Subject: Final Notice – Outstanding Complaint (No Response)
Dear [Name],
I refer to my email of 21 October headed “Clarification and Correction – Cancellation of All PCNs”. You were asked to provide a formal response within 14 days. None has been received. Your 14-day deadline has expired with no formal response.
This silence constitutes a failure to address a formal complaint. Please confirm your redress scheme (TPO or PRS) and membership number, and whether the landlord is a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.
Absent a full written response within 7 days, I will escalate my unresolved complaint to the appropriate Ombudsman/redress scheme and to the ICO. This includes the unlawful interference with tenancy rights (derogation from grant/quiet enjoyment) and the unlawful processing of my personal data by your contractor under Article 6(1)(f) UK GDPR.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
[Tenancy ref / VRM(s)]
Re: Parking Charge Notice [reference number] — Denial of Liability and Notification of Temporary Overseas Address
For the Attention of the Data Protection Officer
Napier Parking Limited
To: dpo@napierparking.co.uk
cc: services@napierparking.co.uk
Dear Sirs,
I write as the registered keeper of the above-referenced vehicle. I deny any liability for the alleged parking charge and reject any suggestion that a valid contract was formed or that any debt exists.
If you intend to pursue litigation, you are hereby placed on formal notice that I will be residing outside the jurisdiction of England and Wales between [Date 1] and [Date 2] (inclusive). In accordance with CPR 6.8(1), I hereby nominate the following address for service for that period:
[Full overseas address]
Should you wish to issue proceedings, you may do so by serving the claim form to the above address between those dates. Alternatively, you may wait until after [Date 2] and serve any such documents at my usual English address, which will resume validity for service upon my return.
You are expressly warned that any attempt to serve proceedings to my English address between [Date 1] and [Date 2], despite this notice, will be treated as defective service within the meaning of CPR 6.9(3), as you will have been informed that the address is not my current or last known residence. Any default judgment so obtained would be immediately challenged and set aside under CPR 13.2 and/or 13.3, with a concurrent application for costs and sanctions under CPR 27.14(2)(g), CPR 3.4(2)(b) and CPR 44.11 for unreasonable conduct and abuse of process.
Furthermore, any attempt to pass the alleged debt to a third-party debt recovery agent for contact or correspondence at my English address between [Date 1] and [Date 2] will be treated as unnecessary, vexatious, and contrary to the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR), given that you will have been explicitly informed that I am not resident there. Any such processing or disclosure of my personal data during that period would amount to a breach of Article 5(1)(a) and (b) of the UK GDPR, and I will not hesitate to pursue a formal complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office and/or seek damages for unlawful processing under Article 82.
This correspondence puts you squarely on notice of the above. You are expected to update all internal and third-party records to reflect the temporary service address and to ensure full compliance with the Civil Procedure Rules and data protection law.
For the avoidance of doubt, this letter does not constitute an admission of liability, nor does it create or acknowledge any contractual obligation to Napier Parking Limited or its agents. All rights are reserved.
Please confirm in writing that your records have been updated and that you will neither serve nor instruct any third party to contact my English address between [Date 1] and [Date 2].
Yours faithfully,
[Full Name of Keeper]
[Usual English Address]
will they know that I have moved and send to the correct address?No, if you move, you must send a Data Rectification Notice to their data protection officer advising them of your new address.
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability for this parking charge and appeal in full.
My tenancy contains no requirement to display a permit or submit to any third-party enforcement scheme. Accordingly, no Parking Charge Notices should ever have been issued to me for using the resident-only gated parking provided with my tenancy.
Imposing a third-party permit scheme over resident parking amounts to derogation from grant and interferes with quiet enjoyment in a residential context (see Jopson v Homeguard). The operator must show the tenancy incorporates any ‘estate regulations’ or permit terms; it does not.
The location is a gated access by resident fob/remote, which confirms this is tenant amenity, not a public car park.
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.
For the avoidance of doubt, the operator must also show that any ‘estate regulations’ or permit terms are expressly incorporated into my tenancy. They are not.
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. I note IAS decisions are anonymised and unpublished. Regardless, the outcome here turns on evidence: no incorporation into the tenancy, strict proof of landowner authority, clear signage, and (if alleged) strict PoFA compliance.
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.
How much of a chance would I have to successfully appeal with IAS? It seems like they are just a corrupt organisation tied to the parking companies…
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability for this parking charge and appeal in full.
My tenancy contains no requirement to display a permit or submit to any third-party enforcement scheme. Accordingly, no Parking Charge Notices should ever have been issued to me for using the resident-only gated parking provided with my tenancy.
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.
Re: Parking Charge Number WL9551849 (Vehicle VRM: G26XXX)
Site: Beaufort Park
Issue date: 15/10/2025
Contravention Date and Time: 13/10/2025 at 15:34:22
Thank you for your appeal received on 18/10/2025 regarding the above detailed Parking Charge.
We have reviewed the case and considered the comments that you have made, together with the evidence that
we are holding. Our records show that the notice was correctly issued as your vehicle was parked in breach of the
clearly displayed Terms and Conditions of Parking.
It is the drivers responsibility to ensure they have allocated the correct VRM to their permit when making use of the
parking area. Your vehicle did not have a valid permit at the time of the contravention due to your permit being
registered to the incorrect VRM.
We are therefore unable to cancel the Charge as it was issued correctly, however In accordance with the Private
Parking Single Code of Practice, we would like to offer you a reduced settlement rate. Your options now are as
follows;
- Pay the Parking Charge at the rate of £20.00 by 10/11/2025. We must advise you that once this settlement rate
passes it may not be offered again or further extended. If 14 days passes the full amount of £100.00 is payable by
24/11/2025. Payment options are contained later in this document.
You have now reached the end of our internal appeals procedure.
PLEASE DO NOT PAY THE CHARGE IF YOU WISH TO APPEAL FURTHER. PAYMENTS ARE ACCEPTED IN
FULL AND FINAL SETTLEMENT.
- Make an appeal to the IAS - The Independent Appeals Service (www.theIAS.org) provides an Alternative
Dispute Resolution scheme for disputes of this type. As you have complied with our internal appeals
procedure you may use, and we will engage with, the IAS Standard Appeals Service providing you lodge
an appeal to them within 28 days of this rejection.
PLEASE NOTE that if you wish to appeal to the IAS, you will lose the right to pay the charge at the
discounted settlement rate (if a discounted settlement rate has been re-offered), and should your appeal
be rejected by the IAS you will be required to pay the FULL charge.
PAYMENT OPTIONS:
- Please call 0845 452 45 37 and follow the instructions given (Calls are chargeable at the standard local rate plus
your network providers charge. Please note your mobile network provider may charge more than landline
Companies).
- Payments can also be made online by visiting www.napierparking.co.uk.
- Postal payments to: Napier Parking Ltd, Atterbury Lakes, Fairbourne Drive, Atterbury, Milton Keynes, MK10
9RG. Please ensure you write your Parking Charge number and vehicle registration number clearly on the
reverse. Please do not send cash through the post. If you are using the postal service to send payments we would
advise that you send the payment by a recorded/registered form of mail to ensure delivery.
In accordance with our Terms and Conditions, non-payment will result in additional charges/costs. An amount of
up to £70 may be added to the value of the Charge should this not be settled within the period stipulated. Payment
of this Charge may be pursued by Napier Parking through legal means, including the courts, which may result in
you incurring additional costs if unpaid.
Yours sincerely,
Appeals Department
Napier Parking Ltd.
Please find attached clear copies of all PCNs issued to my vehicle(s). This is provided without admission and under protest to assist your investigation.
The primary position is that my tenancy contains no permit requirement and no authority for third-party enforcement; therefore no PCN should ever have been issued. In the alternative, by your own records my VRM was updated at 22:18 on 13/10/2025; any PCN after that timestamp is facially invalid even on your case.
This remains a formal complaint. Please acknowledge receipt and confirm that the 14-day response period continues to run notwithstanding staff leave.
For me to look further into the Reason for Issue of any PCN’s issued to G23XXX after the vehicle change application was approved on 13/10/25 @ 22:18, please provide a clear copy of each notice showing the Date & Time of the incident, the VRM and the Reason for Issue.and send them the PCNs after 13/10/2025? Or should I just throw all at them. Or I should just wait and send them nothing?
Subject: Clarification and Correction – Cancellation of All PCNs
Dear [Name],
Further to my earlier email, please note the following correction and clarification.
My tenancy contains no requirement to display a permit or submit to any third-party enforcement scheme. Accordingly, no Parking Charge Notices should ever have been issued to me for using the resident-only gated parking provided with my tenancy. My demand is for the cancellation of all PCNs issued to my vehicle(s), past and present, with written confirmation.
For the avoidance of doubt, any reference to 13 October 2025 at 22:18 was advanced only in the alternative and does not concede that a permit is required or that any PCN prior to that time was valid. Even on your own case, any PCNs after that timestamp are facially invalid by your records; however, my primary position remains that none of the PCNs are lawful.
Please confirm within 14 days that:1. You have instructed Napier to cancel all PCNs issued to my vehicle(s) and to erase my personal data from their systems; and
2. You will not make my contractual parking rights conditional on any third-party enforcement scheme.
This remains a formal complaint. I expect a formal written response addressing each point.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
[Tenancy ref / VRM(s)]
Yes, I do understand all PCNs shall be cancelled so I was just wondering why were this specified to be after 13/10/2025 @ 22:18
Accordingly, please confirm within 14 days:1. That you have instructed Napier to cancel all PCNs issued to my vehicle after 13 October 2025 @ 22:18;
I have just realised all PCNs that I have received were before 13 Oct 22:00 so I'm not quite sure what those were for.
Subject: Re: Formal Complaint – Unlawful Parking Charges
Dear [Name],
Thank you for your response.
Your email appears to misunderstand the basis of my complaint. This is not a request for you to “intervene” in Napier’s ticketing system — it is a formal challenge to the lawfulness of authorising an unregulated private parking company to issue speculative invoices to lawful residents exercising rights granted under their tenancy.
The managing agent acts on behalf of the landowner and has appointed Napier to operate on the estate. You are therefore jointly responsible for Napier’s conduct. Whether you personally “access their system” is irrelevant: you are the principal; Napier is your contractor.
You state that “parking rules and regulations” form part of the wider estate regulations. However, my tenancy agreement contains no clause requiring compliance with any such “rules and regulations,” nor any authority permitting a third party to impose financial penalties for parking in the resident car park. Unless you can produce a document lawfully incorporated into my tenancy requiring me to submit to Napier’s terms, your assertion has no contractual effect.
The so-called “acceptance” of terms through an online portal does not create a new tenancy condition. I registered on the system solely to maintain access to resident amenities, not to contract with Napier or waive my tenancy rights.
You have already confirmed that I held a valid resident permit and that my account correctly reflected the new registration (G26 XXX) from 13 October 2025 at 22:18. Any PCNs issued after that time are therefore plainly invalid.
Your continued tolerance of this activity represents an unlawful derogation from grant and a breach of the tenant’s right to quiet enjoyment of the property. Allowing a third-party enforcement company to penalise residents for exercising rights conferred by their tenancy amounts to interference with those rights and is contrary to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
My complaint therefore stands: Napier’s activity represents an unlawful interference with tenancy rights and processing of personal data without reasonable cause. You, as managing agent, must take immediate steps to ensure their actions cease.
Accordingly, please confirm within 14 days:1. That you have instructed Napier to cancel all PCNs issued to my vehicle after 13 October 2025 @ 22:18;
2. That you have required Napier to erase my personal data from their systems; and
3. That you will not make residents’ contractual parking rights conditional upon compliance with a third-party enforcement scheme.
Failing this, I will escalate the matter to the Housing Ombudsman and the Information Commissioner’s Office, and reserve the right to include [Managing Agent Name] as a co-defendant in any court proceedings arising from this issue.
Please note that this is a formal complaint under your internal complaints procedure, and I expect a formal written response addressing each point raised, not a general or “courtesy” reply.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
[Address / Tenancy Reference]
Good afternoon,
Thank you for your email.
We acknowledge your concerns regarding the Parking Charge Notice’s. Please be aware that Napier Parking are a third-party company appointed by the landowner. As such, we do not have access to their systems, visibility of any notices issued , or the authority to cancel or intervene in the issuance of these notices.
As the managing agent, we manage the parking permit applications via the parking system provided, subject to the parking rules and regulations.
While your tenancy agreement may not explicitly reference third-party parking enforcement, the parking rules and regulations are part of the wider estate regulations. It is the leaseholder’s responsibility to ensure their tenants are fully aware of the relevant terms and conditions of their lease.
As you are aware, the leaseholder emailed concierge on 19/09/2025 @ 16:38 regarding parking and accessing the Gym/Spa. Concierge provided the link to the parking portal, the steps to apply for a RTP permit and attached the Resident Information Form required for booking an induction with the Gym/Spa.
As part of the account creation process, all users are required to confirm that they have read and accept the Terms and Conditions of the parking rules and regulations.
The parking system shows you successfully created an account and applied for the RTP permit on 22/09/2025 with GD15UAV as the assigned vehicle.
The account history shows vehicle registration G26XXX was added to your account’s vehicle list on 13/10/2025 @ 22:12.
The permit history shows a request to change your VRM from GD15UAV to G26XXX was made on 13/10/2025 @ 22:16. Upon approval, G23XXX was the assigned vehicle on the permit from 22:18.
For me to look further into the Reason for Issue of any PCN’s issued to G23XXX after the vehicle change application was approved on 13/10/25 @ 22:18, please provide a clear copy of each notice showing the Date & Time of the incident, the VRM and the Reason for Issue.
Thank you.
A County Court Judgment (CCJ) does not just happen—it follows a clear legal process. If someone gets a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) from a private parking company, here's what happens step by step:1. Parking Charge Notice (PCN) Issued• The parking company sends a letter (Notice to Keeper) demanding money.
• This is not a fine—it’s an invoice for an alleged breach of contract.
2. Opportunity to Appeal• The recipient can appeal to the parking company.
•If rejected, they may be able to appeal to POPLA (if BPA member) or IAS (if IPC member).
• If an appeal is lost or ignored, the parking company demands payment.
3. Debt Collection Letters• The parking company might send scary letters or pass the case to a debt collector.
• Debt collectors have no power—they just send letters and can be ignored.
• No CCJ happens at this stage.
4. Letter Before Claim (LBC)• If ignored for long enough, the parking company (or their solicitor) sends a Letter Before Claim (LBC).
• This is a warning that they may start a court case.
• The recipient has 30 days to reply before a claim is filed.
• No CCJ happens at this stage.
5. County Court Claim Issued• If ignored or unpaid, the parking company may file a claim with the County Court.
• The court sends a Claim Form with details of the claim and how to respond.
• The recipient has 14 days to respond (or 28 days if they acknowledge it).
• No CCJ happens at this stage.
6. Court Process• If the recipient defends the claim, a judge decides if they owe money.
• If the recipient ignores the claim, the parking company wins by default.
• No CCJ happens yet unless the recipient loses and ignores the court.
7. Judgment & Payment• If the court rules that money is owed, the recipient has 30 days to pay in full.
• If they pay within 30 days, no CCJ goes on their credit file.
• If they don’t pay within 30 days, the CCJ stays on their credit file for 6 years.
Conclusion
CCJs do not appear out of thin air. They only happen if:• A parking company takes the case to court.
• The person loses or ignores the case.
• The person fails to pay within 30 days.
If you engage with the process (appeal, defend, or pay on time), no CCJ happens.
Subject: Formal Complaint – Immediate Cancellation of Unlawful Parking Charges and Cessation of Unlawful Processing
Dear [Managing Agent/Landlord Name],
This is a formal complaint regarding your appointed parking contractor, Napier Parking Ltd, who has issued multiple Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) against my vehicle at Beaufort Park.
My tenancy includes the amenity of resident-only gated car parking accessed by a remote/fob issued for my use. The agreement contains no requirement to display a permit or to submit to a third-party enforcement scheme, nor any clause authorising you to delegate enforcement powers over my tenancy rights to a private parking company.
Napier has no lawful authority to interfere with my contractual right to use the resident-only gated car parks provided with my tenancy. By authorising or tolerating this conduct, you have allowed a third party to override my contractual rights and demand money for the lawful use of facilities I am already entitled to use. This amounts to derogation from grant and interference with quiet enjoyment, contrary to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
Data protection non-compliance
Further, Napier’s ongoing processing of my personal data breaches the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018. Napier Parking Ltd has obtained and processed my keeper data from the DVLA without reasonable cause, given that I hold a contractual right to use the resident-only gated car parks provided with my tenancy and no enforceable contract with Napier exists. Their continued processing is neither necessary nor proportionate to any legitimate interest (Articles 5(1)(a) and 6(1)(f) UK GDPR). I object to this processing under Article 21 and require erasure under Article 17, together with rectification so any obsolete VRM linkage is removed (Article 16).
As the party that has engaged Napier to operate on the estate, you are responsible for ensuring your contractor’s compliance. You must therefore instruct Napier immediately to cease this unlawful activity and to cancel all related PCNs.
Accordingly, you are required to:1. Instruct Napier Parking Ltd to cancel all PCNs issued against my vehicle and to erase my personal data from their systems, confirming completion in writing.
2. Confirm in writing that my contractual right to use the resident-only gated car parks will not be made conditional on any third-party scheme or permit requirement.
3. Provide documentary evidence of any lawful variation to my tenancy agreement authorising this arrangement; failing which, the scheme must be withdrawn in respect of the resident-only gated car parks provided with my tenancy.
Please treat this as a formal complaint under your internal complaints procedure, with acknowledgement within 5 working days and a full written response within 14.
If this complaint is not resolved within 14 days, I will escalate it to the Housing Ombudsman Service for investigation and will also raise a formal complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) regarding the unlawful processing of my personal data by your contractor (and your failure, as principal, to ensure compliance). I will also hold you jointly and severally liable in any court proceedings arising from this matter.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Address / Tenancy Reference]
Your tenancy agreement wording grants you the right to park a private vehicle in the space allocated to the property and says nothing about permits or third-party charges. That supports “primacy of contract”: your contractual right to use the bay cannot be cut down by later signage or an operator’s permit scheme unless your tenancy expressly incorporates those rules.No rejection yet and yes I have appealed each separately since it is the only way I could do it.
Have you had a rejection of your appeal yet? Have you appealed each PCN separately?
Subject: Formal Complaint – Immediate Action Required to Cancel Unlawful Parking Charges and Cease Data Misuse
Dear [Managing Agent/Landlord Name],
This is a formal complaint regarding your appointed parking contractor, Napier Parking Ltd, who has issued multiple Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) against my vehicle at Beaufort Park.
My tenancy agreement contains no requirement whatsoever to display a parking permit or comply with the terms of any third-party parking enforcement company. There is equally no clause authorising you or any managing agent to delegate enforcement powers over my tenancy rights to an unregulated private parking firm.
Napier Parking Ltd therefore has no lawful authority to interfere with my right to park in my allocated space. By permitting or failing to control this conduct, you have allowed a third party to override the terms of my tenancy and demand payment for the lawful use of property I am contractually entitled to occupy.
This represents a clear derogation of grant and an interference with quiet enjoyment, both contrary to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Allowing an unregulated private company to issue speculative invoices to tenants using their own bays is an unlawful interference with contractual rights and exposes you to direct liability.
Further, Napier’s ongoing processing of my personal data breaches the UK GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018. Napier Parking Ltd has obtained and processed my keeper data from the DVLA without reasonable cause, given that I hold a contractual right to park in my allocated bay and no enforceable contract with Napier exists. Their continued processing is neither necessary nor proportionate to any legitimate interest (Articles 5(1)(a) and 6(1)(f) UK GDPR). I object to this processing under Article 21 and require erasure of my data under Article 17, together with rectification so any obsolete VRM linkage is removed (Article 16).
As the party that has engaged Napier to operate on the estate, you are responsible for ensuring your contractor’s compliance. You must therefore instruct Napier immediately to cease this unlawful activity and to cancel all related PCNs.
Accordingly, you are required to:• Instruct Napier Parking Ltd to cancel all PCNs issued against my vehicle and to erase my personal data from their systems, confirming completion in writing.
• Confirm in writing that my contractual right to park in my allocated space will not be made conditional on any third-party scheme or permit requirement.
• Provide documentary evidence of any lawful variation to my tenancy agreement authorising this arrangement; failing which, the scheme must be withdrawn in respect of my space.
Should you fail to act immediately, I will hold you jointly and severally liable for any ongoing or future claims. I will include you as a co-defendant in any legal proceedings arising from this matter, as your conduct amounts to both a contractual and statutory breach.
If this complaint is not resolved within 14 days, I will escalate it to the Housing Ombudsman Service for investigation and will also raise a formal complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) regarding the unlawful processing of my personal data by your contractor (and your failure, as principal, to ensure compliance).
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Address / Tenancy Reference]
What exactly does your lease say about parking? What it doesn't say is equally as important. For example, does the lease mention anything about requiring a permit to use your parking space?