PCN from Nationwide Parking Control

PCN from Nationwide Parking Control
Posted by ambitiouspenguin on 22 Nov, 2025 16:09
I have received a NtK from Nationwide parking control.

They alleged the driver was parked on their land which in this case is on a public highway, maintained by the council.

The driver picks up and drops someone off from work on this occasion that person was two minutes late coming down.

The signs are small and it is not obvious that this is private parking controlled as setting down and picking up on double yellows on a public highway is normally permitted. There is a small sign entering the road that says no parking at any time, please check the signs in the car park for more details so to read the signs one has no choice but to stop on the yellows and read them. Isn't this entrapment? The signs also don't state in big letters they use ANPR it's in the small print.

There is nowhere to pick up and set down anywhere around this residential area then. How do cabs and delivery drivers manage?

I will upload the Signs, NtK, both sides with details omitted. I can also upload a street viee image of the street.

As the keeper I am worried I'll get more of these! The driver has done this before with no issue why are PCN's coming now?

#1 Reply
Posted by ambitiouspenguin on 22 Nov, 2025 16:17
https://postimg.cc/gallery/wp0p5Y5

Images of pcn and sign

#2 Reply
Posted by b789 on 22 Nov, 2025 16:24
Follow the advice and you won't be paying a penny to these scammers. They are not relying on PoFA to hold the Keeper liable. Only the driver can bet liable and they have no idea who that is unless the Keeper blabs it to them, inadvertently or otherwise.

Also, that sign is incapable of forming a contract with the driver and the PCN is just a speculative invoice for an alleged breach of contract by the driver from an unregulated private parking firm.

There is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.

The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.

Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:

Quote
I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. NPC has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.

The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. NPC have no hope should you be so stupid as to litigate, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.

#3 Reply
Posted by b789 on 22 Nov, 2025 16:30
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.

#4 Reply
Posted by ambitiouspenguin on 22 Nov, 2025 17:59
Quote from: b789 on 22 Nov, 2025 16:30
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?

#5 Reply
Posted by b789 on 23 Nov, 2025 02:45
Quote
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]

#6 Reply
Posted by newbie 12 on 16 Dec, 2025 19:34
Hi all,

I wanted to add to this thread as I am currently dealing with Nationwide Parking Control at this exact same location, with two PCNs issued on consecutive days in November 2025. From the photos already uploaded in this thread, I can confirm this is the same site and same signage I am dealing with.

In both cases, the vehicle did not park, but briefly stopped in the lay-by due to an access issue into my block of flats, where my entry fob malfunctioned, before leaving shortly afterwards. On one occasion I remained in the vehicle; on the other I briefly exited it. In both instances the stop was around two minutes. On both days I was unable to gain access through the gate to my apartment complex, which is why the brief stop occurred.

My appeal to NPC set out the following points clearly:

A brief stop of this nature due to access issues or pick-up/set-down is not “parking” and falls within the principles set out in Jopson v Homeguard.

The signage at this location is forbidding in nature (“No parking / no waiting at any time”) and is therefore incapable of forming a contractual offer.

The sign NPC rely on as evidence is not visible from the position where the vehicle stopped. From the lay-by, the only visible sign is on the black metal gate. The sign NPC rely on is positioned around the corner on a brick wall and cannot be seen by a driver from the stopping location.

Any reference to a £100 charge or contractual terms is buried in small print and is not capable of being read or accepted from a moving vehicle or during a brief stop.

As a result, no contract could have been formed, and at most the situation would amount to alleged trespass, which NPC have no standing to pursue.

I also raised concerns about escalation while the matter was in dispute and the failure to properly consider the appeal.

Despite setting this out in detail, NPC have completely ignored the substance of the appeal for both PCNs. There has been no engagement with any of the above points, only template responses followed by escalation and referral to debt collection, even though the charges remain formally disputed.

I have now submitted a formal complaint to the IPC regarding NPC’s conduct at this site. Despite that complaint being live, I am still receiving debt collection letters, which I understand is a common pressure tactic but nevertheless concerning given the circumstances.

Given how closely this mirrors what has already been discussed in this thread, and the fact that PCNs were issued regardless of whether the driver remained in the vehicle or briefly exited it, this appears to be a systemic enforcement issue at this site, rather than an isolated case.

At this point, I’m really looking for advice from more experienced members here. I’m trying to understand:

whether NPC would realistically take a case like this to court,

whether, based on the above, they would actually have a viable claim,

and whether it is sensible to simply let the matter run its course if they choose to escalate.

I’ll be honest — I’m extremely frustrated by the way this has been handled and the continued debt collection despite a live IPC complaint. I am prepared to defend this if it does go to court, and I believe my case is strong, but I’d value views from those who have seen similar cases play out.

Thanks again to everyone who contributed earlier — this thread has been very helpful.