Can Napier Do This?

Herzlos

I'm assuming without a court order it's not enforceable anyway (not that a ban on the registered keeper is either; does the ban change ownership with the car, or does it only apply to individual who filed the appeal?)

On thinking about it more, it's maybe worth suggesting a whitelist instead:

Hi Napier,

I'm disappointed to hear about your threatened ban and will be discussing it with your clients. Assuming the ban is to reduce further losses from a defence of your baseless charges and not an act of petty revenge, then can I instead propose you whitelist my cars? That way you won't waste any more money and your clients will not lose any money.

Yours,
Blah.

BenefitMaster

Herzlos wrote: »

Assuming the ban is to reduce further losses from a defence of your baseless charges and not an act of petty revenge, then can I instead propose you whitelist my cars? That way you won't waste any more money and your clients will not lose any money.

Tis what ParkingEye et les autres appear to have done to my cars.

HB58

May I ask, what is 'whitelisting' please?

Computersaysno

HB58 wrote: »

May I ask, what is 'whitelisting' please?

the opposite of 'blacklisting'.


ie a 'good' list [of cars/people/websites/etc that ARE allowed; as opposed to a list that are NOT allowed


HTH

Herzlos

It's essentially a list of cars that won't be given tickets. I.e. how residents parking should be done, but is normally reserved for staff members and people who regularly get the tickets appealed.

HO87

Just come across this thread. My twopenneth:

Napier own or have a proprietary interest (probably by way of a lease) in their car parks. This is their standard operating procedure and the single most obvious thing that has differentiated them from other PPC's over the years. I would be surprised to discover that the same doesn't apply in this case. They have been acquiring land (for conversion to car parks) and existing car parks across southern England (from Dorset to East Anglia) for some years.

Such land has in the past been acquired or transferred into the ownership of a specific LLP of which generally a de Savary's company or individuals have an interest. Some of these companies now sport nominee directors. A good example of the ownership circle is the Jengers Mead car park in Billingshurst which is operated by Napier but owned by Jengers Mead Car Parking LLP of which the only two directors are the de Savary's - father and son.

As landowners they can exclude who they choose and having done so can require them to leave the land if they are discovered there in the future. If the trespasser declines to leave then they [Napier] are totally at liberty to use such force as is required to secure the trespasser's departure from the land. It is perfectly normal for the police to be summoned to ensure there isn't a breach of the peace - something that is almost inevitable, indeed unavoidable, when using force.

In answer to the question in the OP the inescapable reply is therefore a resounding "Yes". That said, the difficulties they may have in actually enforcing the decision is another matter altogether.

Computersaysno

Thanks HO87...what a lovely summary of the actual legal position as opposed to random speculation.

trisontana

Th OP has identified the actual car park on Napier's FB page. It's in Peterborough, and is North Street car park behind Beales Dept store.

BenefitMaster

trisontana wrote: »

Th OP has identified the actual car park on Napier's FB page. It's in Peterborough, and is North Street car park behind Beales Dept store.

And the signage that my man can read as he drives in says "this site is MANAGED by napier"

LR suggests it's owned by someone else entirely.

trisontana

Beales used to be "Westgate" and before that the CO-OP Department Store. I wonder who actually owns the car park and if it has anything to do with the store?