I have appealed with the IAS stating the following exactly,
I appeal to the IAS on behalf of the registered keeper of vehicle [WG16 WYD] in respect of Parking Charge Notice [WL9566681], issued by Napier Parking Ltd (“the Operator”) for an alleged contravention on 19/11/2025 at approximately 23:13. Liability is denied in full. This appeal raises substantive issues of contract formation, evidential sufficiency, landowner authority, and compliance with the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (“PPSCoP”) and established principles of contract law.
The burden of proof rests with the Operator. It must establish, on the balance of probabilities: (i) the precise location and circumstances of the alleged contravention; (ii) that clear contractual terms were offered to the driver; (iii) that those terms were capable of acceptance and were accepted; (iv) that the charge is recoverable as a contractual sum rather than an unenforceable penalty; and (v) that the Operator has proper standing and landowner authority to contract with motorists and pursue charges in its own name. Assertions unsupported by evidence do not discharge this burden.
The Operator's handling of the initial appeal is relevant background. The Operator rejected the appeal on the basis that payment was made after exit, stating that “payment for parking cannot be made retrospectively”, despite an explanation that payment was made in full following a technical failure of the payment app as soon as possible, with no intention to avoid payment. The subsequent rejection is template in nature and does not address the substantive issues raised. This is relevant insofar as it demonstrates that key evidential and legal points remain unanswered.
The rejection letter asserts that the vehicle was “parked in breach of the clearly displayed Terms and Conditions of Parking”. This is a conclusory statement and is insufficiently particularised. The Operator has not identified: (a) the precise boundary of the land said to constitute the site; (b) the exact position of the vehicle; (c) the wording of the contractual term allegedly breached; (d) the specific signage relied upon and its location relative to the vehicle; (e) how the signage could have been read and understood at the material time; or (f) evidence demonstrating a defined period of parking.
The Operator must prove that the vehicle was parked for a meaningful period. If reliance is placed on timestamped photographs or ANPR data, strict proof is required that these demonstrate more than momentary presence and show the vehicle stationary in a manner meeting any definition of “parking”. Parliament deliberately used the phrase “period of parking” in Schedule 4 paragraph 9(2)(a) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Entry and exit timestamps alone do not evidence when, or for how long, the vehicle was parked.
The Operator has not proven the exact location of the vehicle or that it was on land within its authority. No boundary map or site plan has been produced showing where controlled land begins and ends, or distinguishing roadway, access routes, or parking bays. This is a substantive issue. If the vehicle was on land outside the Operator's remit, including highway land, there is no cause of action.
Contract formation is further undermined by inadequate signage. A parking charge is only enforceable if the contractual terms were clearly brought to the driver's attention before any alleged acceptance. This requires signage that is prominent, legible, and positioned so a driver can read it in time to decide whether to enter or stop. The alleged contravention occurred at approximately 23:13 in November, in darkness and adverse weather. The Operator has produced no evidence of illumination, a weather report, reflectivity, font size, sign orientation, or driver-eye visibility, nor any photographs showing what the driver would have seen on approach. A general assertion that signage is present is not evidence of effective communication of terms.
In particular, the Operator must demonstrate that the parking charge itself was prominently displayed. The Supreme Court decision in ParkingEye v Beavis was fact-specific and turned on unusually clear and prominent signage and a specific commercial justification. It does not permit enforcement of charges based on obscure or unreadable terms. In the absence of proof that the charge was prominently displayed and legible at the material time, the charge is unenforceable.
The Operator has also failed to evidence landowner authority as required by PPSCoP Section 14. No contemporaneous written authorisation has been produced defining the land, the scope of enforcement, any permissions or exemptions, or authority to issue and pursue charges in the Operator's own name. Without such evidence, the Operator lacks standing.
The rejection letter does not meaningfully engage with the substance of the appeal. It does not address signage adequacy, site boundaries, landowner authority, night-time visibility, or the distinction between parking and mere presence. A statement that a PCN was “issued correctly” does not amount to a reasoned response to these issues.
The Operator is put to strict proof that any evidence relied upon is accurate, contemporaneous, correctly timestamped, and contextual. Any photographs should show the vehicle's position relative to bays or markings, the location and visibility of signage, and what a driver would reasonably have seen at night. Isolated close-ups without context are insufficient.
If the Operator seeks to rely on keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, it must demonstrate strict compliance with that Schedule. In the absence of such compliance, there is no lawful basis to pursue the keeper.
Finally, the Operator's references to additional charges and credit impact are noted. Any credit impact can only arise following an unpaid court judgment. Template wording suggesting otherwise is misleading and relevant to overall fairness.
For these reasons, the Operator has failed to prove contract formation, standing, landowner authority, or that the vehicle was parked for a defined period. The IAS is respectfully invited to allow the appeal and direct cancellation of the PCN. In the alternative, the IAS is invited to require the Operator to produce the landowner contract, boundary map, full site plan with signage locations, and contemporaneous night-time photographs relied upon. In the absence of such evidence, the appeal should be allowed.
The operator replied with -
The operator made their Prima Facie Case on 08/01/2026 10:24:17.
The operator reported that...
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 19/11/2025.
A response was received from the Notice to Keeper.
The ticket was issued on 14/11/2025.
The Notice to Keeper (ANPR) was sent in accordance with PoFA.
The charge is based in Contract.
The operator made the following comments...
The vehicle entered our Pay and Display Boston Central Car Park, which is operated by ANPR cameras. It is a requirement in this car park to pay for the time required on arrival either at one of the two pay stations or via the Pay by Phone service advertised.
Our terms and conditions state that: ‘Vehicles must have a valid session or permit for the duration of their stay' (please see Operator Documents).
Our signs also state ‘Duration of stay is calculated from point of entry to point of exit'. The time of entry and exit is time stamped on the pictures (please see pictures ‘Entry' and ‘Exit').
Prior to issuing a Parking Charge we check our machine logs to see if a payment has been made for the vehicle registration, we also look for similar VRM entries in case an error was made entering the data. A payment for 4 hours was made at 23:32 for vehicle YG16WYD (please see ‘transaction log'), 19 minutes after exiting the car park, subsequently a parking charge was issued.
For the adjudicators clarity, the appellants appeal appears to be an online forum template that they have located.
In their appeal the appellant has states that the operator rejected the appeal on the basis that payment was made after exit, despite an explanation that payment was made in full following a technical failure of the payment app. Please be advised that we have no reported faults with the pay by phone service for the day of the contravention and on checking our transaction log, have located multiple successful transactions made via this method (please see ‘transaction log'). The appellant has not provided any evidence to support their appeal. Whilst we appreciate that they may have struggled to purchase a session via RingGo at the time of being in the car park, we offer the ability to purchase parking sessions at our pay stations located on site (please see pictures ‘pay station example' and ‘pay station close up'), which the appellant could have used.
We have clear signs at our entrance that state motorists are required to pay on arrival (please see pictures ‘car park entrance example' and ‘car park entrance sign example'), which the appellant would have seen on entry. If for any reason the appellant was unable to make payment on arrival, they should have left the car park immediately. Although the appellant purchased a 4-hour session, this was purchased 19 minutes after they had left the car park and therefore was not valid. Motorists are unable to pay for parking retrospectively.
In response to the appellants comments regarding the boundary of the land and landowner authority, we refer you to our site map which outlines the boundary of the car park and highlights all locations of signage within the area. We can confirm we are appointed to operate this car park, hence our presence on this site. Our landowner contract is confidential, and we will not be providing a copy at this time. The contract in question that is important at this stage is the contract between us (as the Creditor) and the driver. Evidence of our authority to operate this land will be provided to a Court if required at the appropriate time.
The appellant has stated that if reliance is placed on timestamped photographs or ANPR data, proof is required to show the vehicle stationary. Please be advised that this is an ANPR camera-controlled car park, vehicles are captured by our cameras on entry and exit of the car park, and these images are date and time stamped. The appellants vehicle was seen entering the car park at 19:40 and not leaving until 23:13, therefore remaining within the car park for 3 hours and 32 minutes. Its therefore reasonable to assume that the vehicle would have been parked within the car park, due to the extended period of time they remained within the location, without passing our entry/exit area.
In their appeal the appellant states that there was inadequate signage, a parking charge is only enforceable if the contractual terms were bought to the drivers attention, which requires signage that is prominent, legible and positioned so a driver can read it. Please be advised that we ample signage located throughout the car park to make motorists aware of the terms and conditions within this location, and the tariff and charges, we refer you to our site map which highlights the locations of all our signs. Furthermore, we have clear entrance signage making motorists aware that they are entering private land and are required to pay on arrival, we also use reflective material on our mandatory entrance signs, and signage is positioned where vehicle headlights are likely to illuminate them (please see pictures ‘car park entrance example' and ‘car park entrance sign example'). We believe our signage would have been visible enough to bring to the appellants attention that they were entering a private car park, where terms and conditions applied.
In addition to this, our two pay stations are located directly next to the entrance of the car park, which the appellant would have passed on entry, and we believe would have been prominent enough to be visible to the appellant on the day. By the appellants own admission, in their original appeal, they stated that upon arrival at the car park there were immediate attempts to pay, therefore indicating that they were clearly aware this was a pay and display car park and they were required to pay on arrival. All our sites undergo an audit process before becoming live, and we are satisfied that this site has passed audit inspection. We are a part of the Accredited Operator Scheme with the IPC, and our signs at this location are in accordance with the IPC Code of Practice.
Our signage within the car park clearly states that duration of stay is calculated from point of entry to point of exit, and tariff and charges apply at all times every day. The onus was on the appellant to ensure that they had a valid paid for parking session prior to exiting the car park. As previously stated, if for any reason they were unable to make payment, they should have left the car park, however they remained parked for 3 hours and 32 minutes. By entering and remaining within this car park, for a substantial period of time, the appellant has entered a contract by agreeing to the terms and conditions which are clearly displayed.
We refer you to the IPC Code of Practice which details the maximum that can be charged and good practice
https://www.theipc.info/publications. The appellant entered private land; by entering and remaining in this car park the appellant has agreed to the terms and conditions displayed, alongside charges for breaching them.
Our signs advise motorists that there is a £100 charge for breach of any Term or Condition, as the vehicle did not have a valid session, the appellant was in breach of the Terms and Conditions. We are satisfied that the parking charge has been issued correctly.
Any advice? Thanks in Advance.
