Azure Parking Charge

[des8]

Interesting letter!

Nice of them to state "a brief stop of several minutes still constitutes unauthorised parking "
If the action is unauthorised there can be no contract.
Any action they take to enforce their charges must be on the basis of breach of contract.

I would certainly appeal to POPLA as it costs nothing and you should win
We can help with your appeal if you wish

[davec2019]

would this be a good appeal in your oppinion
1. The parking charge is invalid due to inadequate and unclear signage

The signage at this site is not sufficiently clear, prominent, or unambiguous to form a contractual agreement with a motorist, as required under Section 19 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.

This is a relatively large parking area. The primary sign is mounted on a wall at the entrance and is not positioned directly in the driver’s forward line of sight when entering the site. The terms and conditions are therefore not immediately visible from within a moving vehicle, particularly when safely manoeuvring into the area.

In addition, the site contains mixed and potentially contradictory signage, as the car park may be used by gym members who are permitted to park provided they sign in. This creates ambiguity for drivers entering the site, as it is not immediately clear whether parking is restricted entirely or permitted subject to conditions. The BPA Code of Practice requires that terms be clear, intelligible, and unambiguous; this standard is not met where different categories of users appear to have different rights to park, without this being clearly explained at the point of entry.

As such, no clear contractual offer was communicated to the driver at the time of entry.

---

2. The operator failed to allow a reasonable consideration period (BPA Code of Practice breach)

The timestamps provided by the operator show that the vehicle was present on site for approximately four minutes.

Section 13 of the BPA Code of Practice requires operators to allow drivers a reasonable consideration period to:

• enter the site,
• locate and read the signage,
• decide whether to remain or leave,
• and exit the site if parking is not permitted.

Given:

• the size of the parking area,
• the placement of the signage away from the direct line of sight,
• and the presence of mixed signage relating to gym member parking,

a four-minute duration is entirely consistent with the time required to stop safely, exit the vehicle, locate and read the signage, return to the vehicle, and leave once it became clear that parking was not authorised.

This period does not represent parking in the ordinary sense and falls squarely within the mandatory consideration period required by the BPA Code of Practice.

Issuing a Parking Charge for such a brief consideration period is unreasonable and non-compliant.

---

3. No evidence of landowner authority

The operator has not provided any evidence that it has the necessary authority from the landowner to issue Parking Charge Notices or pursue them in its own name.

The BPA Code of Practice (Section 7) requires operators to have written authorisation from the landowner, setting out:

• the land to which it applies,
• the conditions under which enforcement may take place,
• and whether the operator has the right to pursue unpaid charges through legal action.

I put the operator to strict proof that such a contract exists and that it specifically covers this location and this alleged contravention. A generic or redacted statement will not be sufficient.

---

4. The vehicle was not “parked” in the ordinary sense

The vehicle was stationary only for the short duration necessary to assess whether parking was permitted. A brief stop for the purposes of reading signage and leaving does not constitute parking in the ordinary meaning of the term.

This is supported by the BPA’s own requirement for consideration periods and by established POPLA decisions where short stops to read signage have been found not to amount to parking.

---

5. ParkingEye v Beavis is not applicable to the facts of this case

The operator relies on ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis, however that case concerned:

• clear and prominent signage,
• a free-stay car park,
• and a driver who overstayed a clearly stated maximum period.

This case involves:

• unclear and mixed signage,
• no meaningful opportunity to read terms before enforcement,
• and a stay of approximately four minutes.

The facts are entirely distinguishable, and Beavis does not override the operator’s obligations under the BPA Code of Practice.

---

Conclusion

For the reasons outlined above:

• the signage was inadequate and ambiguous,
• a reasonable consideration period was not allowed,
• the operator has not demonstrated landowner authority,
• and no valid parking event occurred.

I respectfully request that POPLA allows this appeal and directs the operator to cancel the Parking Charge Notice.

[davec2019]

Yes any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you very much

[des8]

The sign forbids drivers from parking if they are not authorised and therefore there is no contract formed that can be enforced as no offer of a contract has been made.

There's no rush, so I'll get something drafted up in the next couple of days.
The appeal you posted above looks as if it was written by AI and contradicts what you wrote to the Azure e.g you have already admitted to parking and leaving the site so you can hardly rely on a consideration period to read the notices (they might notice!)

However could you please post up a redacted copy of your charge notice, as I have unfortunately deleted the copy I had originally

[davec2019]

Thanks for the reply, I have attached the redacted charge notice as requested.

I was hoping I might be able to lean on the fact I mentioned stopping to visit the post office, but then clarify I left without doing that due to the signange, But my original statement as you say will contradict this unfortunately.

My vehicle was incorrectly parked in this location for approximately three to five minutes at most, and I fully appreciate that this was still an error on my part. This was purely to drop off important documents for my mother, who has recently suffered a bereavement following the loss of her husband, my father. I appreciate that you will hear many explanations when reviewing appeals; however, this was a genuine mistake. At the time, my focus was on assisting my mother, and I did not pay sufficient attention to any nearby signage that may have indicated parking restrictions. I would be willing to provide a copy of the death certificate if required, to support the reason for this brief visit to post an important document on her behalf.

But I appreciate you will have a much better understanding and be able to provide a better worded appeal than the AI has generated

[davec2019]

Pictures from the initial notice, i hadnt included before.

Also, not sure if it helps, but the site has mixed usage. It covers residential usage, an Estate agent, Gym (where you can sign in at reception to stay)

If you need any other info, let me know, and I'll do my best to answer

Thanks so much again.

[des8]

Besides the photos could you please post up a copy of the charge notice as requested in post 19?

[davec2019]

Besides the photos could you please post up a copy of the charge notice as requested in post 19?

Hi there, is the redacted picture in post #20 not what you wanted sorry, I am slightly confused as to what notice is required, happy to provide just not sure which.

[des8]

oops ... sorry, I missed that

[davec2019]

oops ... sorry, I missed that

Hi Des8

I just wondered if you had the appeal document available for me to send to popla ready

Many thanks

Dave

[des8]

sorry, but not yet ready as i have been distracted by family matters
However there is no rush as you have 28 days from the date of Azure's letter in which to file an appeal with POPLA

[davec2019]

sorry, but not yet ready as i have been distracted by family matters
However there is no rush as you have 28 days from the date of Azure's letter in which to file an appeal with POPLA

No worries, I appreciate all the help so far.

[des8]

At last!
you should also take photos, supporting your version, which you can include with your appeal

Background

Azure have issued an invoice (a Parking Charge notice) for an alleged breach of contract that was allegedly formed by signage.

The Car Park is approached off a busy roundabout, over a pavement and through a narrow passageway.

The park itself services a group of retail premises including a gym club, an estate agent, post office and some private residences, with a number of different signs

The appellant asserts that for a number of reasons there was no contract.

Reasons

1)No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then the operator is to produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name, legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only.

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case it is suggested it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge – which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement.

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined;

b) any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation;

c) any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement;

d) who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs;

e) the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

2 Inadequate and Non-Compliant Signage – No Contract Formed

The signage at this site is not sufficiently clear, prominent, or unambiguous to form a contractual agreement with a motorist, as required under Section 19 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.

This is a relatively large parking area. The primary sign is mounted on a side wall at the entrance and is not easily visible from within a moving vehicle, particularly when safely manoeuvring into the area.

In addition that sign states “AUTHORISED PARKING ONLY”, which implicitly means vehicles not authorised may not park there.
It is trite law that one cannot contract to do that which is forbidden.
Therefore there was no contract to park

That message is reinforced by other signs within the park which state “NO PARKING AT ANY TIME”
Stating in smaller letters that there will be £100 charge if one parks without a valid permit is a poor attempt to disguise a penalty as a contractual charge.




A prohibitory sign cannot form the basis of a contract because it offers no invitation to park under any terms. Instead, it acts as a deterrent, merely stating that parking is not permitted. For a contract to be valid and enforceable, there must be an offer, consideration, and acceptance, none of which can occur with a prohibitory notice.

There was no offer to permit parking, just a prohibition
Therefore there was no contract to park

Azure Parking Ltd’s response (dd.mm.yyyy) to an internal appeal supports the above contention when they state “authorisation is required [to park]” and “A brief stop of several minutes still constitutes unauthorised parking when a vehicle is left stationary in a restricted area without permission,”(It is also noted that they do not show which areas of the car park are not restricted, nor if the car was parked in a restricted area)

So without authorisation one may not park

Alsothe site contains mixed and potentially contradictory signage, as the car park may be used by others who are permitted to park provided they sign in. This creates ambiguity for drivers entering the site, as it is not immediately clear whether parking is restricted entirely or permitted subject to conditions. The BPA Code of Practice requires that terms be clear, intelligible, and unambiguous; this standard is not met where different categories of users appear to have different rights to park, without this being clearly explained at the point of entry.

As such, no contractual offer was communicated to the driver at the time of entry, who thought that Parking for the post office was permitted

3 ParkingEye v Beavis is not applicable to the facts of this case
The operator relies on ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis, however that case concerned:

• clear and prominent signage,
• a free-stay car park,
• and a driver who overstayed a clearly stated maximum period.
• This case involves:
• unclear and mixed signage,
• no meaningful opportunity to read terms before enforcement,
• and a stay of approximately four minutes.

The facts are entirely distinguishable, and Beavis does not override the operator’s obligations

[davec2019]

This is great, thanks. I will get some better pictures that clearly show the points raised in this appeal and send it off.

Thanks so much again

Dave

[davec2019]

Azure have update this on the popla appeal

The vehicle remained on site without authority. • This is a breach of the Terms and Conditions of using the site and consequently a breach of Contract. • The signage on Site clearly specifies the full Terms and Conditions of use of which it is the motorist’s responsibility to ensure they adhere to. • The signage is approved by the British Parking Association and is sufficient in notifying all users of the Terms and Conditions of parking on this private land. • Whilst the circumstances of the Appellant’s appeal have been considered, these do not exempt them from the relevant applicable Terms and Conditions specifically the requirement to be authorised on site. • The operator issued a Parking Charge after the driver parked at the above site without displaying a valid permit. The driver has confirmed leaving the vehicle to visit the Post Office. This car park is clearly designated as a permit-only car park, and no exemption applies for Post Office customers. • By remaining parked without authorisation, the driver breached the clearly displayed parking terms. The Parking Charge was therefore correctly issued. • 1. Landowner Authority – Fully Compliant with the Code of Practice • The appellant asserts that the operator has failed to demonstrate landowner authority. This assertion is incorrect. • Azure Parking Ltd confirms that it holds written authorisation from the landowner to manage parking at this location, including the installation of signage, the issuing of Parking Charges, and the recovery of outstanding charges in its own name, in accordance with Section 7 of the Code of Practice. • In line with POPLA’s established position: • Operators are not required to provide an unredacted commercial contract to appellants. • POPLA routinely accepts either a contract summary or a compliant witness statement as sufficient evidence of landowner authority. • The landowner agreement held by the operator defines: • The boundaries of the land subject to enforcement; • The permit-only restriction applicable at all times; • The operator’s responsibility for signage; • The amount of the Parking Charge authorised by the landowner; • The absence of any customer, visitor, or Post Office exemption. • There is no requirement under the Code of Practice to disclose commercially sensitive clauses such as internal cancellation arrangements or landowner veto rights. Appeals based solely on demands for unredacted contracts are routinely dismissed by POPLA. • This ground of appeal should therefore be rejected. • 2. Signage Is Adequate, Clear, and Compliant – Contract Formed • a) Entrance and On-Site Signage • The site is clearly signed as “Authorised / Permit Holders Only”, with additional signage throughout the car park reiterating that parking without authorisation is not permitted and that a Parking Charge of £100 applies to vehicles parked without a valid permit. • The signage complies with Section 19 of the Code of Practice: • Signs are present at the entrance and throughout the site; • The restriction (permit holders only) is prominently stated; • The Parking Charge is clearly displayed; • The terms are legible and intelligible once a driver has parked and exited the vehicle. • The Code of Practice does not require signage to be read while a vehicle is in motion. Drivers are expected to familiarise themselves with the terms before leaving their vehicle. • b) “Prohibitive Signage” Argument – Misconceived • The appellant contends that signage stating “authorised parking only” is purely prohibitory and incapable of forming a contract. This argument is incorrect. • Permit-only signage constitutes a contractual offer to park on the condition that a valid permit is held. Where a driver chooses to park without a permit, they accept the contractual terms by conduct, including the agreement to pay the stated Parking Charge. • POPLA has consistently found that permit-only schemes are capable of forming enforceable contracts and that parking without authorisation constitutes a breach of those terms. • The Parking Charge is clearly stated and prominently displayed. It is neither hidden nor punitive, but a contractual sum agreed by the driver’s actions. • c) Alleged Mixed or Contradictory Signage • The appellant suggests that signage is unclear due to different categories of authorised users (such as permit holders or users required to sign in). • This does not create ambiguity. The signage makes it clear that: • Parking is restricted to authorised users only; and • Authorisation must be obtained before leaving the vehicle. • Any entitlement to park by signing in applies only to those who are aware of and comply with that process. The driver did not have authorisation and did not seek clarification prior to parking. An assumption that parking was permitted for Post Office visitors does not override the clearly stated terms. • d) Driver Admission • The driver has expressly admitted: • Parking at the site; and • Leaving the vehicle to visit the Post Office. • This confirms that the vehicle was parked, not merely stopped, and that the driver remained on site without authorisation. • 3. ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis – Applicable in Principle • The operator does not rely on ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] on the basis of identical facts, but on the legal principles established by the Supreme Court. • That judgment confirms that: • A Parking Charge may be enforceable even where no financial loss is suffered; • A charge of £100 is not excessive or unconscionable; • Parking charges may be justified by a legitimate interest in managing parking. • In this case, the operator has a legitimate interest in preventing unauthorised parking in a permit-only car park serving businesses and residents. The Parking Charge is in line with the Code of Practice and clearly communicated by signage. • The duration of the stay is immaterial. Where parking is unauthorised, no minimum grace period applies. • Conclusion • The operator has the necessary landowner authority. • Signage is clear, prominent, and compliant with the Code of Practice. • The driver admitted parking without authorisation. • The Parking Charge was issued correctly and lawfully. • The operator respectfully requests that the appeal be refused and the Parking Charge upheld.