PCN Civil Enforcement Spring Hall Medical Practice, Halifax

[3Sh3roo]

Response today from them by email as follows:

Good afternoon,

Thank you for your further email.

As mentioned in our previous correspondence, all appeals must be made via our appeals portal https://appeals.ce-service.co.uk/. Our complaints policy clearly states our complaints form is not intended to be used as a method for motorists to appeal a Parking Charge Notice. Our complaints policy does not cover comments regarding the dissatisfaction relating to the issuance of a Parking Charge. Matters relating specifically to appeals must be made in writing as outlined on the back of the Parking Charge Notice.

This ticket was issued within 14 days of the incident date, and we are fully compliant with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Under POFA 2012, if you fail to provide the full, correct name of the driver and their current address for service you may become liable for the full amount due as the Registered Keeper of the above vehicle.

Yours faithfully, 
Civil Enforcement 
Complaints Team


Civil Enforcement Ltd
Complaints at Civil Enforcement

Email: complaints@ce-service.co.uk

Address: Civil Enforcement Ltd, Horton House,
Exchange Flags, Liverpool L2 3PF.

[b789]

This is now a stronger evidential position. They have confirmed they received the correspondence, they have replied from a live email address, and they are still refusing to process the keeper appeal because they want the keeper forced back through their defective portal.

Their PoFA paragraph is generic rubbish. Issuing the NtK within 14 days is only one PoFA requirement. It does not answer the specific defect raised: the failure to specify a "period of parking" under paragraph 9(2)(a). Nor does it deal with the fact that their own ANPR evidence only shows entry and exit, not parking. Their own complaints policy also says that if a complaint is considered to be, or includes, an appeal against the validity of a Parking Charge, they will treat it as an appeal unless told otherwise. Their present position is therefore internally inconsistent.

Send one final response to complaints@ce-service.co.uk, copying dataprotectionofficer@ce-service.co.uk, office@ce-service.co.uk and Legal3@ce-service.co.uk.

Dear Civil Enforcement Ltd,

I write as the registered keeper. Your latest response is noted and will be retained.

Your position is legally and procedurally untenable. You have received a formal complaint. You are required to handle it as a formal complaint. In addition, because that complaint plainly includes a challenge to the validity of the Parking Charge Notice, you are also required to treat it as an appeal.

These are not alternatives. They are cumulative obligations.

Clause 11.2 of the Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice states:

"Where a parking operator receives a complaint that it considers to be or include an appeal against the validity of a parking charge, the parking operator must also treat it as an appeal for the purposes of applying the timescales in Clause 8.4, and should inform the complainant as such unless and until it is clear that the complaint is not relevant to an appeal or the complainant informs the parking operator that they do not wish it to be so handled."

That wording is clear. A complaint which includes an appeal against the validity of a parking charge remains a complaint, but must also be treated as an appeal. Civil Enforcement Ltd is not entitled to refuse to investigate the complaint, and it is not entitled to refuse to process the appeal.

Your repeated response that "all appeals must be made via our appeals portal" does not answer PPSCoP 11.2. The Code expressly deals with complaints which include appeals. It requires you to treat such complaints as appeals for the relevant timescales. It does not permit you to discard the complaint, ignore the appeal element, and force the keeper back through a defective portal.

Your online portal does not provide any applicable option for a registered keeper appeal based on no keeper liability, PoFA non-compliance, inadequate signage, lack of contract formation, lack of evidence, or failure to specify a period of parking. I will not select a false or misleading option simply to get through your process.

Your statement that the Parking Charge Notice was issued within 14 days is also irrelevant to the specific defect raised. The 14-day requirement is only one element of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. It does not make the Notice to Keeper fully compliant.

The specific defect is that the Notice to Keeper fails to specify the required "period of parking" under Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(a). The "From" and "To" times are merely ANPR entry and exit timestamps. They are not a period of parking.

Your own previous email confirmed that your ANPR cameras record vehicles entering and exiting the car park and are not designed to monitor movements within the car park. That confirms the evidential problem. Entry and exit images do not prove where the vehicle was parked, whether it was parked in breach of any displayed term, what signage was visible, or any actual period of parking.

The alleged breach is "Permit Holders Only". You have provided no evidence of the material signage, no evidence of the terms relied upon, no evidence of the vehicle's parked location, and no evidence that any contractual offer was made to and accepted by the driver. "Permit Holders Only" wording is, on its face, prohibitory rather than contractual.

For the avoidance of doubt, the driver has not been identified and will not be identified. There is no legal obligation to name the driver.

Civil Enforcement Ltd is now formally on notice that its failure to handle this matter correctly will be relied upon in any complaint to the BPA, any complaint concerning DVLA/KADOE compliance, any POPLA appeal, and any future court proceedings.

Civil Enforcement Ltd obtained keeper data from the DVLA for the purpose of pursuing a parking charge in accordance with the applicable rules and Code of Practice. Continuing to process that data while refusing to handle a formal complaint, refusing to apply PPSCoP 11.2, obstructing the appeal route, and continuing enforcement is disputed and will be raised as improper processing and unreasonable conduct.

You must now do all of the following:

1. handle the correspondence as a formal complaint;
   
2. also treat the complaint as an appeal under PPSCoP 11.2;
   
3. either cancel the Parking Charge Notice or issue a formal appeal rejection with a valid POPLA code; and
   
4. cease any escalation, debt recovery referral, or further enforcement activity while the complaint and appeal remain unresolved.
   

There is no legitimate third option in which Civil Enforcement Ltd ignores the complaint, refuses to process the appeal, disregards PPSCoP 11.2, and continues enforcement as if none of this correspondence exists.

Yours faithfully,

[Registered keeper's name]