You only need to send a Data Rectification Notice (DRN) to the Data Protection Officer (DPO) at NPC. In the DRN you simply instruct them to update your current address for service and to erase any other addresses they may hold for you. The highlighted words are there for a reason, so use them.
Ignore any useless debt collector. You only need to instruct the creditor, which is NPC.
The Appellant should understand that the Adjudicator is not in a position to give legal advice to either of the parties but they are entitled to seek their own independent legal advice. The Adjudicator's role is to consider whether or not the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each individual case. In all Appeals the Adjudicator is bound by the relevant law applicable at the time and is only able to consider legal challenges and not factual mistakes nor extenuating or mitigating circumstances. Throughout this appeal the Operator has had the opportunity consider all points raised and could have conceded the appeal at any stage. The Adjudicator who deals with this Appeal is legally qualified and each case is dealt with according to their understanding of the law as it applies and the legal principles involved. A decision by an Adjudicator is not legally binding on an Appellant who is entitled to seek their own legal advice if they so wish.
The signage at this site is prominent, clear and unequivocal in its terms; this is private land where payment must be made to park.
The Appellant failed to pay for parking on this date. The evidence submitted shows previous payments for parking here on earlier dates, showing that the Appellant was aware that payment was required.
Having considered all the relevant issues raised, I am satisfied that the Appellant failed to pay for parking, the Appellant was aware that payment was required, and the operator has established that the Parking Charge was properly issued in accordance with the law.
This appeal therefore has to be dismissed.
Dear H,
Your timeframe to respond to the operator regarding the PCN detailed below has now expired. The contents of the appeal has been passed onto the adjudicator for their decision.
Parking Charge Number (PCN): ANPR283097
Vehicle Registration: ST61RZJ
The operator made their response on 02/10/2025 17:38:55.
The appellant was captured entering the car park at 11:46:27 and captured leaving at 12:05:25.
The Vehicle in question was parked in the car park without paying for their duration of stay. The screenshot uploaded shows the vehicle did not pay for their duration of stay.
There is pay by phone, cash, card and contactless available for payments.
We acknowledge the appellant's evidence they have submitted, they have paid for another site, enforced by Liverpool City Council rather than National Parking Control.
The RingGo code used for this site is displayed on our signage, throughout the site, please see images of signage attached.
Should a motorist still feel unsure, they can contact us directly on the number displayed on our signage.
1. Driver identity is denied. The operator’s statement that the appellant was the driver is false. There has been no admission. Put to strict proof. If relying on PoFA, they must prove Schedule 4 compliance without presuming driver identity.
2. Failure to pay is not made out. The driver paid promptly and in good faith using the PayByPhone app, selecting the location from the in-app map at the place of parking. The operator’s “no payment” assertion appears to be based only on their own RingGo/machine records for this site. That does not disprove payment. The contemporaneous PayByPhone receipt and map-pin evidence directly rebut “failure to pay”. The burden of proof is on the operator.
3. Payment information must be clear and prominent at the point of payment (PPSCoP 6.2 and 6.3). Where an operator restricts accepted payment methods (for example, RingGo only, cash, a specific location code), that is a core term and, under 6.2 and 6.3, it must be unmissable and legible at the earliest practical point and at the payment point. The operator has produced only three unreadable photos and no dated site plan. They have not proved that any RingGo-only requirement and the correct location code were clearly communicated such that a reasonable driver would not be misled, particularly where a national app’s map shows coverage at the location. In those circumstances, penalising a motorist who actually paid is not a proven breach.
4. Entrance sign non-compliance (PPSCoP 6.1). The entrance board provided (“Welcome to Myrtle Parade Pay and Display – Please see signage in the car park for terms and conditions”) does not state “Private Land” and does not warn of camera enforcement where ANPR is used. It is a generic welcome sign and fails 6.1’s clarity and conspicuity requirements.
5. Consideration and grace periods (PPSCoP 5.1 and 5.2). The operator relies on ANPR entry/exit timestamps. ANPR logs ingress/egress, not a period parked or the effect of the mandatory consideration and grace periods. The operator has not shown that any alleged non-payment extended beyond both 5.1 and 5.2.
6. Period of parking (PoFA Sch 4 para 9(2)(a)). Even if PoFA timing/content is otherwise asserted, the NTK and evidence must identify a period of parking rather than only entry/exit times. The operator has not demonstrated a period parked without payment, particularly where payment evidence exists.
7. Posting records (PPSCoP 8.1.2(d) Note 2). If they rely on posting dates they must show a postal operator or consolidator posting record, not merely a system “generated” timestamp.
8. Landowner authority (PPSCoP 14.1(a)–(j)). No contemporaneous, unredacted landowner agreement meeting the mandatory elements (landowner identity, boundary plan, scope and duration, enforcement and PCN powers, etc.) has been produced. Standing remains unproven.
Outcome sought: Given (a) payment was made and evidenced, (b) non-compliant entrance signage under 6.1, (c) no proof of prominent payment terms under 6.2/6.3, (d) failure to account for 5.1/5.2, (e) no demonstrated period of parking per PoFA 9(2)(a), (f) missing posting proof under 8.1.2(d) Note 2, and (g) no landowner authority under 14.1(a)–(j), the operator has not discharged its burden. The appeal should be allowed.
Operator's Prima Facie Case
The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 18/09/2025 12:00:57.
The operator reported that...
The appellant was the driver.
The appellant was the keeper.
The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA..
ANPR/CCTV was used.
The Notice to Keeper was sent on 23/07/2025.
A response was received from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 23/07/2025.
The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.
The charge is based in Contract.
The operator made the following comments...
The appellant was captured entering the car park at 11:46 and captured leaving at 12:05.
The Vehicle in question was parked in the car park without paying for their duration of stay. The screenshot uploaded shows the vehicle did not pay for their duration of stay.
There is pay by phone, cash, card and contactless available for payments.
The signage throughout is clear that you must pay for the whole duration of your stay.
In regards to the comments made by the appellant, please see photos of the signage on site, the NTK, the ANPR log and other payments made by other motorists at the time of the contravention.
I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.
As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. NPC has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. NPC have no hope should you try to litigate, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability for this parking charge and appeal in full.
The parking operator bears the burden of proof. It must establish that a contravention occurred, that a valid contract was formed between the operator and the driver, and that it has lawful authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) in its own name. I therefore require the operator to provide the following:1. Strict proof of clear, prominent, and adequate signage that was in place on the date in question, at the exact location of the alleged contravention. This must include a detailed site plan showing the placement of each sign and legible images of the signs in situ. The operator must demonstrate that signage was visible, legible, and compliant with the IPC Code of Practice that was valid at the time of the alleged contravention, including requirements relating to font size, positioning, and the communication of key terms.
2. Strict proof of a valid, contemporaneous contract or lease flowing from the landowner that authorises the operator to manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue legal action in its own name. I refer the operator and the IAS assessor to Section 14 of the PPSCoP (Relationship with Landowner), which clearly sets out mandatory minimum requirements that must be evidenced before any parking charge may be issued on controlled land.
In particular, Section 14.1(a)–(j) requires the operator to have in place written confirmation from the landowner which includes:• the identity of the landowner,
• a boundary map of the land to be managed,
• applicable byelaws,
• the duration and scope of authority granted,
• detailed parking terms and conditions including any specific permissions or exemptions,
• the means of issuing PCNs,
• responsibility for obtaining planning and advertising consents,
• and the operator’s obligations and appeal procedure under the Code.
These requirements are not optional. They are a condition precedent to issuing a PCN and bringing any associated action. Accordingly, I put the operator to strict proof of compliance with the entirety of Section 14 of the PPSCoP. Any document that contains redactions must not obscure the above conditions. The document must also be dated and signed by identifiable persons, with evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the parties to the agreement. The operator must provide an agreement showing clear authorisation from the landowner for this specific site.
3. Strict proof that the enforcement mechanism (e.g. ANPR or manual patrol) is reliable, synchronised, maintained, and calibrated regularly. The operator must prove the vehicle was present for the full duration alleged and not simply momentarily on site, potentially within a permitted consideration or grace period as defined by the PPSCoP.
4. Strict proof that the Notice to Keeper complies with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), if the operator is attempting to rely on keeper liability. Any failure to comply with the mandatory wording or timelines in Schedule 4 of PoFA renders keeper liability unenforceable.
5. Strict proof that the NtK was posted in time for it to have been given within the relevant period. The PPSCoP section 8.1.2(d) Note 2 requires that the operator must retain a record of the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice having been generated (e.g. the date that any third-party Mail Consolidator actually put it in the postal system.)
6. The IAS claims that its assessors are “qualified solicitors or barristers.” Yet there is no way to verify this. Decisions are unsigned, anonymised, and unpublished. There is no transparency, no register of assessors, and no way for a motorist to assess the legal credibility of the individual supposedly adjudicating their appeal. If the person reading this really is legally qualified, they will know that without strict proof of landowner authority (VCS v HMRC [2013] EWCA Civ 186), no claim can succeed. They will also know that clear and prominent signage is a prerequisite for contract formation (ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67), and that keeper liability under PoFA is only available where strict statutory conditions are met.
If the assessor chooses to overlook these legal requirements and accept vague assertions or redacted documents from the operator, that will speak for itself—and lend further weight to the growing concern that this appeals service is neither independent nor genuinely legally qualified.
In short, I dispute this charge in its entirety and require full evidence of compliance with the law, industry codes of practice, and basic contractual principles.