NPC Residential Bay (7x PCNs!!) – Space Renter – Fallen Permit

mhuntcorp

Hi all,

I am seeking specific advice on handling a residential parking dispute with National Parking Control (NPC) involving 7 PCNs in total.

Key Facts:

• Location: Bruford Court, SE8 3BP (Private residential block).
• Operator: National Parking Control Group Ltd (NPC).
• Total PCNs: 7 separate notices issued across the following dates:
  • 15th, 16th, 17th August
  • 21st August
  • 26th, 27th, 28th August
    
• Usage Context: I do not live in the block, but we rent a parking space under a signed Parking Space Rental Agreement. We have a physical permit which fell off the windscreen. The vehicle is used infrequently (approx. once per week), which is why I didn't notice the fallen permit, it had been up a very long time and seems to have fallen off in the heat.
  
  Alleged Contravention: Failing to clearly display a valid permit / no permit visible.
  
  Lease Wording: My rental agreement (with a private individual landlord through parklet .co.uk) grants me a right to park there, but states: "The 'Tenant' agrees to display the permit clearly on their vehicle..."

Keeper/Driver: The Registered Keeper, and the tenant names on the rental agreement is my partner (who was not driving). I was the driver. Driver identity has NOT been disclosed to NPC, and no formal appeals have been submitted yet.

Documentation: All 7 NtKs use the exact same template. They look compliant with PoFA. Please see below for the PCNs, my lease agreement, the permit (now reattached!) and the sign.

Lease-Agreement-Updated-Parking-62-Bruford-Court-docx.png

PCN back.png

PCN front.png

Permit.jpg

Sign.jpg

Please could I have some advice about how best to tackle this? Am I done for or is there a realistic chance of having all 7 quashed. Also, should the Registered Keeper nominate me as the driver now for all 7 tickets? I am more than happy to go to court but I don't want the keeper to be bombarded with loads of letters and have to go to court for my problem.

mhuntcorp

By the way, I have enquired with the Landlord - they said its between me and NPC, nothing they can do

Car1980

The display of the permit clause is between you and the leaseholder, and just means he could in theory pursue you for some sort of recompense if you breached it (what that recompense might be I have no idea). But that's irrelevant to this.

1. What does the CPM contract say?
2. What does the lease say? This is the tricky bit. Best bet would be finding an owner occupier in the flats who would show you. Poster on a notice board asking for help. If there are granted rights over the space CPM would be powerless.
3. Show us the PCN as it might not be compliant.

mhuntcorp

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82132456#Comment_82132456

Thank you. The lease and PCN should be visible in my post attached 🙏

Car1980

Thanks, but that's the agreement between you and the space's lessee. I mean the lease that comes with the flat.

That's why it might be tricky and you would need to find another owner occupier if the person you pay won't let you see theirs.

Can't see anything wrong with the rest. But is there an entrance sign?

Obviously if the permit they supplied is faulty and comes off in the sun, that's down to them. How are you supposed to know it'll fall off after you've stuck it on and left?

GrumpyDil

Have you checked to see if the PCN is satisfied the POFA conditions?

MrJenkinsEsq

A contract cannot exist unless it is capable of acceptance. A driver who is outside the permitted class and has no means of obtaining a permit cannot accept the offer. Even if acceptance were possible, performance would not constitute breach, since the permit condition is one the driver is literally unable to satisfy. Either way, no contract is formed.

Under pofa, keeper liability is derivative of driver liability. Where the ppc cannot identify the driver, it cannot prove the driver had a permit (and failed to display it), and so cannot prove the driver was liable, and keeper liability falls away with it.

Woodstok2000

There are much wiser experts than me here, but it doesn't look fully POFA compliant.

Schedule 4 8(2)

(e) state that the creditor does not know both the
name of the driver and a current address for
service for the driver…..

I don't see that stated anywhere on the PCN - maybe I missed it. But if it's not there, does that mean keeper cannot be held liable?

EDIT: as @Coupon-mad noted below, this should be Schedule 4 (9)(2)e, not paragraph 8.

Coupon-mad

POFA para 8 is irrelevant. You didn't get any windscreen tickets so it's para 9 that applies.

I agree that wording is missing.

The keeper should appeal all 7 PCNs on that basis and mention that she wasn't driving and attach a pic of the permit.

She does that 7 times.

I would eke them out, appealing the earliest one today. Then the second one next week. Then the next a few days later, all seven done in time but with gaps of several days/a week in between each appeal.

The reason is not to make it obvious there's more than one being appealed. Softly, softly catchee monkey.

They should reply and reduce the PCNs to £20 each, not that I'd suggest you pay £140 but maybe consider paying the first one at £20 if it's offered and tell them you'll see them in court if they pursue more because there were not seven parking events. The car was left parked once (twice?) and you've paid £20 for the single parking event which is more than enough, given NPC should have affixed a timely windscreen notice on day one, to alert the driver fairly.

Instead they let seven PCNs accumulate then got DVLA data seven times which is both excessive data processing and unreasonable conduct and flies in the face of the CMA's reminder to the rogue parking sector this Summer, about open dealing and not using underhand methods designed to deliberately increase PCN issuance and cause consumer harm.

(Then come back & tell us how it's going).

mhuntcorp

@Coupon-mad Thank you for this advise, I have started this process.

I have also been back to the site to gather physical evidence on the signage. Here is what I found:

• 1. Entrance Area (No Standard Entrance Sign): Turning into the court, there is no dedicated entrance sign at the boundary establishing terms upon entering private land. The first sign encountered sits further down - it is a standard parking conditions board mounted just over 2 metres high (bottom edge) on a post.
• 2. Main Wall Repeater Sign: Positioned along the driveway wall as you enter, but obscured by tree foliage during the day and in deep shadow/unlit at night.
• 3. Sign Nearest the Parked Bay: Mounted at 2 metres high, but completely obscured from the driver's perspective when parked. Sitting in the driver's seat in that specific bay, there is zero line of sight to this board.
• 4. Streetlight Post Sign (Further along from parked bay): Mounted exceptionally high—well over 2 meters—on a streetlight post.
• 5. Hidden Wall Sign (Far end of car park): Tucked inside a narrow alcove completely blocked by a massive metal storage container, leaving it invisible from the main parking area.
• 6. Micro-Print Terms (Photo Attached): Across all 60x45cm boards, core secondary terms (DVLA lookup rights, late fees, indemnity charges) are printed in tiny ~1.5mm micro-print. Mounted between 2 and 3+ metres high, these terms are physically unreadable from ground level.

Are these criticisms legit/am I missing anything about the signs that could be further evidence in my favour?

Coupon-mad

"Are these criticisms legit"

Yes!

"Am I missing anything about the signs that could be further evidence in my favour?"

Can't see you've missed anything.