Thanks for the images. Do not identify the driver.
The photos are useful. The PCN reference appears to be APP369922. The windscreen notice has several problems, but the immediate tactical point is that this is still only a Notice to Driver (NtD). National Parking Control Group do not yet have Keeper liability unless they later serve a fully compliant Notice to Keeper (NtK) and comply with every requirement of Schedule 4 of PoFA.
The windscreen NtD states that appeals must be received within 21 days, but that is not compliant with the Private Parking Single Code of Practice. Section 8.4.1 requires parking operators to provide a process allowing the parking charge to be appealed within 28 days of receipt. National Parking Control Group cannot shorten that appeal period simply by printing an old IPC-style 21-day deadline on the notice.
The tactical appeal timing therefore remains around day 27. For a notice dated Friday 17 April 2026, the Keeper appeal should be submitted on Thursday 14 May 2026. Submit it as Keeper only. Do not say who was driving.
The 21-day wording is itself another complaint point. It misleads motorists into believing they have less time to appeal than the PPSCoP requires. If their portal refuses to accept an appeal after 21 days but within 28 days, take screenshots and send the appeal by email immediately, expressly stating that refusal to accept it is a breach of PPSCoP section 8.4.1.
In the meantime, go back to the pub and ask the manager (not lowly staff) to get this cancelled. Show proof that the occupants were genuine customers and explain that the vehicle registration was entered into the pub kiosk, but the kiosk displayed the expiry time in a way that was not clear. Do not say who was driving. Refer only to “the driver” or “the occupants”.
The sign does not clearly say there is a 12-hour maximum registration period. It says Foundry customers must register their vehicle into the kiosk “for the full duration of stay”. That is exactly what the driver understood had been done. If their own kiosk system created confusion by displaying a time without clearly explaining the 12-hour expiry, that ambiguity is their problem.
The driver did enter the VRM into the kiosk. The kiosk displayed a validity time of “18th of April 2026 at 03:40”, but the system/example evidence suggests the time display is ambiguous because it does not clearly explain the duration limit or distinguish the basis on which the validity period is calculated.
The signage does not clearly state that customer registration is capped at 12 hours. The signage does not clearly warn that a genuine customer can become liable for £100 despite having registered their VRM into the pub’s own terminal.
The NtD then reframes the alleged issue as absence of a “valid NPC e-permit”, but the mechanism for obtaining that alleged permit is the kiosk, and the motorist cannot be liable where the operator’s own system and signage fail to give clear notice of the relevant limitation.
So, the alleged contravention is stated as “All vehicles must hold a valid NPC e-permit”. The vehicle was used by genuine Foundry customers and the vehicle registration was entered into the kiosk provided for that purpose. The signage states that Foundry customers must register their full and correct vehicle registration into the kiosk for the full duration of stay. That is what was done. The signage does not clearly state that registration is limited to 12 hours, nor does it clearly warn that a customer who has registered their vehicle into the kiosk may still be treated as not holding a valid NPC e-permit because of an undisclosed or inadequately explained expiry period. If the operator’s position is that the e-permit expired, the operator is put to strict proof of the precise expiry mechanism, the exact wording displayed to the user before confirmation, and the contractual basis on which a genuine customer who used the kiosk can nevertheless be liable for £100.
Use this on day 27, i.e. Thursday 14 May 2026. Submit as the Keeper only. Do not add anything identifying the driver.
Quote:Subject: Appeal against Parking Charge Notice APP369922
I appeal as the Registered Keeper. I am under no obligation to identify the driver and I will not be doing so.
The Parking Charge is denied and must be cancelled.
The vehicle was present at The Foundry while the occupants were genuine customers. The vehicle registration was entered into the kiosk provided inside the premises for that purpose. The signage states that Foundry customers must register their full and correct vehicle registration into the kiosk located within the main entrance immediately on arrival, for the full duration of stay. That is precisely what was understood to have been done.
The alleged contravention is stated as “All vehicles must hold a valid NPC e-permit”. If the operator’s position is that an NPC e-permit was created through use of the kiosk but later expired, the operator is put to strict proof of that allegation. The signage shown at the site does not clearly state that a customer registration is limited to 12 hours. It does not clearly state that a genuine customer who has entered the vehicle registration into the kiosk may nevertheless become liable for £100 because of a hidden, ambiguous, or inadequately explained expiry period.
The kiosk display is also ambiguous. The displayed validity time uses a format which does not properly explain the duration of the parking permission, the basis on which the expiry time is calculated, or the consequence of the expiry. A motorist using the system as a genuine customer cannot be bound by an onerous £100 charge where the alleged limitation is not clearly and prominently brought to their attention before or at the point of registration.
The operator is put to strict proof of all of the following:
- The full contemporaneous kiosk record for this vehicle registration.
- The precise time at which the vehicle registration was entered into the kiosk.
- The precise expiry time allegedly generated by the kiosk.
- The full wording displayed on the kiosk before confirmation.
- The full wording displayed on the kiosk after confirmation.
- Evidence that the kiosk clearly warned users that registration was limited to 12 hours.
- Evidence that the signage at the site clearly warned customers that a 12-hour limit applied.
- Evidence that the vehicle was not covered by a valid NPC e-permit at the material time.
- The alleged period of parking.
- The landowner authority entitling National Parking Control Group Ltd to issue and pursue parking charges at this site.
The Notice to Driver also fails to specify any proper period of parking. It merely states that the period of parking is “the period immediately preceding the Time of Issue”. That is not a specified period of parking. It is vague and does not establish the duration of any alleged parking event or any breach of contract.
Further, the Notice to Driver misleadingly states that appeals must be received within 21 days. That is inconsistent with section 8.4.1 of the Private Parking Single Code of Practice, which requires operators to provide a process allowing a parking charge to be appealed within 28 days. This appeal is therefore submitted within the required 28-day appeal period. Any attempt to reject or disregard it because of the operator’s self-imposed 21-day deadline will be treated as a further breach of the Code.
For the avoidance of doubt, there is no admission as to the identity of the driver. If National Parking Control Group Ltd contends that the Registered Keeper is liable, it is put to strict proof of full compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Unless and until such compliance is established, there is no Keeper liability.
Cancel the charge, or provide a full evidence-based rejection dealing with each point above.
Just keep in mind that an initial appeal almost never is successful. Why should it be? There is no money in it for them and they are greedy thieves. However, also consider the fact that they are IPC members and the secondary appeal process is through the IAS, which is nothing but a kangaroo court, owned and operated by the very same company that owns the IPC.
If the appeals are not successful, then the only place where this will easily be defeated is if they issue a county court claim and take it all the way to a hearing. The odds of it ever getting that far are slim to none and even if it did, your chances of success are extremely high.
Remember, do not submit this until Thursday 14 May. Make a note to do this in your diary/calendar.
