Visitor Permit Parking Contract Condition Change without Notice to Residents

Mr_Faithful

Dear MSE Forum,

Any feedback on the PCN detailed below, would be greatly appreciated. 

Car park management company: NPC

Basis for appeal: A contractual condition change (length of stay for visitor permits) was not communicated to residents or regular visitors and was simply amended on the signs (Using stickers as shown in the attached image). It is unreasonable to expect long-term residents and their frequent visitors to scrutinize parking signage on every occasion.

Context: The car park is associated with my partner’s place of residence and I have been parking there as a visitor (with visitor permit) regularly without contravening its terms.

Do I have a case or is it not worth the headache? 

J

Coupon-mad

It is unreasonable to expect long-term residents and their frequent visitors to scrutinise parking signage on every occasion.

Totally agree and it's a breach of the Joint Code. There's a clause requiring additional prominent signs for 4 months, when terms change. Appeal on that basis.  

Car1980

The amended clauses have been relegated into the "difficult to read and only of secondary importance" category due to the smaller type size.

Inadequate signage.

Mr_Faithful

@Coupon-mad - which Joint Code are you referring to?

Mr_Faithful

Surprise, surprise - they have rejected my appeal.

Do we think this one is worth fighting for?

Coupon-mad

Mr_Faithful said:

@Coupon-mad - which Joint Code are you referring to?

The parking Joint Code.

All cases are worth fighting.

Johnersh

When the parking terms changed at my local Tesco, Horizon did a great job tbh. A large sign at the perimeter a free standing sign near the store entrance and on the entrance doors. That's how it's done.

Similarly, here, a sign on communal noticeboards or at the entry to the foyer of each block of flats for a period of weeks would easily have addressed this material change.

Mr_Faithful

To add to evidence of their predatory actions, I have just discovered that the signs in the adjacent car park (2 adjacent residential 'courts'), still show the original condition(s) in their vandalised state.

I have attached a satelite image showing the proximity of the adjacent car park and the aforementioned sign.

Does this change anything &/or add to my case?

Mr_Faithful

Update: Appeal to IAS rejected (obviously). What would now be the recommended course of action for me now? Simply wait for a court summons?

The contents of the IAS appeal are as follows;

Appeal

I am writing to formally appeal the parking charge issued by National Parking Control (NPC) on 10th May at 00:58 AM for exceeding the visitor permit duration at Central Walk, Bishops Stortford, CM23 3BE. This charge arises from changes in the parking conditions that were not properly communicated to residents or regular visitors.

Grounds for Appeal:

- Lack of Notice Regarding Contractual Change: My partner has resided at this location for 18 months, in which time I have parked bi-weekly in this car park without any indication that visitor parking was subject to a duration limit. The signage previously in place did not mention such a restriction. I have attached photographic evidence of the previous signage (Image A) which clearly demonstrates that the updated visitor parking conditions were introduced without adequate notice. Furthermore, the adjacent car park still displays the old signage (Image B.), reinforcing that the new conditions were neither consistently applied nor adequately communicated across the area.

- Non-Compliance with BPA Code of Practice (Clause 19.10): The British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice states: “Where there is a change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you must make these terms and conditions clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you must consider a transition to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes. Best practice would be the installation of additional/temporary signage at the entrance and throughout the site making it clear that new terms and conditions apply.” In this case, the parking operator failed to implement these measures. No additional or temporary signage was installed at the entrance or throughout the site to highlight the new terms and provide a 'transition period'. Additionally, the revised conditions were relegated to smaller text on the signage, making them difficult to read and effectively of secondary importance. This does not meet the best practice standards for ensuring the motorist is adequately informed.

Given the absence of proper notification and the failure to display the new terms in a clear, prominent or consistent manner, I respectfully request that this parking charge be cancelled and that the parking operator be encouraged to review their signage and communication methods. I have attached the relevant photographic evidence to support my appeal and am happy to provide any further information if required.
___

Operator' Prima Facie Case

The operator reported that...

The appellant was the driver.

The appellant was the keeper.

The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA..

A manual ticket was placed on the vehicle.

The ticket was issued on 10/05/2025.

The charge is based in Contract.

The operator made the following comments...

The appellant has exceeded the 24 hour maximum stay period.

The vehicle was observed for 24 hours and 46 minutes. Signage clearly states there is a maximum stay of 24 hours.

The signage is clear within the area and states the terms and conditions for parking.
___

Appealant Repsonse

The operator is presenting the current signage and its corresponding conditions as if they have remained unchanged, despite clear evidence to the contrary.

By failing to acknowledge the recent modifications to the parking terms displayed on the signage, the operator is attempting to circumvent their obligations under **Clause 19.10 of the BPA Code of Practice**. This clause explicitly states that where contractual changes impose new liabilities on motorists, operators must ensure these changes are clearly communicated. Furthermore, best practice requires **temporary signage at entrances and throughout the site** to alert regular users of the revised terms—steps which have demonstrably not been taken in this case.

As outlined in my initial appeal, the signage in this area has been in an ongoing state of flux, following a prolonged period of vandalism—an issue that remains evident in the adjacent car park (see Image . This demonstrates that the parking operator is actively updating signage **without implementing the necessary transitional measures**, thus failing to meet compliance standards. Any retrospective revisions placed over existing signage with altered terms should have been subject to the protections outlined in Clause 19.10 and should **continue to be applicable** when the adjacent car park's vandalised signs are eventually replaced or retrofitted.

Given these circumstances, the operator's insistence on liability is both unfair and inconsistent with the regulatory requirements governing responsible signage management. I request that this appeal be reconsidered in light of these fundamental failings in communication and compliance.

Umkomaas

It won't be a 'court summons', private parking is not a criminal offence. 

Await a Letter Of/Before Claim from the PPC's solicitors, or a County Court Claim via the Northampton CNBC, come back to this thread for further advice. 

To get ahead of the curve, you could prepare yourself by reading the NEWBIES FAQ Announcement, second post, and the Template Defence Announcement, both situated near the top of the forum thread list.