Exceeding the notified maximum free parking period - Horfield Leisure Centre, Bristol

[b789]

Use the following as your POPLA appeal:

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/documen...rk-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/documen...rk-byelaws
PPSCoP v1.1 – Sections 7.3(d) and 14.1(a)–(j)
Extract from VCS v Edward (2023) – published County Court appeal decision