@
3Sh3roo, do not ignore the Letter of Claim itself. It must be answered.
The additional PAPDC forms do not need to be completed and returned. The debt is denied in full, there is no question of affordability or payment proposals, and the financial statement is therefore irrelevant. The Protocol says the debtor "should" use the Reply Form; it does not say "must". A proper substantive written response can set out the dispute and request the required documents.
So, for our purposes:
ignore the enclosed forms, do not fill them in, and send a bespoke written PAPDC response instead. CEL cannot pretend there has been no engagement when they receive a detailed response disputing the debt and requesting documents. The court looks at substantive compliance with the Protocol rather than minor technical points.
The response should go now, well before 2 October 2026.
Quote:Dear Civil Enforcement Ltd,
I write as the registered keeper in formal response to your Letter Before Action dated 2 September 2026.
The alleged debt is disputed in full.
For the avoidance of doubt, this email is my substantive response under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims. I will not be completing the enclosed financial statement or other payment-related forms because no debt is admitted and no payment proposal is being made.
Your decision to issue a Letter Before Action is particularly remarkable given your own handling of this matter.
Civil Enforcement Ltd expressly confirmed that my formal complaint had been identified as also constituting an appeal and had been passed to your Appeals Team. That was required by clause 11.2 of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice.
The complaint remains live.
The appeal also remains unresolved.
You have never issued a proper appeal rejection and you have never provided a POPLA verification code.
Clause 8.4.6 of the PPSCoP requires an operator rejecting an appeal to give the appellant the option of paying or appealing to the relevant independent Appeals Service. You have done neither. Instead, after accepting that the correspondence was an appeal, you subsequently claimed it was "too late" to appeal and have now escalated the matter to £170 and threatened proceedings.
That is not a completed appeal process.
Your repeated assertion that keeper liability arises because 28 days have elapsed and the driver has not been named also remains wrong.
There is no automatic keeper liability merely because a keeper declines to identify the driver. Any keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is strictly conditional upon compliance with the statutory requirements.
Those requirements have not been met.
The Notice to Keeper does not specify the required "period of parking" under Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(a). The stated "From" and "To" times are merely ANPR entry and exit timestamps.
Civil Enforcement Ltd has itself confirmed in correspondence that its ANPR cameras record vehicles entering and exiting the car park and are not designed to monitor movements within the car park.
Those images therefore do not establish:
- where the vehicle was parked;
- when any parking period began or ended;
- how long the vehicle was actually parked;
- whether it was parked in breach of any displayed term; or
- what signage was visible from the alleged parked location.
The alleged contravention is "Permit Holders Only", yet you have still provided no evidence showing where the vehicle was actually parked, what signage applied to that location, what contractual terms were supposedly offered to the driver, or how entry and exit ANPR images establish a breach of a permit-only condition.
I now require the following documents and information pursuant to paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2 of the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims:
1. The complete contemporaneous signage pack applicable at the site on 1 May 2026.
2. A site plan showing the location of every relevant sign and the ANPR cameras.
3. All photographs and ANPR records relied upon.
4. Evidence showing where within the site the vehicle is alleged to have been parked.
5. The landowner contract or other authority relied upon as conferring authority on Civil Enforcement Ltd to operate, contract with motorists and pursue charges in its own name.
6. The complete internal record and audit trail of my complaint and appeal, including the date received, date classified as an appeal, date passed to the Appeals Team, and any purported determination.
7. A copy of the appeal decision which you contend concluded the appeal.
8. The POPLA verification code which should have accompanied any rejection.
9. A full calculation and legal basis explaining how the original £100 parking charge has become £170.
10. Evidence of when the Letter Before Action dated 2 September 2026 was actually posted, given that it was not received until 16 September 2026.
Paragraph 5.2 requires you to provide requested documents or information, or explain why they are unavailable, within 30 days of receipt of this request.
You are also reminded that once a debtor has responded and the dispute remains unresolved, the Protocol requires the parties to take stock before proceedings and ordinarily requires at least 14 days' notice before a claim is commenced.
Civil Enforcement Ltd is therefore formally on notice that any proceedings issued without first addressing the live complaint, concluding the appeal properly, providing the required independent appeal opportunity, and complying with the above document requests will be relied upon as evidence of unreasonable pre-action conduct.
The entire correspondence history will be placed before the court if necessary, including:
- the original formal complaint;
- your acknowledgement that it also constituted an appeal;
- your confirmation that it had been passed to the Appeals Team;
- your subsequent assertion that it was somehow "too late" to appeal;
- your failure to issue a POPLA code;
- the escalation from £100 to £140 and then £170;
- your debt recovery threats while the appeal remained unresolved; and
- this Letter Before Action.
You should now cancel the Parking Charge Notice.
If you decline to do so, provide the documents and information requested above and explain precisely how you contend that the appeal process was lawfully concluded without providing access to POPLA.
Yours faithfully,
[Registered keeper]
Use the previous email addresses I gave you to send and CC the response.
