Late Appeal, letter before action

Nosy

I hope everyone is well, unfortunately I have found myself in the situation with another PCN again.

This is for overstaying in a McDonald's car park. I contacted McDonald's and they said they don't have the authority to cancel and I have to go through the parkeing operator I missed the deadline to make an appeal to 'Civil Enforcement' and sent them the below email. I did not receive any reply to my email and now have a letter before action/claim.

"Dear Sir or Madam,

I am the registered keeper of vehicle XXXXXXX and wish to submit a late appeal in respect of Parking Charge Notice 184476810XXXX.

I appreciate that the standard appeal period has expired; however, I respectfully request that you exercise discretion and consider this appeal in light of the circumstances.

The occupants of the vehicle were genuine paying customers of McDonald's, Shirley Road, Southampton, on 9 April 2026. The vehicle entered the car park at approximately 19:00 and the first transaction at the restaurant was not made until 19:14. Due to the restaurant being exceptionally busy, the occupants then waited approximately a further 25 minutes before receiving their food. A significant proportion of the permitted parking period had therefore elapsed before the meal had even begun.

The visit involved a family travelling from Birmingham with three young children whilst on a weekend away. Following the meal, additional time was required to use the facilities and organise the children before departing.

As visitors to the area, the occupants were unaware that this particular restaurant operated a one-hour parking limit. The signage was not sufficiently prominent to bring the restriction to their attention and there was certainly no intention to breach any parking terms.

The overstay arose solely during a genuine customer visit and not through any misuse of the car park. I have attached screenshots showing the timing of the McDonald's transactions as evidence of the delays experienced during the visit.

In view of the above circumstances, I kindly request that you accept this late appeal and exercise discretion to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.

I look forward to your response."

I cannot find the original PCN but here is a reminder.

This is the letter before action which includes a lengthy reply form.

I was thinking to follow up on the email to the same email address appeals@ce-service.co.uk instead of return the return form which requires info about financial details and of I owe the debt, how will I pay, etc.

Thoughts, comments, advice would be appreciated.

Gr1pr

Do not use the forms, definitely not

Email the LoC response template from the 2nd post in the newbies sticky thread in announcements near the top of the forum to CEL , then await a Money Claim , which arrives in the post

Then come back to this thread for more assistance

Car1980

You can throw the PAPs back in their face and say they are not adhering to the rules they claim they abide by ignoring previous correspondence, which will be stated in your witness statement.

But reword your appeal to sound less reasonable and polite, make it sound like a challenge and that you are looking forward to arguing it in front of a judge at <insert name of local court>.

Nosy

I have now received a claim form and have filled the AOS online today. The POC does not look generic like others. I would appreciate all your help please. Any other posts with simmilar cases to this one?

Nosy

This was the email sent to the claimant after the LOC was received.

I am writing in response to your Letter Before Claim dated 27 July 2026.

I formally dispute the alleged debt in its entirety and do not accept liability for the £170 being claimed.

I previously contacted Civil Enforcement Ltd on 12 June 2026 to submit a late appeal. I explained the circumstances of the visit and provided evidence of the McDonald's transactions showing that the occupants of the vehicle were genuine customers. I have attached a copy of that correspondence again for reference. I have received no response to that appeal.

The circumstances of the visit were as follows.

The occupants of the vehicle were genuine customers of McDonald's, Shirley Road, Southampton, on 9 April 2026. The vehicle entered the car park at approximately 19:00 and the first transaction at McDonald's was made at 19:14, approximately 14 minutes after entering the car park.

Due to the restaurant being exceptionally busy, the occupants then waited approximately a further 25 minutes before receiving their food. Therefore, almost 40 minutes of the one-hour parking period had elapsed before the occupants had even received their meal.

The visit involved a family travelling from Birmingham with three young children whilst on a weekend away. Following the meal, additional time was required to take the children to the toilet and organise them before leaving.

The occupants were unaware that this particular restaurant operated a one-hour parking restriction. There was no intention to misuse the car park or deliberately breach any parking terms. I also dispute that the relevant parking restriction and contractual terms were adequately and prominently communicated to the driver.

I subsequently contacted McDonald's Customer Services to try to resolve the matter. McDonald's advised me to appeal to Civil Enforcement Ltd, but by that stage the standard appeal period had expired and the online appeal facility was no longer available. I also attempted to contact the restaurant directly on numerous occasions without receiving an answer.

I therefore made a late appeal directly to Civil Enforcement Ltd on 12 June 2026 and provided supporting evidence, but no response was received before the Letter Before Claim was issued.

In order to properly understand and respond to your proposed claim, please provide the following documents and information:

A copy of the original Parking Charge Notice and evidence of the date and method of service.

All ANPR photographs and/or records relied upon, including the recorded entry and exit times.

Photographs of all parking signage at the site, particularly the entrance signage and any signage containing the alleged contractual terms, as it was displayed on 9 April 2026.

A copy of the parking terms and conditions relied upon in bringing the claim.

Evidence of Civil Enforcement Ltd's authority from the landowner to operate at this location, enter into contracts with motorists and pursue parking charges in its own name.

A full breakdown of the £170 now claimed, including the legal and factual basis for the additional £70 over the original £100 Parking Charge Notice.

Evidence relied upon to establish keeper liability, if you are pursuing me as the registered keeper rather than relying upon the identity of the driver.

Details of the alleged contractual breach, including the precise term(s) which you allege were breached.

For the avoidance of doubt, I do not admit that the driver entered into a contract on the terms alleged, that the relevant terms were adequately brought to the driver's attention, or that the £170 claimed is recoverable.

I am currently outside the UK and will return on the afternoon of 28 August 2026. I am nevertheless responding now so that you are aware that the alleged debt is formally disputed within the pre-action period.

I respectfully request that you confirm that no proceedings will be issued while my response and the documents requested above are being considered and provided. I also request that you allow a reasonable period following receipt of the requested information for me to consider it and provide any further substantive response.

I remain willing to consider the matter once the requested information has been provided.

Please confirm receipt of this email and provide the requested documentation.

Coupon-mad

Did you get all that evidence?

Just use the template defence with brief facts as your para 3.

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 14/09/26 and providing you complete(d) the AoS before or on 03/10/26 your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 19/10/26

As @Coupon-mad writes, use your brief facts as paragraph #3, you will be able to use the whole narrative at witness statement stage and all that you wrote in the response to letter before claim will not fit in the defence box on MCOL

Nosy

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82152023#Comment_82152023

No, not a single reply from them

Nosy

How does this look?

1. The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and breaches CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, failing to state facts necessary for a complete cause of action. The Claimant improperly added an unrecoverable fee to the core Parking Charge (PC), attempting double recovery (unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g)). In ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, an £85 charge covered all enforcement costs. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums justify court intervention; the court is invited to strike out the claim under CPR 3.4.
2. The allegations are vague and liability is denied. The Claimant's delay in bringing proceedings severely prejudices the Defendant by hindering the retrieval of contemporaneous evidence.
3. The Defendant denies the Claimant is entitled to £260.78, or any sum. It is admitted the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle on 9 April 2026.
4. Substance of Dispute & Frustration of Contract: The Claimant’s Particulars note entry at 19:00 and exit at 20:34 (94 minutes) at McDonald’s Shirley Road. The occupants were genuine customers. The first transaction occurred at 19:14, 14 minutes after entry.
5. Due to extreme restaurant delays within the landowner's control, the occupants waited roughly 25 minutes after ordering to receive food. Nearly 40 minutes of the 60-minute limit elapsed before the meal began.
6. The family was travelling from Birmingham with three young children. Additional time was required for facilities and organizing the children before departure. The contract was frustrated by operational delays; a customer cannot consume a meal and manage young children safely within the fractional time frame remaining.
7. Signage & Grace Periods: It is denied that terms or the 1-hour limit were prominently, clearly, or adequately communicated at 19:00 (dusk).
8. Under the Claimant’s ATA Code of Practice, operators must allow a reasonable grace period to enter, find a space, read signs, and exit. Combined with the severe restaurant delays, the total stay was reasonable and necessary.
9. Abuse of Process: The Claimant inflated the core claim by adding an arbitrary £70.00 to the £100.00 maximum PC allowed under industry rules, bringing the debt to £170.00 before interest. This artificial expansion constitutes double recovery and an abuse of process. Internal operating costs are already factored into the core PC (Beavis).
10. Breach of Protocol: Following a Letter Before Claim dated 27 July 2026, the Defendant sent a response disputing the debt and requesting standard documents (ANPR records, signage logs, landowner authority). The Claimant ignored this pre-action engagement and issued proceedings on 14 September 2026, breaching the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.
11. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached; forming a contract requires an offer, acceptance, and consideration (absent here). The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (s71) mandates a fairness test on Courts and sets a high bar for prominence of consumer notices. Under Sch2, s62, and duties of good faith, the terms were unfair. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous site photographs.
12. DVLA keeper data is supplied only based on written landowner authority. The Claimant agent is put to strict proof of standing to sue and the exact scope, terms, and dates of the landowner agreement, including a site boundary map (not an unverified aerial view).
13. To impose a PC there must be a strong legitimate interest extending beyond compensation for loss, and adequate notice of the obligation. Neither is demonstrated. This charge is a penalty arising from a concealed trap, poor signs, and covert surveillance, distinguishing it fully from Beavis.
14. Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, and 198 of Beavis (an £85 PC covered all costs and generated a profit shared with the landowner) and paragraph 3.4 of the original judgment by HHJ Moloney, confirming the definition of operating costs.
15. Attention is drawn to ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores [2011] EWHC 4023(QB), where costs inflating a PC from £37.50 to £135 were held disproportionate and penal. HHJ Moloney referenced this case in Beavis.
16. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct. Government public consultations indicate an impending ban on double recovery fees, which ministers noted are indicator of market failure and extortion.
17. Under Sch4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA), the claim exceeds the maximum sum and is unrecoverable. Explanatory Note 221 states a creditor may not claim more than the unpaid charges as they stood when the notice to driver issued. There is no keeper liability for added false fees; POFA bans double recovery.
18. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct (CPR 46.5). Private parking claims overburden HMCTS, yet operators systematically discontinue defended cases before hearings. This business model constitutes systemic abuse, making Claimants liable for costs under r.38.6(1) and r.27.14(2)(g) for behaving unreasonably.

The Defendant requests the Court to dismiss the claim in its entirety.

Le_Kirk

That is is not the template defence and you still have too much narrative in there.

Nosy

I used the template and then put in to ai to shorten to fit in to mcol