Quote:The operator’s prima facie case confirms rather than resolves the central defect. The stated contravention remains “Failure to Register for the Duration of Stay”, and the only contractual wording quoted by the operator is that the registration must be entered on a tablet located inside reception. The operator accepts that the leisure centre was closed, so that method of compliance was inaccessible.

It then asserts that, if the centre was closed, drivers “should not be parking” on the site. That is not evidence of a contractual term; it is merely the operator’s retrospective opinion. The operator has not identified any wording on the signage expressly stating that parking is prohibited whenever the centre is closed, nor was the charge issued for unauthorised or out-of-hours parking. A requirement to register inside reception is not equivalent to a prohibition on parking outside opening hours.

The operator cannot cure the impossibility of complying with the stated registration requirement by substituting a different alleged restriction after the charge has been issued. It must prove the precise term identified on the Notice to Keeper was prominently communicated, capable of performance and breached. Its own evidence establishes that the only stated registration method was inside closed premises, while its newly asserted prohibition is unsupported by any identified contractual wording.