Quote:Good Evening All,

The Keeper has received a letter today from Civil Enforcement regarding an alleged overstay of free parking time at Horfield Leisure Centre in Bristol.

Here on Google Maps: https://maps.app.goo.gl/tkHfHmUHTYTwRXqp8

Here is the letter:

   
   

The letter has an image of the front number plate, but instead of the rear plate there is some sort of error with a URL Printed...

The circumstances are that the driver is not a member of this facility, but had popped in to ask some questions, as well as visiting somewhere else locally. They also believe that they left and re-entered the car park during the day at some point but they don't know at exactly what times they entered/left.

The driver has contacted the facility directly (without providing any vehicle details or names) and was told they must appeal via Civil Enforcement and that they don't get involved.

It appears to say that free parking is limited to 3 hours for members. I'm not sure what their position is on people who aren't members?

Quote:I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle. I dispute the Parking Charge Notice and deny any liability for the sum claimed.

I am aware, and have verified via the Land Registry, that the location identified in the Notice is council-owned land forming part of a leisure centre owned and controlled by Bristol City Council, which is a traffic authority. The Land Registry title number is BL113931, and the Bristol City Council land reference is 7603.

Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 expressly excludes from the definition of “relevant land” any land which is owned or controlled by a traffic authority, pursuant to paragraph 3(1)(b). Council-owned land therefore falls outside the scope of Schedule 4 as a matter of statute. In those circumstances, there is no lawful basis upon which liability may be transferred to the registered keeper, and any reliance upon Schedule 4 of the Act is denied.

Further, the signage and parking arrangements at this location do not constitute any contractual offer capable of acceptance by conduct for a charge of the nature demanded. In the absence of any lawful contractual mechanism permitting parking in return for payment, or extension of any alleged parking period upon payment, no enforceable parking charge can arise.

In any event, the Notice to Keeper does not comply with the mandatory requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Keeper liability can only arise where there is full and strict compliance with that legislation, which has not occurred.

There will be no admission as to the identity of the driver. The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor held liable under any theory of agency. If you believe you have a cause of action, it lies against the driver only.

Given the above, you will be aware that you have no realistic prospect of success before POPLA. In the circumstances, I invite you to cancel the Parking Charge Notice now and thereby avoid the unnecessary use of time and resources by both parties.

I also dispute that you had reasonable cause to obtain my personal data from the DVLA. Given that the land is council-owned and expressly excluded from the definition of relevant land under Schedule 4 of the Act, your pursuit of the registered keeper appears to be without lawful basis. I reserve all rights in this regard.

Please confirm that the charge has been cancelled, or alternatively provide a POPLA verification code.

Quote:Dear Sir / Madam,  
 
We are writing to you regarding the appeal you submitted in relation to your Parking Charge.

We have identified an issue that may have prevented our email containing the decision letter from being successfully delivered to you. As a result, we are resending the decision letter for your records.

To ensure you are not disadvantaged in any way, we have extended both the payment and further appeal deadlines accordingly.

Any previously offered discounted amount has been reinstated and will remain available for a further 14 days from the date of this email, giving you a fair opportunity to settle the charge at the reduced rate. No additional charges or recovery action will be taken during this extended period.

If your appeal was unsuccessful, you still retain the right to escalate the matter to the independent appeals service, POPLA. Full details of how to do this, including the relevant deadline and your unique POPLA reference (if applicable), are included in the appeal decision letter.

Please accept our sincere apologies for any inconvenience this may have caused, and thank you for your patience and understanding.

Yours faithfully,

Appeals Department

Quote:7.3. Use of photographic evidence

Photographic evidence must not be used by a parking operator as the basis for issuing a parking charge unless:

d) images generated by ANPR or CCTV have been subject to a manual quality control check, including the accuracy of the timestamp and the risk of keying errors.

NOTE 1: The manual quality control check for remote ANPR and CCTV systems is particularly important for detecting issues such as “double dipping”, where image camera systems might have failed to accurately record each instance when a vehicle enters and leaves controlled land, and for checking images that might have been taken other than by a trained parking attendant (see Clause 15). The manual check might also reveal where “tailgating” – vehicles passing a camera close together – is a problem, suggesting relocation of the camera might be necessary.

(01-19-2026, 04:52 PM)b789 Wrote: Just to clarify, this is also a "double dip" where the first exit and second entry ANPR images are "orphaned" and two separate visits have been merged to show a single visit from the first entry to the second exit?

Just putting to gather further ammunition as a double dip is also a breach of the PPSCoP section 7.3(d) where the operator has failed to perform the required manual quality control check on the ANPR images. Note 1 clearly states:

Quote:7.3. Use of photographic evidence

Photographic evidence must not be used by a parking operator as the basis for issuing a parking charge unless:

d) images generated by ANPR or CCTV have been subject to a manual quality control check, including the accuracy of the timestamp and the risk of keying errors.

NOTE 1: The manual quality control check for remote ANPR and CCTV systems is particularly important for detecting issues such as “double dipping”, where image camera systems might have failed to accurately record each instance when a vehicle enters and leaves controlled land, and for checking images that might have been taken other than by a trained parking attendant (see Clause 15). The manual check might also reveal where “tailgating” – vehicles passing a camera close together – is a problem, suggesting relocation of the camera might be necessary.

Quote:POPLA Verification Code: [INSERT]
Operator: Civil Enforcement Ltd
Vehicle Registration: [REDACTED]
Date of PCN: 11 January 2026
Date of Alleged Contravention: 3 December 2025
Site: Horfield Leisure Centre, Dorian Road, Bristol BS7 0XW

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

1. The land is not “relevant land” under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA). As such, no keeper liability can arise.

The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, paragraph 3(1) states:

“In this Schedule ‘relevant land’ means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than—
(a) a highway maintainable at the public expense (within the meaning of section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980); or
(b) a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority.”

The car park at Horfield Leisure Centre is located on land owned and controlled by Bristol City Council, a traffic authority under the Traffic Management Act 2004. This is confirmed by the Council’s property records under Property ID 7603, with title registered at Land Registry number BL113931. The site is also included in Schedule 1 of the Bristol City Council Byelaws made under section 164 of the Public Health Act 1875. The byelaws explicitly cover the Dorian Road Playing Field, which includes the sports centre, playing fields and the car park.

The byelaws are publicly available at:

https://www.bristol.gov.uk/files/documents/3833-park-byelaws

Land provided or controlled by a traffic authority, and/or subject to statutory control via byelaws, is expressly excluded from the scope of Schedule 4. Accordingly, the land is not “relevant land” and no keeper liability can arise under any circumstance. This is a strict statutory exclusion.

Civil Enforcement Ltd is attempting to hold the appellant, a registered keeper, liable in reliance on PoFA where PoFA cannot apply in law. This amounts to a fundamental legal failure and misuse of DVLA data.

2. The appellant is the registered keeper and the driver has not been identified. The operator has no lawful basis to pursue the keeper.

The appellant is the registered keeper. At no point has the driver been identified. There is no evidence before POPLA that would entitle the operator to hold the keeper liable under contract, agency, or statutory presumption.

The only lawful mechanism by which a parking operator may pursue a registered keeper for a parking charge incurred by another driver is via full and strict compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As established above, the land is not relevant land. Schedule 4 cannot apply. The operator’s case collapses entirely on this point alone.

The operator is therefore pursuing a person with whom it has no privity of contract, no agency link, and no statutory basis for liability. There is no lawful cause of action. This amounts to a misuse of personal data and is grounds for a formal complaint to the ICO.

3. This is a textbook case of ANPR “double dipping.” The operator has failed to establish any single period of parking. The PCN was issued in breach of Section 7.3(d) of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP).

The Notice to Keeper issued by Civil Enforcement Ltd includes only one timestamped ANPR image (entry). The supposed exit image is entirely absent. In its place is a broken URL, indicating a failed attempt to embed or print an exit photo. This alone invalidates the PCN.

No single period of parking has been established. A photograph of a vehicle arriving is not evidence that it remained on site. The Keeper confirms that the vehicle made more than one visit to the site that day. This is a known flaw of ANPR systems, referred to as “double dipping.”

This situation is directly addressed by the Private Parking Single Code of Practice, Section 7.3(d):

“Photographic evidence must not be used by a parking operator as the basis for issuing a parking charge unless:
(d) images generated by ANPR or CCTV have been subject to a manual quality control check, including the accuracy of the timestamp and the risk of keying errors.

NOTE 1: The manual quality control check for remote ANPR and CCTV systems is particularly important for detecting issues such as ‘double dipping’…”

In breach of this provision:

• The operator issued a charge with no verified exit image.
  
• There is no evidence of any manual review to detect multiple entries and exits.
  
• The PCN purports to record a single parking period when none is established.
  

The operator is now put to strict proof that:

• All entries and exits for this vehicle on the material date were captured,
  
• A proper manual review of the footage occurred,
  
• The timestamps are accurate and complete,
  
• The vehicle remained on-site continuously for the alleged duration.
  

They cannot do so. The evidential chain is broken. The PCN is fundamentally defective and must be cancelled.

4. The signage is inadequate. No contract was formed.

The signage at Horfield Leisure Centre is ambiguous and poorly positioned. There is no evidence that:

• The signage was visible upon entry,
  
• It was legible from a driver’s seated position,
  
• It contained a clear contractual offer,
  
• Or that the driver accepted any such offer by conduct.
  

The burden rests with the operator to prove a contract existed. That requires evidence of:

• A clear and unambiguous offer,
  
• Acceptance,
  
• Consideration,
  
• Terms properly incorporated,
  
• And intention to create legal relations.
  

No such evidence has been produced. A driver cannot accept terms that are not visible or legible. In any event, no contract could exist where the site is subject to statutory control and PoFA does not apply.

5. The operator is put to strict proof of landowner authority. The operator has failed to demonstrate compliance with Section 14.1 of the PPSCoP.

The operator must provide strict proof of a current, valid, and fully compliant landowner agreement under Section 14.1 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice. This agreement must confirm that the operator is authorised to:

1. Issue parking charges,
   
2. Manage the land in question,
   
3. And pursue legal action in its own name.
   

Section 14.1 of the PPSCoP sets out mandatory terms that must be included in any agreement. These include:

[indent]• identity of the landowner,
• a full unredacted site boundary plan,
• confirmation of any byelaws applicable,
• duration and scope of authority,
• specific parking terms and enforcement rights,
• provisions for handling planning/advertising consents,
• a confirmation that the operator complies with the Code of Practice.[/indent]

The operator is now put to strict proof of such an agreement. It must be:

• Unredacted,
  
• Dated,
  
• Signed by authorised representatives of both parties.
  

If any of the required elements are missing, the PCN must be cancelled. Any redacted or expired agreement should be treated as insufficient.

6. VCS v Edward (2023) – persuasive County Court appeal authority on non-relevant land and keeper liability

The County Court appeal decision in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Edward (2023) confirms that when land is not “relevant land” under Schedule 4 of PoFA, there is no lawful basis for holding the registered keeper liable. That case was an appeal judgment and is therefore published and persuasive, especially where the facts are closely aligned.

While POPLA is not bound by County Court authority, appeal decisions such as VCS v Edward are authoritative on points of law and procedure, and must not be dismissed lightly. The ratio of the judgment is directly applicable here and confirms the legal position that Civil Enforcement Ltd is ignoring.

CONCLUSION

• The land is not “relevant land.” PoFA does not apply.
  
• The driver has not been identified. The Keeper cannot be pursued.
  
• The ANPR evidence is incomplete and misleading. No contravention is proven.
  
• The signage is deficient. No contract exists.
  
• The operator has failed to show landowner authority.
  
• The appeal judgment in VCS v Edward confirms the legal position.
  
• This PCN is unlawful. The appeal must be allowed in full.
  

Attachments:

Bristol City Council Land Ownership Map – Property ID 7603, Title BL113931
Planning / GIS Map – Identifying Dorian Road Playing Field under statutory control
Copy of NTK – showing entry image only and missing/broken exit link
Bristol City Council Byelaws – https://www.bristol.gov.uk/files/documents/3833-park-byelaws
PPSCoP v1.1 – Sections 7.3(d) and 14.1(a)–(j)
Extract from VCS v Edward (2023) – published County Court appeal decision

Quote:Dear Mr OnFourWheels,


The operator has contacted us and told us that they have withdrawn your appeal.

If you have already paid your parking charge, this is the reason your appeal will have been withdrawn. Unfortunately, you cannot pay your parking charge and appeal, which means that POPLA’s involvement in your appeal has ended. You will not be able to request a refund of the amount paid in order to resubmit your appeal to us.

If you have not paid your parking charge, the operator has reviewed your appeal and chosen to cancel the parking charge. As the operator has withdrawn your appeal, POPLA’s involvement has now ended and you do not need to take any further action.
Kind regards

POPLA Team