Dear Sir or Madam,
Re: Nationwide Parking Control – [Location of street] – PCN [reference], VRM [reg]
I write as the registered keeper of vehicle [reg] to complain about the conduct of your contractor, Nationwide Parking Control (NPC), on the private road you own at [location].
Background
I have received a Notice to Keeper from NPC alleging that the driver was “parked” on your land. In reality, the driver briefly stopped on the double yellow lines on this road in order to pick up a passenger from work. On this occasion the passenger was approximately two minutes late coming down. The vehicle then left. No obstruction was caused.
The road in question is laid out and marked as if it were a normal public highway, with double yellow lines. On a public highway, stopping on double yellows for the purposes of setting down or picking up passengers is normally permitted, and the driver had done this previously without incident.
Signage and entrapment concerns
The signs are small and it is not at all obvious that this stretch is being operated as “private parking control”. There is a small sign as you enter the road stating “no parking at any time, please check the signs in the car park for more details”. In order to read those signs, a motorist has no choice but to stop on the double yellow lines and get out, which feels very close to entrapment.
The larger wording on the signs amounts to a blanket prohibition on parking or waiting, not an offer to park on specified terms. Any supposed contractual “parking charge” of £100 is buried in smaller text. Likewise, any reference to ANPR surveillance is in small print, not in prominent lettering, so motorists are not properly informed that their movements are being monitored and their personal data captured and processed in this way.
In practical terms there is nowhere in the vicinity where a motorist can safely and lawfully stop to set down or pick up a passenger if this road is treated as a zero-tolerance “no stopping” zone. That raises obvious concerns for residents, visitors, taxis and delivery drivers.
Misuse of keeper data and your responsibility
NPC have obtained and processed my DVLA keeper data on the basis of a supposed contractual parking charge arising from this short pick-up stop on a road that looks and feels like an adopted public highway, signed only with forbidding notices and small-print terms. I do not accept that any lawful contract could arise in these circumstances.
As the landowner and principal who has engaged NPC to manage your land, you are responsible for the way in which they operate and for their use of motorists’ personal data on your behalf. You are now on notice that I consider my data to have been obtained and processed without proper cause. If NPC were to persist to the point of issuing a court claim, I would reserve the right to join your company as an additional defendant in any counterclaim for misuse of my personal data and/or harassment, on the basis of your joint and several liability for the acts of your agent.
What I require
In light of the above, I require that you:
1. Instruct Nationwide Parking Control to cancel PCN [reference] immediately, and confirm to me in writing that the matter is closed and that my personal data will not be shared further or used for any other purpose;
2. Review the signage and enforcement regime on this road, to ensure that any restrictions are lawful, clearly communicated and fair, and that short stops for passenger pick-up/set-down are reasonably accommodated; and
3. Confirm that no further PCNs will be issued to my vehicle for brief pick-up or drop-off stops on this road.
If you choose to take no action and NPC continues to pursue this baseless and predatory charge, I will consider escalating the matter, including complaints to the DVLA, the Information Commissioner’s Office and my Member of Parliament, naming your company as the landowner instructing this contractor.
I look forward to your prompt written confirmation that you have instructed NPC to cancel this Notice to Keeper.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
That is a “forbidding” sign rather than a contractual offer. Key points:
1. Dominant message is prohibition, not permission
• The largest wording is:
“No Parking or Waiting at any time. No parking on roadways, yellow lines or pavements.”
• That is a clear ban. It does not offer parking on certain terms; it tells motorists they must not park or wait there at all.
2. “Breach… will result in a Parking Charge” looks like a penalty for prohibited conduct
• The paragraph about a £100 charge is framed as a consequence of “breach of ANY of the terms and conditions”, but the only obvious “term” in large print is “do not park or wait”.
• That reads as a deterrent/penalty for disobeying a prohibition, not as part of a bargain where the driver can choose to accept a paid-parking arrangement.
3. Trespass, not contract
• If parking or waiting is wholly disallowed, anyone who does so is, at most, a trespasser. Any claim then belongs to the landowner for trespass (normally limited to actual loss), not to a parking company seeking a fixed £100 contractual sum.
4. Small-print “terms” are unlikely to cure the problem
• The dense text in small font at the bottom is not legible from a moving vehicle or even from a typical stopping distance. Even if it contains more “terms”, they are not adequately brought to the driver’s attention to form a contract in any event.
So, you have a very good argument that this sign does not create a contractual licence to park, and that the operator cannot rely on a contractual parking charge; at most, the situation would be one of alleged trespass, for which they lack any standing.
I have located the owner of the street it is a company not the council. What would you recommend putting in the complaint to them?
That is a “forbidding” sign rather than a contractual offer. Key points:
1. Dominant message is prohibition, not permission
• The largest wording is:
“No Parking or Waiting at any time. No parking on roadways, yellow lines or pavements.”
• That is a clear ban. It does not offer parking on certain terms; it tells motorists they must not park or wait there at all.
2. “Breach… will result in a Parking Charge” looks like a penalty for prohibited conduct
• The paragraph about a £100 charge is framed as a consequence of “breach of ANY of the terms and conditions”, but the only obvious “term” in large print is “do not park or wait”.
• That reads as a deterrent/penalty for disobeying a prohibition, not as part of a bargain where the driver can choose to accept a paid-parking arrangement.
3. Trespass, not contract
• If parking or waiting is wholly disallowed, anyone who does so is, at most, a trespasser. Any claim then belongs to the landowner for trespass (normally limited to actual loss), not to a parking company seeking a fixed £100 contractual sum.
4. Small-print “terms” are unlikely to cure the problem
• The dense text in small font at the bottom is not legible from a moving vehicle or even from a typical stopping distance. Even if it contains more “terms”, they are not adequately brought to the driver’s attention to form a contract in any event.
So, you have a very good argument that this sign does not create a contractual licence to park, and that the operator cannot rely on a contractual parking charge; at most, the situation would be one of alleged trespass, for which they lack any standing.