DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 102822--------------------------------------------------
Re: Napier Parking Ltd NTK - Late Mobile App Payment - Boston
Central Car Park
DIR By: b789
Date: December 17, 2025, 5:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The operator’s own signage makes clear that this is not a
“parking measured in a bay” regime. It states that the “duration
of stay” is calculated from the point of entry to the point of
exit, i.e. a “time on site” calculation derived from ANPR.
The Notice to Keeper mirrors this by providing only ANPR arrival
and departure timestamps and a calculated “time in car park”.
Despite that, the operator alleges “No valid parking session
detected” and purports to invoke Schedule 4 of PoFA to pursue
the keeper. This is a fundamental mismatch.
The operator is enforcing a camera-derived “time on site” metric
while dressing it up as “parking” in its paperwork. PoFA is
strict and requires a Notice to Keeper to specify a period of
parking. Entry/exit timestamps and “time in car park” are not a
stated period of parking, and re-labelling “time on site” as
“parking” does not cure that defect.
Accordingly, even if the operator contends a driver contract
exists on an entry-to-exit basis, the statutory conditions to
transfer liability to the keeper are not met and the operator is
limited to pursuing the driver, who has not been identified.
#Post#: 102957--------------------------------------------------
Re: Napier Parking Ltd NTK - Late Mobile App Payment - Boston
Central Car Park
DIR By: parkingfairy999
Date: December 17, 2025, 5:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=26]b789[/member] I reference the companies house
listing, as [member=636]jfollows[/member] comment on
NapieParking not caring if the fee is paid etc as they do not
receive the fee and they are authorised by the land owner to
pursue contraventions, but it seems they are the land owner and
parking operator.
Therefore receiving the normal fee for parking.
Apologies if I have misunderstood?
I am reading it as this is defendable should it go to court /
any further with the points raised. Thank you everyone for your
helpful insight.
#Post#: 102971--------------------------------------------------
Re: Napier Parking Ltd NTK - Late Mobile App Payment - Boston
Central Car Park
DIR By: b789
Date: December 18, 2025, 12:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Companies House/directors doesn’t prove anything that helps
either side. Whether Napier also has a connection to the land
doesn’t cure the PoFA problem.
The key issue remains that the sign sells ‘duration of stay’
(entry-to-exit) and the NTK only gives ANPR timestamps/‘time in
car park’ rather than specifying a ‘period of parking’ as
required by PoFA 9(2)(a).
If PoFA isn’t met, they can’t transfer liability to the keeper
and are limited to pursuing the driver (who hasn’t been
identified).
#Post#: 103094--------------------------------------------------
Re: Napier Parking Ltd NTK - Late Mobile App Payment - Boston
Central Car Park
DIR By: parkingfairy999
Date: December 18, 2025, 3:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Okay thank you
#Post#: 105446--------------------------------------------------
Re: Napier Parking Ltd NTK - Late Mobile App Payment - Boston
Central Car Park
DIR By: parkingfairy999
Date: January 11, 2026, 1:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I have appealed with the IAS stating the following exactly,
I appeal to the IAS on behalf of the registered keeper of
vehicle [] in respect of Parking Charge Notice [],
issued by Napier Parking Ltd (“the Operator”) for an alleged
contravention on 19/11/2025 at approximately 23:13. Liability is
denied in full. This appeal raises substantive issues of
contract formation, evidential sufficiency, landowner authority,
and compliance with the Private Parking Single Code of Practice
(“PPSCoP”) and established principles of contract law.
The burden of proof rests with the Operator. It must establish,
on the balance of probabilities: (i) the precise location and
circumstances of the alleged contravention; (ii) that clear
contractual terms were offered to the driver; (iii) that those
terms were capable of acceptance and were accepted; (iv) that
the charge is recoverable as a contractual sum rather than an
unenforceable penalty; and (v) that the Operator has proper
standing and landowner authority to contract with motorists and
pursue charges in its own name. Assertions unsupported by
evidence do not discharge this burden.
The Operator's handling of the initial appeal is relevant
background. The Operator rejected the appeal on the basis that
payment was made after exit, stating that “payment for parking
cannot be made retrospectively”, despite an explanation that
payment was made in full following a technical failure of the
payment app as soon as possible, with no intention to avoid
payment. The subsequent rejection is template in nature and does
not address the substantive issues raised. This is relevant
insofar as it demonstrates that key evidential and legal points
remain unanswered.
The rejection letter asserts that the vehicle was “parked in
breach of the clearly displayed Terms and Conditions of
Parking”. This is a conclusory statement and is insufficiently
particularised. The Operator has not identified: (a) the precise
boundary of the land said to constitute the site; (b) the exact
position of the vehicle; (c) the wording of the contractual term
allegedly breached; (d) the specific signage relied upon and its
location relative to the vehicle; (e) how the signage could have
been read and understood at the material time; or (f) evidence
demonstrating a defined period of parking.
The Operator must prove that the vehicle was parked for a
meaningful period. If reliance is placed on timestamped
photographs or ANPR data, strict proof is required that these
demonstrate more than momentary presence and show the vehicle
stationary in a manner meeting any definition of “parking”.
Parliament deliberately used the phrase “period of parking” in
Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(a) of the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012. Entry and exit timestamps alone do not evidence when, or
for how long, the vehicle was parked.
The Operator has not proven the exact location of the vehicle or
that it was on land within its authority. No boundary map or
site plan has been produced showing where controlled land begins
and ends, or distinguishing roadway, access routes, or parking
bays. This is a substantive issue. If the vehicle was on land
outside the Operator's remit, including highway land, there is
no cause of action.
Contract formation is further undermined by inadequate signage.
A parking charge is only enforceable if the contractual terms
were clearly brought to the driver's attention before any
alleged acceptance. This requires signage that is prominent,
legible, and positioned so a driver can read it in time to
decide whether to enter or stop. The alleged contravention
occurred at approximately 23:13 in November, in darkness and
adverse weather. The Operator has produced no evidence of
illumination, a weather report, reflectivity, font size, sign
orientation, or driver-eye visibility, nor any photographs
showing what the driver would have seen on approach. A general
assertion that signage is present is not evidence of effective
communication of terms.
In particular, the Operator must demonstrate that the parking
charge itself was prominently displayed. The Supreme Court
decision in ParkingEye v Beavis was fact-specific and turned on
unusually clear and prominent signage and a specific commercial
justification. It does not permit enforcement of charges based
on obscure or unreadable terms. In the absence of proof that the
charge was prominently displayed and legible at the material
time, the charge is unenforceable.
The Operator has also failed to evidence landowner authority as
required by PPSCoP Section 14. No contemporaneous written
authorisation has been produced defining the land, the scope of
enforcement, any permissions or exemptions, or authority to
issue and pursue charges in the Operator's own name. Without
such evidence, the Operator lacks standing.
The rejection letter does not meaningfully engage with the
substance of the appeal. It does not address signage adequacy,
site boundaries, landowner authority, night-time visibility, or
the distinction between parking and mere presence. A statement
that a PCN was “issued correctly” does not amount to a reasoned
response to these issues.
The Operator is put to strict proof that any evidence relied
upon is accurate, contemporaneous, correctly timestamped, and
contextual. Any photographs should show the vehicle's position
relative to bays or markings, the location and visibility of
signage, and what a driver would reasonably have seen at night.
Isolated close-ups without context are insufficient.
If the Operator seeks to rely on keeper liability under Schedule
4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, it must demonstrate
strict compliance with that Schedule. In the absence of such
compliance, there is no lawful basis to pursue the keeper.
Finally, the Operator's references to additional charges and
credit impact are noted. Any credit impact can only arise
following an unpaid court judgment. Template wording suggesting
otherwise is misleading and relevant to overall fairness.
For these reasons, the Operator has failed to prove contract
formation, standing, landowner authority, or that the vehicle
was parked for a defined period. The IAS is respectfully invited
to allow the appeal and direct cancellation of the PCN. In the
alternative, the IAS is invited to require the Operator to
produce the landowner contract, boundary map, full site plan
with signage locations, and contemporaneous night-time
photographs relied upon. In the absence of such evidence, the
appeal should be allowed.
The operator replied with -
The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 08/01/2026 10:24:17.
The operator reported that...
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 19/11/2025.
A response was received from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 14/11/2025.
The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.
The charge is based in Contract.
The operator made the following comments...
The vehicle entered our Pay and Display Boston Central Car Park,
which is operated by ANPR cameras. It is a requirement in this
car park to pay for the time required on arrival either at one
of the two pay stations or via the Pay by Phone service
advertised.
Our terms and conditions state that: ‘Vehicles must have a valid
session or permit for the duration of their stay' (please see
Operator Documents).
Our signs also state ‘Duration of stay is calculated from point
of entry to point of exit'. The time of entry and exit is time
stamped on the pictures (please see pictures ‘Entry' and
‘Exit').
Prior to issuing a Parking Charge we check our machine logs to
see if a payment has been made for the vehicle registration, we
also look for similar VRM entries in case an error was made
entering the data. A payment for 4 hours was made at 23:32 for
vehicle YG16WYD (please see ‘transaction log'), 19 minutes after
exiting the car park, subsequently a parking charge was issued.
For the adjudicators clarity, the appellants appeal appears to
be an online forum template that they have located.
In their appeal the appellant has states that the operator
rejected the appeal on the basis that payment was made after
exit, despite an explanation that payment was made in full
following a technical failure of the payment app. Please be
advised that we have no reported faults with the pay by phone
service for the day of the contravention and on checking our
transaction log, have located multiple successful transactions
made via this method (please see ‘transaction log'). The
appellant has not provided any evidence to support their appeal.
Whilst we appreciate that they may have struggled to purchase a
session via RingGo at the time of being in the car park, we
offer the ability to purchase parking sessions at our pay
stations located on site (please see pictures ‘pay station
example' and ‘pay station close up'), which the appellant could
have used.
We have clear signs at our entrance that state motorists are
required to pay on arrival (please see pictures ‘car park
entrance example' and ‘car park entrance sign example'), which
the appellant would have seen on entry. If for any reason the
appellant was unable to make payment on arrival, they should
have left the car park immediately. Although the appellant
purchased a 4-hour session, this was purchased 19 minutes after
they had left the car park and therefore was not valid.
Motorists are unable to pay for parking retrospectively.
In response to the appellants comments regarding the boundary of
the land and landowner authority, we refer you to our site map
which outlines the boundary of the car park and highlights all
locations of signage within the area. We can confirm we are
appointed to operate this car park, hence our presence on this
site. Our landowner contract is confidential, and we will not be
providing a copy at this time. The contract in question that is
important at this stage is the contract between us (as the
Creditor) and the driver. Evidence of our authority to operate
this land will be provided to a Court if required at the
appropriate time.
The appellant has stated that if reliance is placed on
timestamped photographs or ANPR data, proof is required to show
the vehicle stationary. Please be advised that this is an ANPR
camera-controlled car park, vehicles are captured by our cameras
on entry and exit of the car park, and these images are date and
time stamped. The appellants vehicle was seen entering the car
park at 19:40 and not leaving until 23:13, therefore remaining
within the car park for 3 hours and 32 minutes. Its therefore
reasonable to assume that the vehicle would have been parked
within the car park, due to the extended period of time they
remained within the location, without passing our entry/exit
area.
In their appeal the appellant states that there was inadequate
signage, a parking charge is only enforceable if the contractual
terms were bought to the drivers attention, which requires
signage that is prominent, legible and positioned so a driver
can read it. Please be advised that we ample signage located
throughout the car park to make motorists aware of the terms and
conditions within this location, and the tariff and charges, we
refer you to our site map which highlights the locations of all
our signs. Furthermore, we have clear entrance signage making
motorists aware that they are entering private land and are
required to pay on arrival, we also use reflective material on
our mandatory entrance signs, and signage is positioned where
vehicle headlights are likely to illuminate them (please see
pictures ‘car park entrance example' and ‘car park entrance sign
example'). We believe our signage would have been visible enough
to bring to the appellants attention that they were entering a
private car park, where terms and conditions applied.
In addition to this, our two pay stations are located directly
next to the entrance of the car park, which the appellant would
have passed on entry, and we believe would have been prominent
enough to be visible to the appellant on the day. By the
appellants own admission, in their original appeal, they stated
that upon arrival at the car park there were immediate attempts
to pay, therefore indicating that they were clearly aware this
was a pay and display car park and they were required to pay on
arrival. All our sites undergo an audit process before becoming
live, and we are satisfied that this site has passed audit
inspection. We are a part of the Accredited Operator Scheme with
the IPC, and our signs at this location are in accordance with
the IPC Code of Practice.
Our signage within the car park clearly states that duration of
stay is calculated from point of entry to point of exit, and
tariff and charges apply at all times every day. The onus was on
the appellant to ensure that they had a valid paid for parking
session prior to exiting the car park. As previously stated, if
for any reason they were unable to make payment, they should
have left the car park, however they remained parked for 3 hours
and 32 minutes. By entering and remaining within this car park,
for a substantial period of time, the appellant has entered a
contract by agreeing to the terms and conditions which are
clearly displayed.
We refer you to the IPC Code of Practice which details the
maximum that can be charged and good practice
HTML https://www.theipc.info/publications.
The appellant entered
private land; by entering and remaining in this car park the
appellant has agreed to the terms and conditions displayed,
alongside charges for breaching them.
Our signs advise motorists that there is a £100 charge for
breach of any Term or Condition, as the vehicle did not have a
valid session, the appellant was in breach of the Terms and
Conditions. We are satisfied that the parking charge has been
issued correctly.
Any advice? Thanks in Advance.
#Post#: 105449--------------------------------------------------
Re: Napier Parking Ltd NTK - Late Mobile App Payment - Boston
Central Car Park
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: January 11, 2026, 2:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You cannot appeal 'on behalf of the RK.'
You can only appeal 'as the registered keeper'
#Post#: 105736--------------------------------------------------
Re: Napier Parking Ltd NTK - Late Mobile App Payment - Boston
Central Car Park
DIR By: parkingfairy999
Date: January 13, 2026, 12:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Great point
#Post#: 105745--------------------------------------------------
Re: Napier Parking Ltd NTK - Late Mobile App Payment - Boston
Central Car Park
DIR By: parkingfairy999
Date: January 13, 2026, 1:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Please see below
[member=26]b789[/member] [member=636]jfollows[/member]
[member=103]DWMB2[/member] [member=75]mickR[/member]
[member=6750]InterCity125[/member] please review the below
image, mainly the bottom left paragraphs, does this eliminate
the arguement that the NTK is not PoFA compliant?
HTML https://ibb.co/TBNm4V4W
#Post#: 105799--------------------------------------------------
Re: Napier Parking Ltd NTK - Late Mobile App Payment - Boston
Central Car Park
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: January 14, 2026, 1:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: parkingfairy999 link ---
>
> Please see below
>
> [member=26]b789[/member] [member=636]jfollows[/member]
[member=103]DWMB2[/member] [member=75]mickR[/member]
[member=6750]InterCity125[/member] please review the below
image, mainly the bottom left paragraphs, does this eliminate
the arguement that the NTK is not PoFA compliant?
>
>
HTML https://ibb.co/TBNm4V4W
>
--- End Quote ---
You've redacted too much info.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page