeeded but fees were not refunded) and having to sue the parking firm for the remedy various consumer protection laws allow, for financial compensation for both loss and distress.