The starting point is that any private parking charge relies entirely on a valid contract being formed at the point of entry. If no valid contract is formed, everything else collapses.
Where a parking operator introduces a material change to the way a site is controlled or enforced, such as introducing ANPR, adding a “no return within X hours” condition, or materially changing how stays are calculated, the Private Parking Single Code of Practice requires the operator to clearly warn motorists of that change. This is done by prominent temporary signage at the entrance making it obvious that new terms apply. The purpose is to prevent drivers being caught out by changes they could not reasonably have anticipated based on previous use of the site.
From the evidence provided, there is no indication of any material change signage at the entrance. There is no warning that enforcement has changed, no notice that ANPR has been introduced, and no indication that a “no return” condition has been newly added. If those terms are new or newly enforced, the absence of a material change notice means the operator cannot show that the terms were properly brought to the attention of drivers. In those circumstances, no contract can be said to have been formed at all.
Separately, the “no return within two hours” condition is legally defective in the way it is being applied. A parking contract, if it exists, can only ever be between the operator and a human driver. A vehicle is not a legal person and cannot agree to anything. Treating the vehicle itself as the contracting party is a fundamental error.
Each visit to a car park must involve a fresh contract formed with the driver at that time. If one driver uses the car park and later a different driver uses the same vehicle, the second driver cannot be bound by any supposed agreement entered into by the first driver. There is no legal basis on which a later driver can inherit contractual obligations from an earlier, different driver simply because the same vehicle was used. Applying a “no return” restriction to the vehicle rather than to the individual driver makes the term unenforceable.
In addition to that, the signage itself limits enforcement to specific hours. The signs state that the two-hour maximum stay applies between 8am and 6pm. There is nothing on the signage that extends the “no return” condition beyond those hours. If the alleged return occurred outside the stated controlled period, then there is no breach even on the operator’s own terms. A restriction that only applies during defined hours cannot be stretched to cover times when the car park is expressly stated to be outside control.
Finally, the Notice to Keeper itself is problematic. It asserts that a Parking Charge Notice was issued to the driver, yet the operator appears to be relying on ANPR. If no Notice to Driver was actually served, that statement is questionable. In any event, unsupported assertions about prior notices further weaken the operator’s position.
Taken together, the absence of material change signage, the attempt to bind a vehicle rather than a driver, the impossibility of binding different drivers to earlier visits, and the fact that the alleged events fall outside the controlled hours mean that this charge is fundamentally unsound and does not rest on a valid contractual basis.
