DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 84597--------------------------------------------------
NPC Parking Charge - Myrtle Parade, Liverpool
DIR By: ntown
Date: August 7, 2025, 8:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello I was the registered keeper of the car in question until
sometime in the past few days (the car was just part exchanged
for a new car).
This letter arrived in the post on either 31/07 or 01/08
The driver paid for parking using the paybyphone app (selecting
the location using the app's map) because they thought
paybyphone covers all parking in Liverpool. They did not notice
the signage that indicates you should pay by cash or using
ringgo.
Is there any point in trying to appeal this since there is some
evidence of it being an honest mistake or should the driver just
pay the £60? I believe the reduced amount offer expires
tomorrow.
Thanks,
H
#Post#: 84648--------------------------------------------------
Re: NPC Parking Charge - Myrtle Parade, Liverpool
DIR By: b789
Date: August 7, 2025, 1:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
If you follow the advice you won't be paying a penny to NPC.
However, it will be a long drawn out process that will go to a
county court claim, but as long as it is defended with the
advice you receive here, it will eventually be struck out or
discontinued.
It will all conclude in about 9-12+months. For now, simply
appeal with the following and when that is rejected, you can
appeal to the IAS too.
There is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient
of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the
unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.
The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which
means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot
transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the
known keeper.
Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove
anything from it:
--- Quote ---
> I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking
charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I
will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your
client landowner.
>
> As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL
the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper
of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even
substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no
admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions
can be drawn. NPC has relied on contract law allegations of
breach against the driver only.
>
> The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have
been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation
of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable.
NPC have no hope should you try to litigate, so you are urged to
save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
--- End Quote ---
When that is rejected, use the following as your IAS appeal:
--- Quote ---
> I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I deny any
liability for this parking charge and appeal in full.
>
> The parking operator bears the burden of proof. It must
establish that a contravention occurred, that a valid contract
was formed between the operator and the driver, and that it has
lawful authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices
(PCNs) in its own name. I therefore require the operator to
provide the following:
>
> [indent]1. Strict proof of clear, prominent, and adequate
signage that was in place on the date in question, at the exact
location of the alleged contravention. This must include a
detailed site plan showing the placement of each sign and
legible images of the signs in situ. The operator must
demonstrate that signage was visible, legible, and compliant
with the IPC Code of Practice that was valid at the time of the
alleged contravention, including requirements relating to font
size, positioning, and the communication of key terms.
>
> 2. Strict proof of a valid, contemporaneous contract or lease
flowing from the landowner that authorises the operator to
manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue legal action in its own
name. I refer the operator and the IAS assessor to Section 14 of
the PPSCoP (Relationship with Landowner), which clearly sets out
mandatory minimum requirements that must be evidenced before any
parking charge may be issued on controlled land.
>
> In particular, Section 14.1(a)–(j) requires the operator to
have in place written confirmation from the landowner which
includes:
>
> [indent]• the identity of the landowner,
> • a boundary map of the land to be managed,
> • applicable byelaws,
> • the duration and scope of authority granted,
> • detailed parking terms and conditions including any specific
permissions or exemptions,
> • the means of issuing PCNs,
> • responsibility for obtaining planning and advertising
consents,
> • and the operator’s obligations and appeal procedure under
the Code.[/indent]
>
> These requirements are not optional. They are a condition
precedent to issuing a PCN and bringing any associated action.
Accordingly, I put the operator to strict proof of compliance
with the entirety of Section 14 of the PPSCoP. Any document that
contains redactions must not obscure the above conditions. The
document must also be dated and signed by identifiable persons,
with evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the parties
to the agreement. The operator must provide an agreement showing
clear authorisation from the landowner for this specific site.
>
> 3. Strict proof that the enforcement mechanism (e.g. ANPR or
manual patrol) is reliable, synchronised, maintained, and
calibrated regularly. The operator must prove the vehicle was
present for the full duration alleged and not simply momentarily
on site, potentially within a permitted consideration or grace
period as defined by the PPSCoP.
>
> 4. Strict proof that the Notice to Keeper complies with the
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), if the operator is
attempting to rely on keeper liability. Any failure to comply
with the mandatory wording or timelines in Schedule 4 of PoFA
renders keeper liability unenforceable.
>
> 5. Strict proof that the NtK was posted in time for it to have
been given within the relevant period. The PPSCoP section
8.1.2(d) Note 2 requires that the operator must retain a record
of the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice
having been generated (e.g. the date that any third-party Mail
Consolidator actually put it in the postal system.)
>
> 6. The IAS claims that its assessors are “qualified solicitors
or barristers.” Yet there is no way to verify this. Decisions
are unsigned, anonymised, and unpublished. There is no
transparency, no register of assessors, and no way for a
motorist to assess the legal credibility of the individual
supposedly adjudicating their appeal. If the person reading this
really is legally qualified, they will know that without strict
proof of landowner authority (VCS v HMRC [2013] EWCA Civ 186),
no claim can succeed. They will also know that clear and
prominent signage is a prerequisite for contract formation
(ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67), and that keeper liability
under PoFA is only available where strict statutory conditions
are met.[/indent]
>
> If the assessor chooses to overlook these legal requirements
and accept vague assertions or redacted documents from the
operator, that will speak for itself—and lend further weight to
the growing concern that this appeals service is neither
independent nor genuinely legally qualified.
>
> In short, I dispute this charge in its entirety and require
full evidence of compliance with the law, industry codes of
practice, and basic contractual principles.
--- End Quote ---
After that is rejected, come back for further advice.
#Post#: 90850--------------------------------------------------
Re: NPC Parking Charge - Myrtle Parade, Liverpool
DIR By: ntown
Date: September 21, 2025, 12:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello the operator has made their prima facie case against my
IAS appeal. I have until 25/09/25 23:59 to make representations
or refer the case to arbitration.
--- Quote ---
>
> Operator's Prima Facie Case
> The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 18/09/2025
12:00:57.
> The operator reported that...
> The appellant was the driver.
> The appellant was the keeper.
> The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with
PoFA..
> ANPR/CCTV was used.
> The Notice to Keeper was sent on 23/07/2025.
> A response was received from the Notice to Keeper.
> The ticket was issued on 23/07/2025.
> The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.
> The charge is based in Contract.
>
> The operator made the following comments...
> The appellant was captured entering the car park at 11:46 and
captured leaving at 12:05.
>
> The Vehicle in question was parked in the car park without
paying for their duration of stay. The screenshot uploaded shows
the vehicle did not pay for their duration of stay.
>
> There is pay by phone, cash, card and contactless available
for payments.
>
> The signage throughout is clear that you must pay for the
whole duration of your stay.
>
> In regards to the comments made by the appellant, please see
photos of the signage on site, the NTK, the ANPR log and other
payments made by other motorists at the time of the
contravention.
>
--- End Quote ---
Here are their uploaded documents
ANPR
HTML https://i.ibb.co/bMdnSNzd/8141448-ANPR283097.jpg
HTML https://imgbb.com/
HTML https://i.ibb.co/VWQnQQKN/8141451-ANPR283097.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/VWQnQQKN
HTML https://i.ibb.co/S43KcMq6/8141445-ANPR283097.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/S43KcMq6
HTML https://i.ibb.co/b53tQFmT/8141454-ANPR283097.jpg
HTML https://imgbb.com/
HTML https://i.ibb.co/0j7k3zFW/ANPR-Log.png
HTML https://ibb.co/0j7k3zFW
Payment Logs
HTML https://i.ibb.co/jkx7rRrs/Other-payments-made-at-the-time-of-the-contravention.png
HTML https://ibb.co/jkx7rRrs
HTML https://i.ibb.co/5WfCtgxx/Payment-Log-for-ST61-RZJ.png
HTML https://ibb.co/5WfCtgxx
Signs
HTML https://i.ibb.co/gMkstbHm/Signs-2.png
HTML https://ibb.co/gMkstbHm
HTML https://i.ibb.co/9HSMRt9v/Signs-3.png
HTML https://ibb.co/9HSMRt9v
HTML https://i.ibb.co/TDvXb6D5/Signs-4.png
HTML https://ibb.co/TDvXb6D5
Screenshot of preloaded documents
HTML https://i.ibb.co/TBXy0BjB/operator-documents-pre-loaded-overview.png
HTML https://ibb.co/TBXy0BjB
Notice to Keeper
HTML https://i.ibb.co/Lwf55yb/notice-to-keeper-1.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/Lwf55yb<br
/>
HTML https://i.ibb.co/Ps8fKYdy/notice-to-keeper-2.jpg
HTML https://ibb.co/Ps8fKYdy
Please let me know if you need me to upload the preloaded
documents (site map / sign info etc.)
Thanks,
H
#Post#: 90867--------------------------------------------------
Re: NPC Parking Charge - Myrtle Parade, Liverpool
DIR By: b789
Date: September 21, 2025, 3:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
For what it's worth, you can respond to the operators prima
facie case with the following:
--- Quote ---
> 1. Driver identity is denied. The operator’s statement that
the appellant was the driver is false. There has been no
admission. Put to strict proof. If relying on PoFA, they must
prove Schedule 4 compliance without presuming driver identity.
>
> 2. Failure to pay is not made out. The driver paid promptly
and in good faith using the PayByPhone app, selecting the
location from the in-app map at the place of parking. The
operator’s “no payment” assertion appears to be based only on
their own RingGo/machine records for this site. That does not
disprove payment. The contemporaneous PayByPhone receipt and
map-pin evidence directly rebut “failure to pay”. The burden of
proof is on the operator.
>
> 3. Payment information must be clear and prominent at the
point of payment (PPSCoP 6.2 and 6.3). Where an operator
restricts accepted payment methods (for example, RingGo only,
cash, a specific location code), that is a core term and, under
6.2 and 6.3, it must be unmissable and legible at the earliest
practical point and at the payment point. The operator has
produced only three unreadable photos and no dated site plan.
They have not proved that any RingGo-only requirement and the
correct location code were clearly communicated such that a
reasonable driver would not be misled, particularly where a
national app’s map shows coverage at the location. In those
circumstances, penalising a motorist who actually paid is not a
proven breach.
>
> 4. Entrance sign non-compliance (PPSCoP 6.1). The entrance
board provided (“Welcome to Myrtle Parade Pay and Display –
Please see signage in the car park for terms and conditions”)
does not state “Private Land” and does not warn of camera
enforcement where ANPR is used. It is a generic welcome sign and
fails 6.1’s clarity and conspicuity requirements.
>
> 5. Consideration and grace periods (PPSCoP 5.1 and 5.2). The
operator relies on ANPR entry/exit timestamps. ANPR logs
ingress/egress, not a period parked or the effect of the
mandatory consideration and grace periods. The operator has not
shown that any alleged non-payment extended beyond both 5.1 and
5.2.
>
> 6. Period of parking (PoFA Sch 4 para 9(2)(a)). Even if PoFA
timing/content is otherwise asserted, the NTK and evidence must
identify a period of parking rather than only entry/exit times.
The operator has not demonstrated a period parked without
payment, particularly where payment evidence exists.
>
> 7. Posting records (PPSCoP 8.1.2(d) Note 2). If they rely on
posting dates they must show a postal operator or consolidator
posting record, not merely a system “generated” timestamp.
>
> 8. Landowner authority (PPSCoP 14.1(a)–(j)). No
contemporaneous, unredacted landowner agreement meeting the
mandatory elements (landowner identity, boundary plan, scope and
duration, enforcement and PCN powers, etc.) has been produced.
Standing remains unproven.
>
> Outcome sought: Given (a) payment was made and evidenced, (b)
non-compliant entrance signage under 6.1, (c) no proof of
prominent payment terms under 6.2/6.3, (d) failure to account
for 5.1/5.2, (e) no demonstrated period of parking per PoFA
9(2)(a), (f) missing posting proof under 8.1.2(d) Note 2, and
(g) no landowner authority under 14.1(a)–(j), the operator has
not discharged its burden. The appeal should be allowed.
--- End Quote ---
If/when the appeal is rejected, do not pay anything. It is not
binding on you. No one pays NPC id they continue to follow the
advice.
#Post#: 91493--------------------------------------------------
Re: NPC Parking Charge - Myrtle Parade, Liverpool
DIR By: ntown
Date: September 25, 2025, 10:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for this. Should I leave the reference id and receipt
number in the paybyphone receipt screenshot? I am asking because
I am not sure if they have avenues to link that to a payer and
if so whether that even matters.
#Post#: 91505--------------------------------------------------
Re: NPC Parking Charge - Myrtle Parade, Liverpool
DIR By: b789
Date: September 25, 2025, 10:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
These private parking firms issue over 40,000 PCNs a day. Do you
honestly think they have the time other than resources to scour
the internet trying to find any one particular claim to... do
what?
#Post#: 91519--------------------------------------------------
Re: NPC Parking Charge - Myrtle Parade, Liverpool
DIR By: ntown
Date: September 25, 2025, 11:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you I have sent the response and additional evidence.
#Post#: 92605--------------------------------------------------
Re: NPC Parking Charge - Myrtle Parade, Liverpool
DIR By: ntown
Date: October 2, 2025, 11:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
They have replied with:
--- Quote ---
> The operator made their response on 02/10/2025 17:38:55.
>
> The appellant was captured entering the car park at 11:46:27
and captured leaving at 12:05:25.
>
> The Vehicle in question was parked in the car park without
paying for their duration of stay. The screenshot uploaded shows
the vehicle did not pay for their duration of stay.
>
> There is pay by phone, cash, card and contactless available
for payments.
>
> We acknowledge the appellant's evidence they have submitted,
they have paid for another site, enforced by Liverpool City
Council rather than National Parking Control.
>
> The RingGo code used for this site is displayed on our
signage, throughout the site, please see images of signage
attached.
>
> Should a motorist still feel unsure, they can contact us
directly on the number displayed on our signage.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 93630--------------------------------------------------
Re: NPC Parking Charge - Myrtle Parade, Liverpool
DIR By: ntown
Date: October 10, 2025, 11:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I now have received:
--- Quote ---
>
> Dear H,
>
> Your timeframe to respond to the operator regarding the PCN
detailed below has now expired. The contents of the appeal has
been passed onto the adjudicator for their decision.
>
> Parking Charge Number (PCN): ANPR283097
> Vehicle Registration: ST61RZJ
>
--- End Quote ---
What typically happens next?
#Post#: 100441--------------------------------------------------
Re: NPC Parking Charge - Myrtle Parade, Liverpool
DIR By: ntown
Date: December 1, 2025, 12:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This was the IAS decision on 26 October and I have heard nothing
since...
--- Quote ---
> The Appellant should understand that the Adjudicator is not in
a position to give legal advice to either of the parties but
they are entitled to seek their own independent legal advice.
The Adjudicator's role is to consider whether or not the parking
charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the
circumstances of each individual case. In all Appeals the
Adjudicator is bound by the relevant law applicable at the time
and is only able to consider legal challenges and not factual
mistakes nor extenuating or mitigating circumstances. Throughout
this appeal the Operator has had the opportunity consider all
points raised and could have conceded the appeal at any stage.
The Adjudicator who deals with this Appeal is legally qualified
and each case is dealt with according to their understanding of
the law as it applies and the legal principles involved. A
decision by an Adjudicator is not legally binding on an
Appellant who is entitled to seek their own legal advice if they
so wish.
> The signage at this site is prominent, clear and unequivocal
in its terms; this is private land where payment must be made to
park.
> The Appellant failed to pay for parking on this date. The
evidence submitted shows previous payments for parking here on
earlier dates, showing that the Appellant was aware that payment
was required.
> Having considered all the relevant issues raised, I am
satisfied that the Appellant failed to pay for parking, the
Appellant was aware that payment was required, and the operator
has established that the Parking Charge was properly issued in
accordance with the law.
> This appeal therefore has to be dismissed.
>
--- End Quote ---
It's been a while now, do these sometimes just fizzle out?
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 3
DIR Next Page