PCN x 2 from NCP

Nylamummy

Good evening, 

I have received 2 x PCN's from NCP for parking in their Bromley car par on 23/09/2025 and 24/09/2025 - it was an over-night stay, we nipped out for food, and therefore it has recorded us going in twice. 

I have the NCP app, last used on 23rd October 2023 - paid via autopay. Only used the app. three times, October and June 2023 - both autopay. Once in October 2024 via a barrier payment. 

Normally, I would drive into the car park, it would recognise my number plate on entrance and exit, and would deduct the amount from my bank account automatically. 

On receiving the first PCN - I contacted NCP on chat, and they confirmed that Autopay was ended in October 2023 - but couldn't give me an exact date. They said that all users were sent emails. I have checked as I never delete emails, and I did not receive an email, neither is there any mention of it on the app. On there app FAQ there is still mention of the autopay service - but nothing to say it has been disabled. I also used the service towards the end of October 2023 - the month they had ceased this service. 

I am putting together an appeal, would the below be sufficient? Many thanks in advance for taking the time to read this.

Dear NCP,

I am writing to appeal against the above Parking Charge Notice.

I am a registered NCP user and previously had an active Autopay account, which automatically billed me for prior visits to NCP sites. My last Autopay transaction was on 23 October 2023, showing that the feature was still working at that time.

After receiving this PCN, I contacted your online chat team, and your advisor confirmed that Autopay was discontinued in October 2023 and that users were notified by email. However:

• I never received any such notification;

• My last Autopay payment occurred in the same month the feature was ended, so I would reasonably have expected to be notified;

• Your app and FAQs still refer to Autopay, suggesting it remained available; and

• This was my first time parking at Bromley Mall, so I had no prior awareness of any change to the site or system.

I parked in good faith, fully expecting my Autopay account to record and bill my stay as usual. The failure to pay was caused solely by NCP’s discontinuation of the Autopay service without effective notice, not by any negligence or intent to avoid payment.

For these reasons, I request that this PCN be cancelled on the following grounds:

1. Inadequate and ineffective communication of the termination of the Autopay service;

2. Continued misleading references to Autopay in NCP’s app and FAQs;

3. A legitimate expectation, based on prior use, that Autopay would operate; and

4. The charge being unfair and disproportionate under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

Please confirm that this PCN has been cancelled. If not, please provide a POPLA verification code so I can escalate the matter to the independent adjudicator.

kryten3000

Are the notices POFA compliant?  Check carefully as if they're not you can kill them off.

If they are POFA compliant then there's no harm in telling them you were driving.

Coupon-mad

Nylamummy said:

Good evening, 

I have received 2 x PCN's from NCP for parking in their Bromley car par on 23/09/2025 and 24/09/2025 - it was an over-night stay, we nipped out for food, and therefore it has recorded us going in twice. 

I have the NCP app, last used on 23rd October 2023 - paid via autopay. Only used the app. three times, October and June 2023 - both autopay. Once in October 2024 via a barrier payment. 

Normally, I would drive into the car park, it would recognise my number plate on entrance and exit, and would deduct the amount from my bank account automatically. 

On receiving the first PCN - I contacted NCP on chat, and they confirmed that Autopay was ended in October 2023 - but couldn't give me an exact date. They said that all users were sent emails. I have checked as I never delete emails, and I did not receive an email, neither is there any mention of it on the app. On there app FAQ there is still mention of the autopay service - but nothing to say it has been disabled. I also used the service towards the end of October 2023 - the month they had ceased this service. 

I am putting together an appeal, would the below be sufficient? Many thanks in advance for taking the time to read this.

Dear NCP,

I am writing to appeal against the above Parking Charge Notice.

I am a registered NCP user and previously had an active Autopay account, which automatically billed me for prior visits to NCP sites. My last Autopay transaction was on 23 October 2023, showing that the feature was still working at that time.

After receiving this PCN, I contacted your online chat team, and your advisor confirmed that Autopay was discontinued in October 2023 and that users were notified by email. However:

• I never received any such notification;

• My last Autopay payment occurred in the same month the feature was ended, so I would reasonably have expected to be notified;

• Your app and FAQs still refer to Autopay, suggesting it remained available; and

• This was my first time parking at Bromley Mall, so I had no prior awareness of any change to the site or system.

I parked in good faith, fully expecting my Autopay account to record and bill my stay as usual. The failure to pay was caused solely by NCP’s discontinuation of the Autopay service without effective notice, not by any negligence or intent to avoid payment.

For these reasons, I request that this PCN be cancelled on the following grounds:

1. Inadequate and ineffective communication of the termination of the Autopay service;

2. Continued misleading references to Autopay in NCP’s app and FAQs;

3. A legitimate expectation, based on prior use, that Autopay would operate; and

4. The charge being unfair and disproportionate under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

Please confirm that this PCN has been cancelled. If not, please provide a POPLA verification code so I can escalate the matter to the independent adjudicator.

Why are you admitting to driving and binning the 100% winning point?

Nylamummy

Hello,

Would someone be kind enough to read over my defence and let me know your thoughts.

I stayed in an NCP car park next to my hotel for a 24 hour period - nipping out to get some food mid-stay for an hour or so. I relied (as I have done before) on the NCP App autopay feature - which normally just takes payment out of my account a few days later. Nothing was taken, so I contacted them to let them know that no payment had been taken - but they said that they had just issues 2 x pcn's and I should receive them within the next 5 days. They said that the autopay service was no longer in use - although it was still in the FAQ on their app, I had used it at the same time it had apparently been disabled without any issues in the past, no clear signage to show it was no longer working and no other communication received off them to advise this was no longer available (by app or email). I now have 2 PCN's totalling £340 that they are taking me to court for - even though they had previously offered to settle each at £20 - but i was only prepared to pay the cost of parking for 24 hours which was £10.40. I was upset that even though i had contacted them before receiving the PCN's they have refused my offer of payment and have continued to try to claim a ridiculous amount.

DEFENCE

Claim Number: XXXX
Claimant: National Car Parks Limited
Defendant: XXXXX

1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed, or at all.
   
2. The Defendant admits being the driver and keeper of vehicle registration XXXXX on the material dates and admits that the vehicle was parked at the Claimant's Bromley Mall car park on xx September 2025 and xx September 2025. The Defendant denies liability for Parking Charge Notices xxxxxx and xxxxxxx.
   
3. At all material times, the Defendant was a registered user of the Claimant's NCP App and had previously used the Claimant's AutoPay function successfully. The Defendant therefore reasonably believed that parking charges incurred at the site would be processed automatically, as had occurred on previous occasions.
   
4. The Claimant has asserted that AutoPay had been discontinued prior to the material dates. The Defendant did not receive any email notification, app notification, or other clear communication informing her that AutoPay had been withdrawn, disabled, or otherwise made unavailable. The Claimant is put to strict proof that adequate notice of any such change was given to this Defendant before the dates in question.
   
5. The Defendant had not parked at any NCP site in the period between her earlier successful use of AutoPay and the material dates and therefore had no reason or opportunity to discover any alleged change to that service through subsequent use.
   
6. The material events occurred during the course of one overnight stay at a hotel adjacent to the car park. Although there were two entry and exit cycles, these arose in the context of that overnight stay after the Defendant briefly left the site to obtain food and later returned. The Defendant reasonably believed that the applicable parking charges would be processed automatically via AutoPay and did not understand that separate manual payment action was allegedly required.
   
7. The Defendant does not recall seeing any clear and prominent signage at the entrance or within the car park stating:
   a. that AutoPay was unavailable, discontinued, or no longer operational;
   b. that motorists previously relying on AutoPay were required to take alternative steps to make payment; or
   c. that exiting and re-entering the car park during the same overnight stay would give rise to separate chargeable parking sessions.
   
8. The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof of:
   a. the signage in place at the material time;
   b. the wording of the terms relied upon;
   c. the prominence, legibility, and positioning of those terms; and
   d. the manner in which any alleged contractual terms were brought fairly and transparently to the attention of motorists.
   Despite the Defendant requesting evidence of the signage relied upon, the Claimant has not provided it.
   
9. The Defendant further relies on the fact that the Claimant's app and/or Help Centre continued to display references to AutoPay after the alleged discontinuation of that service. Those continuing references reinforced the Defendant's reasonable belief that AutoPay remained active. The Claimant is put to strict proof as to what information concerning AutoPay was displayed to users at the material time and whether any warning of discontinuation was clearly given.
   
10. On 10 October 2025, before receiving any Parking Charge Notice, the Defendant proactively contacted the Claimant after noticing that no payment had been taken. In that contact, the Defendant explained the circumstances of the overnight stay, the exit and re-entry, and her belief that AutoPay would process the parking charges automatically. That conduct was wholly inconsistent with any intention to avoid payment and demonstrated a genuine attempt to resolve the matter promptly and in good faith.
    
11. The Defendant subsequently appealed both Parking Charge Notices and later offered to pay the ordinary parking tariff that she had always intended to pay. Although the Claimant reduced the charges and reset the timescales, it refused to accept the ordinary tariff.
    
12. In the circumstances, the Defendant denies that any clear, fair, and transparent contractual liability for the sums claimed was created. The Claimant is put to strict proof of:
    a. the contractual terms relied upon;
    b. any notice allegedly given to the Defendant regarding AutoPay discontinuation;
    c. its authority from the landowner to manage the site, issue parking charges, and bring proceedings in its own name;
    d. the basis upon which two separate parking charges are said to arise in the circumstances pleaded; and
    e. the full legal and factual basis of the claim.
    
13. The Defendant says that the circumstances arose from a genuine and reasonable belief, induced or at least reinforced by the Claimant's own systems, past course of dealing, and lack of clear notice, that payment would be taken automatically. In those circumstances, the Defendant denies that the Parking Charge Notices are enforceable.
    
14. Further and in any event, the Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the sums claimed or to any additional sum at all. If, which is denied, the Court were to find that any liability exists, the Defendant says that recovery must be limited to such sums, if any, as are strictly recoverable under the Civil Procedure Rules. Any additional amount described as debt recovery costs, damages, administrative charges, or similar is denied as unrecoverable and as an attempt at double recovery.
    
15. Further or alternatively, the Defendant says that the terms now relied upon by the Claimant were not sufficiently transparent or prominent to be binding, particularly in light of the Defendant's reasonable reliance on AutoPay and the absence of clear notice of any material change to that service. The Defendant will rely, if necessary, on the court's duty to consider the fairness and transparency of consumer terms.
    
16. Alternatively, if the Court finds that any sum is due, the Defendant respectfully asks that any liability be limited to the ordinary parking tariff that would have been payable had the payment mechanism and relevant terms been communicated with reasonable clarity. That is the sum the Defendant always intended and attempted to pay.
    
17. The Defendant respectfully asks that the claim be dismissed.
    
18. If the claim is dismissed, the Defendant will seek such costs as are permissible under the Civil Procedure Rules, including any costs arising from unreasonable conduct, if appropriate.

Many thanks x

Vitor

This is a good factual defence, but I’d make it much shorter and more focused. The key point is not that you forgot to pay, but that you reasonably relied on NCP’s own AutoPay system, had used it before, were not clearly told it had been withdrawn, and even contacted NCP before receiving the PCNs when payment had not been taken.

I’d emphasise unclear notice, app/FAQ references to AutoPay, and deny the inflated add-ons as double recovery.

NB it does read as if it may have been AI-drafted: too polished, repetitive, and full of phrases like “strict proof”, “fair and transparent”, and “wholly inconsistent” repeated in a slightly formulaic way.

Gr1pr

Post the Issue date from the top right of the NCP claim form below

Which lawyers are involved. !

Post a redacted picture of the POC from the lower left of the claim form below after hiding the VRM details first

Ideally use the template defence in announcements near the top of the forum

Nylamummy

Thank you so much - yes, I wrote the main points and then put it in AI to write it more "professionally" - thanks again both

Nylamummy

ok, i have compiled another version after receiving your advice :-) The POC is issued by Moorside Legal Services on behalf of NCP car parks. The defence now doesn't detail any of my specific case - is that correct, should i wait to do that in the witness statement?

POC Issue Date: 21st May 2026

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM:

The Defendant(D) is indebted to the Claimant(C) for a Parking Charges issued to vehicle XXX XXX. 2. Charges were issued between 24/09/2025 and 25/09/2026 on land managed by C. 3. The vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms on Cs signs (the contract), thus incurring the charges. 4. The driver agreed to pay within 28 days but did not. D is liable as the driver or keeper. Despite requests, the charges remain unpaid and have escalated. AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS 1. £340.00 being the total of the PCNs.

Costs and Court fees. The claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year from 22/10/2025 to 19/05/2026 on £340.00 and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of £0.04.

DEFENCE:

1. The Claimant’s sparse case lacks specificity and does not comply with CPR 16.4, 16PD3 or 16PD7, failing to 'state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action'. Further, the Claimant has improperly added a false 'fee' or damages to the original Parking Charge (PC). This sum is not legally recoverable and constitutes an attempt at double recovery, which is unreasonable conduct under CPR 27.14(2)(g). The binding Supreme Court judgment in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 held that an £85 parking charge more than covered all the 'costs of enforcement' which HHJ Moloney had listed as the pre-action work of a DVLA look-up and a simple automated letter chain, including a LBC. The same heads of cost cannot lawfully be counted twice and interest should also be disallowed. Exaggerated claims for impermissible sums are good reason for judges to intervene and the court is invited to strike out the claim using its powers under CPR 3.4.

2. The allegation(s) are vague, and liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. The delay in bringing proceedings lies with the Claimant, making retrieving material evidence difficult, which is highly prejudicial. The Defendant has little knowledge of events, save as set out below and to admit that they were the registered keeper and driver.

3. With regards to the POC in question, two recent persuasive appeal judgments in Civil Enforcement Limited v Chan (Ref. E7GM9W44) and Car Park Management Service Ltd v Akande (Ref. K0DP5J30) would indicate the POC fails to comply with Civil Procedure Rule 16.4(1)(e) and Practice Direction Part 16.7.5. On the 15th August 2023, in the Chan case, HHJ Murch held: 'the particulars of the claim as filed and served did not set out the conduct which amounted to the breach in reliance upon which the claimant would be able to bring a claim for breach of contract'. The same is true in this case and the Defendant trusts that the Court should strike out the extant claim, using its powers pursuant to CPR 3.4. The second recent persuasive appeal judgment also held that typical private parking case POC (like this) fail to comply with Part 16. On the 10 May 2024, in CPMS v Akande, HHJ Evans held: 'Particulars of Claim have to set out the basic facts upon which a party relies in order to prove his or her claim'.

4. It is neither admitted nor denied that a term was breached but to form a contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration (absent in this case). The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (s71) mandates a 'test of fairness' duty on Courts and sets a high bar for prominence of terms and 'consumer notices'. Paying regard to Sch2 (examples 6, 10, 14 & 18), also s62 and the duties of fair, open dealing/good faith, the Defendant notes that this Claimant reportedly uses unclear (unfair) terms/notices. On the limited information given, this case looks no different. The Claimant is put to strict proof with contemporaneous photographs.

5. DVLA keeper data is only supplied on the basis of prior written landowner authority. The Claimant (an agent) is put to strict proof of their standing to sue and the terms, scope and dates of the landowner agreement, including the contract, updates, schedules and a map of the site boundary set by the landowner (not an unverified Google Maps aerial view).

6. To impose a PC, as well as a breach, there must be: (i) a strong 'legitimate interest' extending beyond compensation for loss, and (ii) 'adequate notice' (prominence) of the PC and any relevant obligation(s). None of which have been demonstrated. This PC is a penalty arising as a result of a 'concealed pitfall or trap', poor signs and covert surveillance, thus it is fully distinguished from Beavis.

7. Attention is drawn to:

(i) paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of Beavis (an £85 PC covered all costs and generated a huge profit shared with the landowner); the court should also read paragraph 3.4 of the original judgment by HHJ Moloney in Beavis, confirming what that authority means by 'costs of the operation', and

(ii) the binding judgment in ParkingEye v Somerfield Stores ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) which remains unaffected by Beavis and stands as the only parking case law that references costs abuse. HHJ Hegarty held in paras 419-428 (his judgment later ratified by the CoA) that 'costs' inflating a £75 PC (already increased from £37.50) to £135 were disproportionate to the very minor cost of a letter-chain and 'would appear to be penal'. The court should note that HHJ Moloney referenced this case in Beavis.

8. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act will curb rogue conduct by operators and debt recovery agents (DRAs). The Government launched a Public Consultation likely to herald a ban on double recovery 'fees', which the relevant 2022 Minister called ‘extorting money from motorists’. Both the previous and present Governments found that the high profits may be indicative of firms having too much control 'indicating that there is a market failure'.

9. Pursuant to Sch4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA') the claim exceeds the maximum sum and is unrecoverable: see Explanatory Note 221: 'The creditor may not make a claim against the keeper ... for more than the amount of the unpaid parking related charges as they stood when the notice to the driver was issued (para 4(5))'. There is no keeper liability for added false fees and the POFA specifically states that 'double recovery' is not allowed if a creditor uses any other remedy.

10. The Defendant seeks fixed costs (CPR 27.14) and a finding of unreasonable conduct and further costs (CPR 46.5). Parking cases now make up a third of all small claims which has overburdened HMCTS, causing the most CCJs of all sectors yet almost invariably discontinuing defended cases before hearings, which indicates a deliberate business model of systemic abuse and makes Claimants liable for costs (r.38.6(1)). Whilst this does not 'normally' apply to the small claims track (r.38.6(3)) the White Book has this annotation: 'Note that the normal rule as to costs does not apply if a claimant in a case allocated to the small claims track serves a notice of discontinuance although it might be contended that costs should be awarded if a party has behaved unreasonably (r.27.14(2)(dg))'.

11. The Defendant notes that National Car Parks Limited entered administration on 16 March 2026, with Joint Administrators appointed from PwC, and was therefore in administration when this claim was issued on 21 May 2026. On entering administration, the directors' powers to act on the company's behalf are suspended, and the conduct of litigation in the company's name falls to the Joint Administrators. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that the Joint Administrators have authorised the bringing and continuation of this claim and have expressly instructed Moorside Legal Services Ltd to pursue it on the company's behalf, failing which the Defendant invites the Court to find the claim is not properly constituted.

Is this ok to send - thank you?

Coupon-mad

Is this your date typo … or theirs?

"Charges were issued between 24/09/2025 and 25/09/2026"

Remove 'and driver' because NCP can rarely hold keepers liable so only admit to being the keeper.

Thus, change para 2 to this:

2. The allegation(s) are vague; £340 is thrown into boilerplate pleadings without even explaining how many parking charges are being pursued. Liability is denied for the sum claimed, or at all. The Defendant has little knowledge of events but admits that they were the registered keeper.The Claim fails to plead and specify any term/breach, thus the binding authority of Liberty Homes (Kent) Ltd v Rajakanthan & Ors [2022] EWHC 2201 (TCC) applies, where the High Court found the Particulars to be deficient and struck them out due to a lack of required detail.

Nylamummy

Thank you so so much!

Just to clarify - the exact details and reasoning for my specific case should be left for the witness statement not the defence, right? - in the generic POC they have said no attempt was made to pay, but I have evidence that I did try and pay the parking charge, proof of them offering me a deal at £20 per ticket, proof their app was not working?

Gr1pr

Thats correct, leave the stories and facts etc for your WS plus Exhibits bundle in several months time