Author Topic: Napier Parking - Forgotten to change to personalised reg on permit - 7 PCNs received (Read 5444 times)

satsuki726 · « **on:** October 19, 2025, 12:11:51 am »

I (registered keeper) have received several Parking Charge notices saying that the car was parked without parking permit but actually it actually had one, but just with the old number instead of the number that is actually attached to (personalised reg). I have submitted an appeal regarding it was actually the same vehicle and argued no loss of profit has been done. Would anyone please tell me my chance of winning and if not should I take it to IAS? Or can I take it straight to court.

My appeal letter was:

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing to respectfully appeal the above Parking Charge Notice issued in relation to my vehicle, registration G26 XXX, at Beaufort Park

1. Recent change of registration

This notice appears to have been issued because my vehicle’s registration number was recently changed following the assignment of a personalised number plate.
The vehicle has remained parked in its usual location within the residential car park, and at all times I have been entitled to use the space. The change of registration was a recent administrative matter, and the parking company’s system understandably had not yet been updated.

2. No loss or legitimate interest

No loss or inconvenience has been caused to any party. The vehicle was not parked improperly, and no obstruction or misuse occurred.
The Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 held that a parking charge may only be enforceable where it protects a legitimate interest and is proportionate to that purpose.
In this residential setting, there is no comparable legitimate interest in penalising a resident vehicle for a brief administrative oversight. As such, the charge is disproportionate and falls within the example of unfair terms listed in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (Schedule 2, Paragraph 6), which prohibits requiring a consumer to pay a disproportionately high sum for a minor error.

3. Repeated notices – same continuous event

If multiple notices have been issued during this period, they relate to the same short-term situation immediately following the number plate update. Pursuing several charges for the same continuous event would be unreasonable and inconsistent with the principles of fairness under consumer contract law.

4. Relevant case law for residential parking

I would also like to draw your attention to several County Court authorities which have established that parking operators cannot impose or enforce new conditions inconsistent with ordinary residential parking use:

Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016, B9GF0A9E) – confirming that residents’ normal use of parking areas does not constitute a breach of contract.

Pace Recovery & Storage v Mr N (2016, C6GF14F0) and Link Parking v Ms P (2016, C7GF50J7) – confirming that parking companies cannot override residents’ pre-existing rights or impose additional conditions by signage alone.

While I fully understand and respect the role of parking management in maintaining order within the estate, these cases make clear that such schemes should not be applied in a way that penalises residents for technical or administrative issues where no misuse has occurred.

5. Attachments

I have attached a copy of my V5C registration certificate, and V948 confirming the date the new registration number was assigned. As well as the DVLA email confirming the assignment of G26 XXX onto the vehicle GD15 UAV proving that GD15 UAV and G26 XXX are the same vehicle, just with different number plates.

I have also attached my parking permit number 100541, which was valid from 26/09/2025, therefore confirming the permit was valid when the PCNs was issued. The history of number plate on this permit was only visible on the admin side, confirmed by Beaufort Park Concierge. Please contact them if you wish to confirm any details via this email: concierge@beaufortpark.net

6. Request

Given the circumstances and supporting evidence, I kindly request that this Parking Charge Notice be cancelled.
Should you decide not to cancel, please provide a POPLA/IAS appeal reference so that I may refer this matter to the relevant independent adjudicator.

Thank you for taking the time to review my appeal fairly and for your understanding in this matter.
Yours faithfully,
Yibao Wu

b789 · « **Reply #1 on:** October 19, 2025, 01:01:29 am »

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?

satsuki726 · « **Reply #2 on:** October 19, 2025, 01:13:26 am »

Quote from: b789 on October 19, 2025, 01:01:29 am

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?

I rented so I quote the following from my tenancy agreement.

(q) Car Parking
(i)
To park private vehicle(s) only at the Property in the space, garage or driveway allocated to the Property, if applicable.
(ii)
To keep any garage, driveway, or parking space free of oil and to pay for the removal and cleaning of any spillage caused by a vehicle of the Tenant, his family, contractors, or visitors.
(iii)
To remove all vehicles belonging to the Tenant, his family, or visitors at the end of the Tenancy.
(iv)
Not to park any vehicle at the Property which is not in a road worthy condition fully taxed and insured.

To me it feels like it says nothing..?

Thanks a lot for your help.

b789 · « **Reply #3 on:** October 19, 2025, 07:21:48 pm »

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.

Chances of winning with Napier are almost zero, but your court prospects are excellent if this is your allocated residential space and there’s no tenancy term requiring a permit or agreeing to charges. Do not rely on “no loss” alone; keep it but lead with primacy of contract, derogation from grant, and unfair terms.

Have you had a rejection of your appeal yet? Have you appealed each PCN separately?

In the meantime I advise you to send the following to your landlord/managing agent and make sure you copy in your self if using email:

Quote

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]

satsuki726 · « **Reply #4 on:** October 20, 2025, 10:36:00 am »

Quote from: b789 on October 19, 2025, 07:21:48 pm

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.

Have you had a rejection of your appeal yet? Have you appealed each PCN separately?

No rejection yet and yes I have appealed each separately since it is the only way I could do it.

There was not exactly allocated space. There's just 2 lots that was used for general residential parking, gates controlled with a remote controller.

b789 · « **Reply #5 on:** October 20, 2025, 05:47:03 pm »

In which case you can adjust the emaul/letter to the following:

Quote

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]

[/quote]

satsuki726 · « **Reply #6 on:** October 21, 2025, 01:14:06 am »

@b789

Indeed great appreciations for your help.

I have just sent the email and just waiting for the reply from them / and the appeal(s).

Another question I have is that from my understanding I would probably need to go to court. In this case do I just wait for them to sue me?

Thanks again.

satsuki726 · « **Reply #7 on:** October 21, 2025, 01:15:45 am »

Also would they ask a debt collection company to chase me and would that affect my in a bad way? (Credit score, issues with renting, etc.)

satsuki726 · « **Reply #8 on:** October 21, 2025, 01:22:21 am »

Sorry just realised that was a dumb question that can easily be googled. My question actually should be can I just ignore them and I guess I will just wait for a court claim?

satsuki726 · « **Reply #9 on:** October 21, 2025, 01:41:25 am »

I have just realised that I emailed them the wrong thing. I emailed the 'allocated space' version instead of the 'gated' one, should I email them again? or just reply myself with some corrections.

Thanks.

paulpaul1308 · « **Reply #10 on:** October 21, 2025, 10:15:06 am »

To answer your questions: they will probably get debt collectors involved to try to scare you into paying. This will have no effect on you whatsoever and they can be completely ignored, they are powerless and can only send you vaguely threatening letters. After that they may send it to court but as they don't have a case due to your lease having primacy, this will simply be the next stage in getting the gullible to give them money. If it does get that far they will very probably discontinue the case when they have to pay the court fees. You must defend the claim though, otherwise they will obtain a default judgement against you and get some money that way.

All they care about is money and they use every trick in the book to get it.

satsuki726 · « **Reply #11 on:** October 21, 2025, 01:14:20 pm »

Thanks a lot. I will just wait in this case and update anything new here then.

b789 · « **Reply #12 on:** October 21, 2025, 03:29:45 pm »

Don't worry too much about the version you sent. The main point is that you have stated your position.

As above, you can safely ignore any debt recovery letters. Debt collectors are powerless to do anything except to try and intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying out of ignorance and fear.

Debt collectors are not a party to the contract allegedly breached by the driver. Debt collectors cannot take anyone to court. Ignore them.

For your education:

What CCJ? Do you have any understanding of how someone gets a CCJ? Nothing we advise on here will make anyone get a CCJ.

Quote

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.

satsuki726 · « **Reply #13 on:** October 21, 2025, 06:45:39 pm »

Thanks for your explanation. I have just received a reply from my estate management company:

Quote

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.

b789 · « **Reply #14 on:** October 21, 2025, 07:33:38 pm »

That response is deliberately evasive and legally flawed. You can respond firmly — reinforcing that you are not challenging the concierge’s permit administration, but the lawfulness of the enforcement and their agency’s liability.

Respond as follows:

Quote

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]

Free Traffic Legal Advice

Author Topic: Napier Parking - Forgotten to change to personalised reg on permit - 7 PCNs received (Read 5444 times)

satsuki726

Napier Parking - Forgotten to change to personalised reg on permit - 7 PCNs received

b789

Re: Napier Parking - Forgotten to change to personalised reg on permit - 7 PCNs received

satsuki726

Re: Napier Parking - Forgotten to change to personalised reg on permit - 7 PCNs received

b789

Re: Napier Parking - Forgotten to change to personalised reg on permit - 7 PCNs received

satsuki726

Re: Napier Parking - Forgotten to change to personalised reg on permit - 7 PCNs received

b789

Re: Napier Parking - Forgotten to change to personalised reg on permit - 7 PCNs received

satsuki726

Re: Napier Parking - Forgotten to change to personalised reg on permit - 7 PCNs received

satsuki726

Re: Napier Parking - Forgotten to change to personalised reg on permit - 7 PCNs received

satsuki726

Re: Napier Parking - Forgotten to change to personalised reg on permit - 7 PCNs received

satsuki726

Re: Napier Parking - Forgotten to change to personalised reg on permit - 7 PCNs received

paulpaul1308

Re: Napier Parking - Forgotten to change to personalised reg on permit - 7 PCNs received

satsuki726

Re: Napier Parking - Forgotten to change to personalised reg on permit - 7 PCNs received

b789

Re: Napier Parking - Forgotten to change to personalised reg on permit - 7 PCNs received

satsuki726

Re: Napier Parking - Forgotten to change to personalised reg on permit - 7 PCNs received

b789

Re: Napier Parking - Forgotten to change to personalised reg on permit - 7 PCNs received