At the moment, your description is too vague to give you reliable, case-specific advice. “Closest place to give girl her prescription she requires due to her heart rate” does not tell us what actually happened, what the driver did, why that location was chosen, what alternatives were available, or what the driver saw (or could reasonably have seen) in terms of signage.
If the only reason was to stop and provide medication, why was the car left unattended?
If you want meaningful assistance, you need to provide a proper narrative, in plain terms, of the events. For example:
What was the destination and why?
Did anyone leave the vehicle, and if so, for how long and why?
Was the engine running?
Where exactly was the vehicle positioned (entrance road, bay area, roadway, turning circle, etc.)?
What signs were visible near vehicle and on approach?
Was there any obvious marked bay, permit bay, visitor bay, or any bay markings at all?
Was the driver a resident, visitor, contractor, or completely unconnected to the site?
You have also not provided the Notice to Keeper. Without the NtK, no one can properly assess keeper liability, compliance, or whether the operator has even followed the basic requirements they must follow before pursuing the keeper.
Now, based on what you have provided:
1. The photos only show a short period and no clear parking bay
The operative’s timestamped photos run from 09:00:58 to 09:07:11 (just over 6 minutes). That is a very short period.There are no bay markings visible. If the operator is alleging “parked outside a marked bay” or “not parked wholly within a marked bay”, their own evidence becomes questionable if there is no clearly marked bay to comply with.
2. The entrance signage is prohibitive, not an offer to park
The entrance sign states “Permit Holders Only” and then points drivers to other signs for terms. That is not a clear offer of parking to non-permit holders. It is a restriction. If parking is not being offered to that class of driver, then there is nothing capable of acceptance and no contract can be formed with that driver on those terms.
3. The internal terms sign also makes authorisation a pre-condition
The terms sign requires either a valid permit or a registered visitor parking session. That again frames the arrangement as permission-based parking, not “anyone may park if they agree to pay a charge”. In plain terms: it reads as “you are not allowed to park here unless authorised”.
Where signs are framed this way, the operator’s case moves away from contract and towards an allegation of unauthorised parking/trespass. A parking contractor cannot recover a contractual “parking charge” from a driver if the signage does not actually offer parking to them in the first place.
4. Incorporation and fairness of the £100 term
The entrance sign does not mention the charge amount. The £100 appears on the terms sign. For any contractual charge argument, the operator has to show that the driver had a fair opportunity to see and understand the key term before any alleged “acceptance”. With only a brief period evidenced (around 6 minutes), and unclear bay layout, that is not straightforward for them.
On the signage you have shown, there is a strong argument that no contract was capable of being formed with a non-permit holder because the signage is prohibitive and authorisation-based. The short period of photographs and the lack of bay markings further undermines any allegation that the driver breached “marked bay” requirements.
If you want assistance and advice you should provide:
1. A proper narrative answering the practical questions above, in full sentences.
2. A clear copy of the Notice to Keeper (both sides, all pages).
3. The exact allegation stated on the PCN/NtK (contravention code/wording).
4. Any site photos showing the wider layout, including where the vehicle was relative to signs.
If you cannot be bothered to provide those basics, then you should not expect anyone to waste their time trying to defend it for you.
