DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 104196--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Parking Management Ltd (NPM) - No Permit - Jasmine
Way (Private Land), Rugby
DIR By: iiAdaaamV1
Date: December 31, 2025, 1:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> You seem to be under the impression that if this were to
progress to a county court claim that you would lose. As per the
MSE forum (where I also advise), the vast majority of claims
never reach a hearing as they are more likely to be struck out
or discontinued.
>
> NPM usually use the utterly incompetent Gladstones for their
claims and I can guarantee you that any claim issued by Gladrags
will be in breach of CPR 16.4(1)(a) which means it is highly
likely to be struck out, because of their failure to specify a
cause of action in the Particulars of Claim (PoC).
>
> According to GSV, as of July this year, there was no compliant
entrance sign to the private road which means that if any new
parking enforcement regime was introduced within the last 4
months, NPM were required not only to have an entrance sign that
complies with the requirements of the PPSCoP, but to also have
additional signs that highlight that there has been a material
change to any parking terms and conditions.
>
> I'm assuming you parked on Jasmine way to visit the businesses
on The Green and Main Street. Just because the street sign at
Jasmine way says it is private land, does not form a contract
with the driver and NPM. There must be a clear sign informing
drivers that they are entering private land that is controlled
nd to seek signs that contain the terms and conditions. Without
that, there is no contract formation with the driver.
>
> The double yellow lines are irrelevant to the Highway Code
when parked on private land. Any terms and conditions signs must
explain that parking is not permitted on DYL's and those terms
signs must be prominent and easy to find.
>
> Can you get any contemporaneous photos of an entrance sign and
any terms and conditions sign near where the driver parked?
(outside #1) Show us the other photos they claim they have on
their website.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thanks for the info - I’ll head out tomorrow and get some pics
of the area. I did manage to contact the estate agents who
represent the landowners (they wouldn’t give me the landowner
details), and they said the signs were installed “over a month
ago”.
Correct, both times were visits to the Post Office on Main
Street.
I can no longer get access to the other photos that they had of
the car and the driver, of which there were multiple. There was
one picture of one of the signs from their camera, but it’s much
too blurry in that photo to see the nitty gritty T&Cs.
#Post#: 104197--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Parking Management Ltd (NPM) - No Permit - Jasmine
Way (Private Land), Rugby
DIR By: b789
Date: December 31, 2025, 2:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
PPSCoP section 3.4 (my emphasis):
--- Quote ---
> 3.4. Material changes – notices
>
> Where there is any material change to any pre-existing terms
and conditions that would not be immediately apparent to a
driver entering controlled land that is or has been open for
public parking, the parking operator must place additional
(temporary) notices at the site entrance for a period of not
less than 4 months from the date of the change making it clear
that new terms and conditions/charges apply, such that regular
visitors who might be familiar with the old terms do not
inadvertently incur parking charges.
--- End Quote ---
That would a be a solid core item for ny defence if it were to
ever get that far.
#Post#: 104213--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Parking Management Ltd (NPM) - No Permit - Jasmine
Way (Private Land), Rugby
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: January 1, 2026, 2:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ignore
#Post#: 104267--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Parking Management Ltd (NPM) - No Permit - Jasmine
Way (Private Land), Rugby
DIR By: iiAdaaamV1
Date: January 2, 2026, 3:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> You seem to be under the impression that if this were to
progress to a county court claim that you would lose. As per the
MSE forum (where I also advise), the vast majority of claims
never reach a hearing as they are more likely to be struck out
or discontinued.
>
> NPM usually use the utterly incompetent Gladstones for their
claims and I can guarantee you that any claim issued by Gladrags
will be in breach of CPR 16.4(1)(a) which means it is highly
likely to be struck out, because of their failure to specify a
cause of action in the Particulars of Claim (PoC).
>
> According to GSV, as of July this year, there was no compliant
entrance sign to the private road which means that if any new
parking enforcement regime was introduced within the last 4
months, NPM were required not only to have an entrance sign that
complies with the requirements of the PPSCoP, but to also have
additional signs that highlight that there has been a material
change to any parking terms and conditions.
>
> I'm assuming you parked on Jasmine way to visit the businesses
on The Green and Main Street. Just because the street sign at
Jasmine way says it is private land, does not form a contract
with the driver and NPM. There must be a clear sign informing
drivers that they are entering private land that is controlled
nd to seek signs that contain the terms and conditions. Without
that, there is no contract formation with the driver.
>
> The double yellow lines are irrelevant to the Highway Code
when parked on private land. Any terms and conditions signs must
explain that parking is not permitted on DYL's and those terms
signs must be prominent and easy to find.
>
> Can you get any contemporaneous photos of an entrance sign and
any terms and conditions sign near where the driver parked?
(outside #1) Show us the other photos they claim they have on
their website.
>
--- End Quote ---
Just popped over and took some pictures of the area and signs:
HTML https://ibb.co/hR22yYKx
HTML https://ibb.co/3YPC6ckx
HTML https://ibb.co/N2nFsM8D
HTML https://ibb.co/bMXbpksx
HTML https://ibb.co/byRfhgy
HTML https://ibb.co/wZxDMh19
HTML https://ibb.co/9mBkFYkw
HTML https://ibb.co/RTD0JPgK
HTML https://ibb.co/sXMWk2D
#Post#: 104272--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Parking Management Ltd (NPM) - No Permit - Jasmine
Way (Private Land), Rugby
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: January 2, 2026, 3:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
When was the last time you parked there when you can be certain
that there were no parking restrictions?
#Post#: 104274--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Parking Management Ltd (NPM) - No Permit - Jasmine
Way (Private Land), Rugby
DIR By: iiAdaaamV1
Date: January 2, 2026, 4:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: InterCity125 link ---
>
> When was the last time you parked there when you can be
certain that there were no parking restrictions?
>
--- End Quote ---
Probably late summer… I can’t remember the exact time.
#Post#: 104349--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Parking Management Ltd (NPM) - No Permit - Jasmine
Way (Private Land), Rugby
DIR By: b789
Date: January 2, 2026, 2:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Based on the information and evidence available, the position is
as follows.
The entrance sign at Jasmine Way is compliant with the Private
Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). It clearly identifies
the land as private, states that parking on the roadway is not
permitted, and informs drivers that terms and conditions apply
within the controlled land. The signage meets the requirements
for an entrance sign and validly establishes that the area is
subject to parking control.
The terms signage within the land expressly prohibits parking on
the roadway and pavements at any time and states that a parking
charge applies for failure to comply with those terms. There is
no dispute that the vehicle was parked partially on the pavement
and on the roadway, and photographic evidence confirms this. The
location and conduct are not in dispute.
On that basis, and taken strictly as a matter of contract
formation and breach, the driver did breach a contractual term
displayed on the signage. The wording used on the Notice to
Keeper, “No Parking Permitted”, while imprecise, is
substantively consistent with the prohibition conveyed by the
signage at that location.
Accordingly, on the facts as they stand, with a PoFA compliant
NtK, the Keeper is more or less bang to rights on the issue of
breach of contract.
The only realistic avenue left to challenge liability on signage
grounds would be if the you can demonstrate that the signage
represents a material change to pre-existing terms and
conditions and that it had not been in place for at least four
months prior to the date of the alleged contravention. If the
signs were installed, replaced, or materially altered within
four months of the event, and no additional temporary entrance
notices were displayed as required by the Code of Practice, that
would undermine the operator’s reliance on the signage.
If the Keeper cannot establish that point, then on signage and
contractual breach alone, there is no meaningful defence.
#Post#: 104351--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Parking Management Ltd (NPM) - No Permit - Jasmine
Way (Private Land), Rugby
DIR By: iiAdaaamV1
Date: January 2, 2026, 2:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Based on the information and evidence available, the position
is as follows.
>
> The entrance sign at Jasmine Way is compliant with the Private
Parking Single Code of Practice (PPSCoP). It clearly identifies
the land as private, states that parking on the roadway is not
permitted, and informs drivers that terms and conditions apply
within the controlled land. The signage meets the requirements
for an entrance sign and validly establishes that the area is
subject to parking control.
>
> The terms signage within the land expressly prohibits parking
on the roadway and pavements at any time and states that a
parking charge applies for failure to comply with those terms.
There is no dispute that the vehicle was parked partially on the
pavement and on the roadway, and photographic evidence confirms
this. The location and conduct are not in dispute.
>
> On that basis, and taken strictly as a matter of contract
formation and breach, the driver did breach a contractual term
displayed on the signage. The wording used on the Notice to
Keeper, “No Parking Permitted”, while imprecise, is
substantively consistent with the prohibition conveyed by the
signage at that location.
>
> Accordingly, on the facts as they stand, with a PoFA compliant
NtK, the Keeper is more or less bang to rights on the issue of
breach of contract.
>
> The only realistic avenue left to challenge liability on
signage grounds would be if the you can demonstrate that the
signage represents a material change to pre-existing terms and
conditions and that it had not been in place for at least four
months prior to the date of the alleged contravention. If the
signs were installed, replaced, or materially altered within
four months of the event, and no additional temporary entrance
notices were displayed as required by the Code of Practice, that
would undermine the operator’s reliance on the signage.
>
> If the Keeper cannot establish that point, then on signage and
contractual breach alone, there is no meaningful defence.
>
--- End Quote ---
Apart from just giving anecdotal reasoning that the signs
weren’t there last time the car was parked with no hard evidence
whatsoever, looks like I’m paying the fine/s.
I really appreciate your time and analysis on this. Thanks.
#Post#: 104369--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Parking Management Ltd (NPM) - No Permit - Jasmine
Way (Private Land), Rugby
DIR By: b789
Date: January 2, 2026, 7:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
If "the last time you parked there" was less than four months
before the first PCN then you have a very good defence if you
want to fight it.
You are not paying a "fine". You are paying a speculative
invoice from an unregulated private parking firm, if that is
what you decide.
#Post#: 104462--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Parking Management Ltd (NPM) - No Permit - Jasmine
Way (Private Land), Rugby
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: January 4, 2026, 3:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You are probably in a much stronger position than you realise.
The change of parking rules (with the need for 4 months of
temporary signs) is a very strong defence and you should
definitely appeal on that basis.
You are quite entitled to ask the parking operator to state and
demonstrate that their signage was compliant during the initial
4 month period - given the dates provided I looks to me that it
was highly unlikely that the correct signage was present - the
dates are just too tight.
Remember, that during the appeals processes it is for the
operator to show compliance rather than for you to disprove it.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page