NCP - Parked causing obstruction

mo_1

@ChirpyChicken is it literally just point 2 I should appeal on? ( The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge.)

I was basing my appeal on a POPLA victory involving NCP this was around 6-7 months ago. which also includes points around clear sings and landowner authority

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6607270/ncp-parked-in-incorrect-space/p2

Dear POPLA Adjudicator,

I am the registered keeper of vehicle xxxxx and am appealing a parking charge from NCP on the following points:

1. The Notice to keeper (NTK) is Not PoFA (Protection of Freedoms Act 2012) compliant due to the wording used.
2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge.

1. The Notice to keeper (NTK) is Not PoFA (Protection of Freedoms Act 2012) compliant due to the wording used.

Under schedule 4, paragraph 4 of the POFA, an operator can only establish the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of a vehicle if certain conditions are met as stated in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 & 12. National Car Parks have failed to fulfil the conditions which state that the keeper must be served with a compliant NTK in accordance with paragraph 9, which stipulates mandatory wording:-

"The notice must - (f) warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—

(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and

(ii) the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;"

The applicable section here is (ii) because the NTK does not state "the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid"

2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge.

In cases with a keeper appellant, yet no POFA 'keeper liability' to rely upon, POPLA must first consider whether they are confident that the Assessor knows who the driver is, based on the evidence received. No presumption can be made about liability whatsoever. A vehicle can be driven by any person (with the consent of the owner) as long as the driver is insured. There is no dispute that the driver was entitled to drive the car and I can confirm that they were, but I am exercising my right not to name that person.

In this case, no other party apart from an evidenced driver can be told to pay. As there has been no admission regarding who was driving, and no evidence has been produced, it has been held by POPLA on numerous occasions, that a parking charge cannot be enforced against a keeper without a valid NTK.

As the keeper of the vehicle, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. This applies regardless of when the first appeal was made and regardless of whether a purported 'NTK' was served or not, because the fact remains I am only appealing as the keeper and ONLY Schedule 4 of the POFA (or evidence of who was driving) can cause a keeper appellant to be deemed to be the liable party. The burden of proof rests with the Operator to show that (as an individual) I have personally not complied with terms in place on the land and show that I am personally liable for their parking charge. They cannot.

Furthermore, the vital matter of full compliance with the POFA was confirmed by parking law expert barrister, Henry Greenslade, the previous POPLA Lead Adjudicator, in 2015:

Understanding keeper liability'

There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

There is no 'reasonable presumption' in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.

'Therefore, no lawful right exists to pursue unpaid parking charges from myself as keeper of the vehicle, where an operator cannot transfer the liability for the charge using the POFA.

Car1980

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81871686#Comment_81871686

You can mention the fact no obstructive parking occurred because nothing was obstructed.

Ipso facto.

mo_1

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81872056#Comment_81872056

is that an obstruction?

ChirpyChicken

No there is zero need to add that

Stick to the pofa angle only

What you wrote was perfectly

mo_1

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81872124#Comment_81872124

Thanks @ChirpyChicken I will stick to just these points.

1. The Notice to keeper (NTK) is Not PoFA (Protection of Freedoms Act 2012) compliant due to the wording used.
2. The operator has not shown that the individual who it is pursuing is in fact the driver who may have been potentially liable for the charge.

mo_1

NCP have replied to POPLA and have sent me an evidence pack of over 30 pages. a few things I have picked up on:

1. The initial letter said

"is liable for a Parking Charge of £100. The charge having been incurred on
private land due to the following breach of the car park terms and conditions of use: Parked
causing an obstruction, and liability for the same having been brought to the attention of the driver
by clear signage in and around the car park ( Wolverhampton Summer Row ) at the time of parking.
The breach was observed during your parking session."

but then below they are making reference to payment? just to be clear payment was made online when entering the carpark.

2. Observed from observed to and total duration are 00:00:00

the other pages are photos of signs and site maps etc which I can upload if they of any use

Operator: National Car Parks Ltd
Recipient: POPLA - Case Evidence Team
POPLA Verification Code:
Details
PCN Number:
VRM:
Make:
Model:
Colour:
Date of Issue: 10/12/2025 09:57
Observed From: 30/11/-0001 00:00
Observed To: 30/11/-0001 00:00
Total Duration: 00:00:00

At the time this Parking Charge Notice was issued the above vehicles was parked in an NCP managed
parking area: Wolverhampton Summer Row. The Parking Charge Notice was issued for the following
breach of our contractual Terms and Conditions: Clause 5d “Parking Contraventions “and Clause 10a
“Ticket Types and Payment Methods”.

Motorist Details
Motorist Name:
Motorist Address:

National Car Park Ltd Statement

At the time this Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued the vehicle was parked as detailed above.

The evidence within this pack will illustrate beyond doubt that a clear breach of contractual Terms
and Conditions occurred and the PCN was in fact issued correctly.

The above vehicle was issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on private land.

The contravention was issued for parking outside of the bay markings. This is against the car parks
terms and conditions which is outlines a PCN may be issued for "Failure to park within wholly within
an authorised parking bay or are causing an obstruction" as the images supplied show the vehicle
was outside of those bay markings.

The amount being sought in regards to the Parking Charge Notice was clearly communicated to the
motorist by way at the entry to the car park and throughout the car park. If they considered the
charge to be excessive, they had the choice to reject it by either not parking or parking in accordance
with the terms and conditions. The amount being claimed is justified given the running costs of
managing our parking operation and is also in line with industry standards.

In relation to grace periods, Section 13.1 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice states
that, "The driver must have the chance to consider the Terms and Conditions before entering into the
‘parking contract’ with you. If, having had that opportunity, the driver decides not to park but chooses
to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable consideration period to leave, before
the driver can be bound by your parking contract. The amount of time in these instances will vary
dependent on site size and type but it must be minimum of 5 minutes."

Clause 5 - Paragraph 5d: “you pay all amounts due for your parking and comply with the
requirements set out at clause 10 (Ticket Types and Payment Methods) of these Terms. For the
avoidance of doubt, if you choose to pay the parking tariff by using the “Pay By Mobile” service,
the payment must be made at the time of parking your vehicle in the Car Park and in any event,
before you leave your vehicle in the Car Park.”

Clause 10 – Paragraph 10a: “you must purchase a parking ticket from the ticket machines at the Car
Park either with cash or a credit/debit card, before leaving your vehicle and ensure that the parking
ticket is clearly displayed in the windscreen of your vehicle."

It is the responsibility of every motorist to observe and comply with the Terms and Conditions of
which our facilities are managed under. By remaining within the confines of the car park the appellant
indicated their acceptance of our displayed conditions and equally accepted a PCN would be issued
for non - compliance.

To conclude the PCN has been issued correctly for a clear breach of the displayed conditions and NCP
have submitted sufficient evidence to support the enforcement of the notice. POPLA state decisions
will be based on the finding of fact: the facts are the appellant parked in clear breach of our displayed
Terms and Conditions and NCP trust POPLA will find no reasonable grounds to allow this appeal.

Parking Contraventions
5.1 It is important for the effective management of the Car Park that:

a) you comply with all signs in the Car Park, including these Terms
and the tariff board;

b) you park within the limits of a marked bay;

c) you do not park within a bay designated for a specific purpose
when you are not entitled to do so (for example, and without
limitation, parking in a space designated for disabled persons
without an appropriate disability badge displayed, and/or parking
in a space for electric vehicles when you are not using the
charging facility); and

d) you pay all amounts due for your parking and comply with the
requirements set out at clause 10 (Ticket Types and Payment
Methods) of these Terms. For the avoidance of doubt, if you
choose to pay the parking tariff by using the “Pay By Mobile”
service, the payment must be made at the time of parking your
vehicle in the Car Park and in any event, before you leave your
vehicle in the Car Park.

Ticket Types and Payment Methods
10.1 You must, depending on the payment methods available and in
operation at the specific Car Park (whether it is a multi-storey, surface
or underground site), pay the parking tariff using one of the following
methods (unless you have pre-booked in accordance with clause 10.3,
or you are Season Ticket Holder in which case clause 10.4 will apply):

a) “Pay & Display” – you must purchase a parking ticket from the
ticket machines at the Car Park either with cash or a credit/debit
card, before leaving your vehicle and ensure that the parking ticket
is clearly displayed in the windscreen of your vehicle; or

b) “Pay By Mobile” – you must register an account and use the “Pay
By Mobile” service provided by the relevant service provider in
accordance with its terms and conditions (information is available
at http://www.ncp.co.uk) and then (upon parking in the Car Park
and before leaving your vehicle in the Car Park) purchase the
amount of time for which you would like to park; or

Coupon-mad

I don't know why they bothered!

Car1980

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81872124#Comment_81872124

I hope you're not misplacing faith in Popla 😉

mo_1

Now i need to comment on the evidence provided, any suggestions of the best approach?

Nellymoser

You'll find help in NEWBIES POST 3 - SECOND STAGE APPEAL - POPLA OR IAS

scroll to - How can I comment on the evidence sent to POPLA, they've written a lot and shown lots of pictures of signs?!