PCN from NCP

MrPea

Hiya

I've had a PCN from NCP at our local station. I paid on the app, but looks like I paid for the off peak (paid at 10.50) having arrived within the peak time (8.47am). Claude has given me the following appeal, but just wanted to check it here!

Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to appeal against the above Parking Charge Notice issued on 7th April 2026 in respect of vehicle XXXXXXX at Audley End Station car park on 26th March 2026.

1. Payment was made via the car park's own advertised payment app
   NCP and Greater Anglia advertise PayTopark as the payment method for Audley End Station car park. On 26/03/2026, I paid £8.00 via PayTopark for vehicle XXXXXXX at Audley End. The app confirmed the location as Audley End, accepted the payment in full, and gave no warning, error or indication that the payment was insufficient or invalid. The vehicle did not exit until 20:52, meaning payment was made whilst the vehicle was still on site.
   It is contradictory and unreasonable for NCP to advertise and operate a payment app, accept a payment through that app without any warning or rejection, and then simultaneously issue a Parking Charge Notice against the same vehicle for the same day. The driver relied in good faith on the app accepting the payment as valid. This notice should not have been issued.
2. The charge is disproportionate in a paid car park
   This is a revenue-generating paid car park. NCP's actual financial loss, if any, is minimal. A £100 charge is wholly disproportionate to any loss suffered. NCP cannot rely on ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 — that case concerned a free car park where parking charges were the operator's only source of income. I rely instead on ParkingEye v Cargius (Wrexham County Court, A0JD1405, November 2014), in which a £100 charge was dismissed where payment had been made and any shortfall was a matter of pence. NCP cannot demonstrate the same commercial justification in a revenue-generating paid car park.
   I respectfully request that this Parking Charge Notice be cancelled. I attach screenshot evidence of the PayTopark payment as confirmation.
   Yours faithfully

Jame4ters

Have a read of the “Newbies” thread. That will give you a way forward

Castle

Could you post up a copy of the NTK please, (redacted as necessary).

Coupon-mad

Quite possibly it's not trying to hold you liable as keeper so whilst I quite like Claude as (arguably) the best of a bad AI bunch, it is a bit dumb of a virtual assistant to tell people to blab about who was driving!

Flipping heck, nobody does that… Even the new MSE Guide linked at the top of this page tells people the first & most basic premise: never imply who paid/parked.

MrPea

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81958933#Comment_81958933

MrPea

I put it in to resolvo, and it said that the "signage" on the app isn't clear as it doesn't state that the period of "1 day" starts from 10am, as something to put in to an appeal. Is this accurate?

(for completeness, this is what resolvo say to appeal with…)

Dear Sir/Madam,

The registered keeper challenges the above Parking Charge Notice. This appeal is made strictly in the capacity of the registered keeper. The driver is not identified and no inference should be drawn.

1) Evidence of payment – parking was paid for

A parking session was purchased for vehicle XXXXXXX for Audley End Station Car Park (803983) via the payment app. The keeper’s evidence shows £8.00 paid, with a paid parking period starting 26/03/2026 10:50 and expiring 27/03/2026 04:00. Screenshots/receipts are attached.

In these circumstances, the keeper disputes that a £100 charge is justified, particularly where payment was made for the vehicle at the location.

2) The payment journey did not clearly explain any tariff change or requirement for additional payment

The keeper has reviewed the app purchase journey (screenshots attached). When selecting “1 day”, the app displays a total price of £8.00 and an expiry time (04:00), but it does not clearly or prominently explain any tariff change, any specific definition of “day”, peak/off-peak pricing conditions, or that additional payment is required for any earlier period that the operator now alleges via ANPR.

If the operator’s case is that additional payment was required (for example due to a tariff boundary, a definition of “day”, or because the tariff must cover time from ANPR entry), the keeper requires strict proof that this was clearly and prominently communicated at the point of parking and during the payment process, and that the terms were transparent, unambiguous, and capable of being understood before a charge of £100 could be imposed.

3) ANPR entry/exit timestamps do not prove the actual period parked

The notice relies on ANPR entry/exit times. ANPR captures vehicles passing cameras, which is not necessarily the same as the actual period parked. The keeper puts the operator to strict proof of:

• ANPR accuracy, calibration, and data integrity for this event;
• compliance with the applicable requirements for ANPR and transparency; and
• that the time claimed represents the “period of parking” rather than merely entry/exit movements.

4) Request for cancellation or POPLA code

For the reasons above—particularly evidence of payment and the lack of clear app communication about any pricing change or additional requirement—the keeper respectfully requests that this Parking Charge Notice be cancelled.

If the operator does not cancel, the keeper requests a POPLA verification code so the matter can be referred to independent appeal. Please also provide, with any rejection:

• copies of all signage terms relied upon (entrance and on-site) as in place on 26/03/2026, with a sign location plan;
• the operator’s evidence pack including ANPR logs and images, and any payment/audit logs relied upon; and
• evidence of the operator’s authority to issue and pursue charges at this land.

Yours faithfully,
Registered Keeper

Attachments:

1. Proof of payment (£8.00) / parking session details for XXXXXXX
2. App screenshots showing “1 day” selection and £8.00 total for location 803983
3. Any payment confirmation (Google Pay/receipt), if available

Coupon-mad

I already told you how to appeal. Come on, that's clearly not POFA worded.

As such, that NTK is incapable of 'keeper liability' so stop using AI and whatever 'resolvo' is because BOTH bots completely missed the 100% winning appeal point!