Azure Parking Charge

[davec2019]

This might be easier to read

Overview of Breach

• 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.

[davec2019]

My argument I believe is based on my post that shows my initial appeal, I dont confirm that I leave the property only state my intent to post documents

[davec2019]

Some of the files they have added to the appeal are to big to add on here

[davec2019]

Obviosuly AI cant be relied on but this is what I got back

The operator is being quite "clever" with your words. They have interpreted your statement "visiting... the local Post Office" as a definitive admission that you parked and left the site.

In the world of private parking appeals, there is a massive legal difference between "Parking" (entering into a contract) and "Stopping" (which may be a grace period or a non-contractual event).

Here is where you stand based on your initial appeal and their response: 1. The "Admission" Conflict

You framed your appeal as a plea for discretion (mentioning the bereavement and the short duration). The operator has ignored the "discretion" aspect and treated your letter as a legal confession.

• Your Stance: You stated you "briefly stopped" for "three to five minutes."
• Their Interpretation: They claim you "confirmed leaving the vehicle."
• The Reality: If you didn't explicitly say "I switched off the engine, locked the car, and walked away," they are making an assumption. However, saying you were "visiting the Post Office" strongly implies you were no longer in the vehicle.

2. The "Consideration Period" vs. "Grace Period"

The operator claims "no minimum grace period applies." This is a significant point where they might be wrong under the BPA Code of Practice (Section 13):

• Consideration Period: All motorists must be given a minimum of 5 minutes to enter a site, read the signs, and decide whether to stay or leave.
• Your Defense: Since you stated you were there for "three to five minutes," you were within the mandatory BPA Consideration Period. You decided the terms weren't for you (or you realized the mistake) and left.

3. The "Bereavement" and Intent

Legally, parking companies are not required to be "nice." While the circumstances regarding your father are a strong moral ground, POPLA (the independent adjudicator) usually cannot cancel a charge based on "mitigating circumstances" alone. They only look at whether the "parking contract" was breached. How to push back

If you take this to POPLA, you should pivot from "I made a mistake" to "The operator is misrepresenting my statement and ignoring the Code of Practice."

Points to raise:

• Not an Admission: Clarify that you did not "admit parking." You admitted "stopping" for a duration that falls entirely within the mandatory BPA Consideration Period.
• No Contract Formed: Argue that 3–5 minutes is the time it takes to stop, look at a sign, realize it's a permit-only zone, and depart. Therefore, no contract was ever entered into.
• Misrepresentation: Call out the operator for claiming you "confirmed leaving the vehicle" when your appeal actually stated you "stopped in the area."

[davec2019]

Des-8 according to the popla appeal, I have 5 days remaining to log my comments on Azures reply and upload

[davec2019]

What do you think of this? As always though, I'll wait for what you feel would be best to do




APPELLANT'S COMMENTS ON OPERATOR EVIDENCE

1. Azure Misrepresents My Original Appeal - I Never Visited the Post Office

Azure states (paragraph 2d): "The driver has expressly admitted leaving the vehicle to visit the Post Office."

This is false. I stated my intention to visit the Post Office, not that I completed this. My exact words: "visiting what I genuinely believed to be parking" and "to drop off documents" - these describe intention, not completed action.

What actually happened:

I stopped and exited my vehicle. As stated in my original appeal, "I did not pay sufficient attention to signage" - this referred to entrance signage while driving, as I focused on safe vehicle control, navigating off a busy roundabout, across a pavement, watching for pedestrians, and entering a narrow alley. After parking, I spent 4 minutes studying the numerous contradictory signs to determine if Post Office customers were authorized. Upon realizing they were not, I immediately left.

I did not enter the Post Office. I did not use any facilities.

Azure's CCTV confirms: Entry 11:20:13, Exit 11:24:15 = 4 minutes reading signs. This demonstrates good faith compliance, not deliberate breach.

2. Prohibitory Signage Cannot Form Contracts - Basic Contract Law

My photographs show Azure's signs state: "NO PARKING AT ANY TIME"

This is prohibitory language, not a contractual offer. Contract law requires an offer to form a contract. "NO PARKING AT ANY TIME" is a prohibition - it offers nothing.

Azure argues (paragraph 2b) that "permit-only signage constitutes a contractual offer." However, signage stating "NO PARKING AT ANY TIME" is prohibitory, not contractual. It forbids parking entirely rather than offering conditional parking rights. The signs do not state "Parking available for permit holders" - they state an absolute prohibition.

This is trite law: one cannot contract to do that which is forbidden.

Azure's own language proves no contract existed:

In their rejection letter (19 January 2026), Azure stated: "unauthorised parking" and "without permission."

Azure's characterization of my parking as "unauthorised" creates a fundamental legal inconsistency with their claim that a contract existed.

This creates a legal impossibility:

Either my parking was "unauthorised" and "without permission" (Azure's exact words), which means:

• No contractual relationship existed
• I was a trespasser, not a contracting party
• Azure has no contractual basis for a charge

OR a contract existed, which means:

• My parking was "authorised" (I accepted their offer by parking)
• I had "permission" (conditional on terms)
• Azure cannot simultaneously call it "unauthorised"

Azure cannot have it both ways. As a matter of law, these positions are mutually exclusive.

This is not a matter of interpretation. Azure has made a binding legal admission in writing that no contractual relationship existed when they characterized my parking as "unauthorised" and "without permission."

Should this matter proceed to court, Azure would be bound by this admission. A court would rule that Azure's own characterization - that the parking was "unauthorised" - is an admission that no contract was formed. Without a contract, there can be no claim for breach of contract and no enforceable charge.

Azure cannot now resile from their own admission and claim a contract existed.

3. The Signage Fails BPA Code Requirements - At Least 10 Contradictory Signs

Azure has completely failed to address the photographic evidence showing signage chaos.

My photographs prove at least 10 contradictory signs:

1. Azure: "NO PARKING AT ANY TIME"
2. Azure: "PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY"
3. Energie Fitness: "Members must register at reception"
4. Funeral Directors: "Client parking only"
5. Mayhews: "STAFF ONLY"
6. Residents: "Reserved for Flat 123A"
7. Tan Lounge: "Reserved parking"
8. Tops Pizza: "NO PARKING"
9. Leaders: Estate agent signage
10. Gym: "Register vehicles on every visit"

BPA Code Section 19 requires signage to be "clear, intelligible, and unambiguous."

The contradictions are impossible:

Gym members: One sign says register at reception. Azure says "NO PARKING AT ANY TIME." Can they park or not? If they register as instructed, are they violating Azure's prohibition? Which sign takes precedence?

Funeral clients: One sign says "Client parking only." Azure says "NO PARKING AT ANY TIME." If a bereaved family arrives for consultation, can they park as the funeral director's sign indicates, or are they prohibited as Azure states?

Tan Lounge customers: One sign says "Reserved for Tan Lounge." Azure says "NO PARKING AT ANY TIME." Are they exempt or does Azure's prohibition override their reserved parking?

Residents: Signs say "Reserved for Flat 123A." Azure says "NO PARKING AT ANY TIME." Can residents park in their reserved spaces or does Azure's prohibition override their rights?

No reasonable driver can determine who is allowed to park when signage simultaneously states:

• Nobody can park ("NO PARKING AT ANY TIME")
• Some can park with permits ("PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY")
• Some can park if they register (gym)
• Some can park as clients (funeral directors)
• Some have reserved spaces (residents, businesses)

Azure argues (2c) "the clearly stated terms" - but 10+ contradictory signs are NOT clearly stated. This is the opposite of clear, intelligible, and unambiguous.

This is why I spent 4 minutes studying signs - trying to determine if Post Office customers fell into any permitted category. If signage were truly "clear, intelligible, and unambiguous" as BPA Code Section 19 requires, I would not have needed 4 minutes to study it.

4. Entrance Signage Fails "Prominence" Requirement

My photographs show:

• Narrow alleyway entrance barely wide enough for a vehicle
• Busy London Road with traffic and pedestrians
• Azure's sign on the side wall, not facing drivers

A driver entering must focus on:

• Navigating off a busy roundabout
• Watching for pedestrians
• Entering a narrow passage without hitting the walls
• Safe vehicle control in a tight space

A driver cannot safely read a sideways sign while performing these safety-critical maneuvers.

BPA Code requires entrance signage to be "prominent" - positioned to catch attention. A side-wall sign in a narrow alley that drivers cannot see while maneuvering safely is not prominent.

Azure argues (2a) signs don't need reading while moving. This misses the point. The Code requires entrance signage to be prominent - clearly visible to approaching drivers and impossible to miss. A side-wall sign in a narrow alley fails this entirely.

5. Mixed Business Environment Created Genuine Confusion

My photographs prove multiple businesses operate here with different parking arrangements:

• Energie Fitness (members must register at reception)
• Funeral Directors (client parking available)
• Mayhews (staff only)
• Tan Lounge (reserved parking)
• Tops Pizza (no parking)
• Residents (reserved spaces)
• Post Office nearby

A reasonable driver seeing a car park serving multiple businesses would reasonably assume customer parking might be available for nearby businesses including the Post Office.

Signage creates confusion by suggesting some customers ARE permitted (gym members who register, funeral clients), while Azure simultaneously says "NO PARKING AT ANY TIME."

This created genuine ambiguity about whether Post Office customers might fall into a permitted category.

6. I Complied - No Breach Occurred

I did exactly what a reasonable driver should: exited the vehicle to read signage and determine rules. I studied 10+ confusing signs for 4 minutes. Upon determining Post Office customers weren't authorized, I immediately left without using any facility.

I complied by leaving as soon as I understood the restrictions.

Timeline:

• 11:20:13 - Entered
• Exited vehicle, studied 10+ contradictory signs for 4 minutes
• Determined Post Office customers are not authorized
• Returned to the vehicle
• 11:24:15 - Exited

This demonstrates: active attempt to comply, good faith conduct, immediate departure, no unauthorized use, brief presence reading signs.

A £100 charge for someone who actively studied confusing signage to comply, left immediately upon understanding, never used any facility, and was present only 4 minutes reading signs is neither reasonable nor proportionate.

Conclusion

1. No contract: "NO PARKING AT ANY TIME" is prohibition, not offer. No offer = no contract.

2. Azure's words confirm: Calling it "unauthorised" and "without permission" is a fatal legal admission no contract existed. Cannot claim both "unauthorised" AND contract formed. In any court proceedings, this fatal contradiction would destroy their case.

3. Signage non-compliant: 10+ contradictory signs fail BPA Code Section 19 "clear, intelligible, and unambiguous" requirement. Photographic evidence proves this.

4. Entrance inadequate: Side-wall sign in narrow alley fails "prominence" requirement.

5. I complied: Studied signs 4 minutes, left immediately without using facilities - compliance, not breach.

6. Good faith throughout: Active attempt to comply, immediate departure, no abuse, minimal presence reading signs.

7. Azure ignores evidence: No response to photographs proving signage failures - cannot rebut it.

ParkingEye v Beavis inapplicable: Clear signage and deliberate overstay vs. prohibitory signage and 4-minute compliance check.

I respectfully request POPLA cancel this charge.

[davec2019]

Sorry, the latest version fits there 10000 character limit

[des8]

So I would be responding to POPLA along the following lines :

Following Azure's response I would advise as follows (following the Claimant's Numeration):

Overview of Breach
Claimant states
"The driver has confirmed leaving the vehicle to visit the Post Office."
Appellant's response
This is a false statement. The driver indicated the stop was " purely to drop off important documents". He did not confirm leaving the vehicle. This is misrepresentation by the Claimant.
The Claimant is put to strict proof the vehicle was parked and the driver left the vehicle
In fact the driver remained in the area for only xxx minutes , which is within the 5 Minute minimum consideration period of the BPA operators code (annex "B") (you'll need to check that against the times shown on the original PCN)
This was barely sufficient time to read and comprehend the contradictory signage and then exit the area


2. Signage Is Adequate, Clear, and Compliant – Contract Formed
Claimant states:
a) Entrance and On-Site Signage
"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

c) Alleged Mixed or Contradictory Signage
.The signage makes it clear that

• Parking is restricted to authorised users only; and
• Authorisation must be obtained before leaving the vehicle.

The driver did not have authorisation and did not seek clarification prior to parking.

Appellant's response:
There is clear contradiction within their response which reflects the poor signage.
The Claimant states at a) the terms are legible etc after exiting the vehicle, but at c) that authorisation must be obtained before leaving the vehicle
They complain the driver did not seek clarification prior to parking, but do not suggest how any clarification can be sought when "signage [is not required] to be read while a vehicle is in motion" and that the terms are legible after exiting the vehicle
The signage does not indicate how authority to park or clarification can be obtained before leaving the vehicle

d) Driver Admission
Claimant states
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.

Appellant's response

The driver used the term "parked" because that was the terminology in the NTK. A stop to read & consider the Terms & Conditions of parking would perhaps been more accurate.
The driver did not admit leaving the vehicle to visit the Post Office, but only stated that the intention was to visit the Post Office. This is misrepresentation by the Claimant.
The Claimant actually states "the driver remained on site", whereas he would have had to leave the site to visit the nearby Post Office
Time was spent trying to understand the signage and workout where to park.
The Claimant is put to strict proof that the driver left the vehicle and site


For all the reasons above and previously stated in my original appeal to POPLA I assert there was no contract formed as 1) there was no intention by the driver, 2) the signage was unclear , contradictory and
prohibitive




If you want to use the above, do check it and fill in the gaps.

Having drafted the above I looked at the attachments in post 33.
1) ZZPS are debt collectors and I wonder why they have included that
2) there is a copy of a self ticketing agreement
3) is that a photograph of your car?

It is possible that one of the site occupiers is acting as a warden and noted you leaving the site ,, so be careful

[davec2019]

Can I just check the bits in red are just the claimants comments

This part will need updating my side?

In fact the driver remained in the area for only xxx minutes , which is within the 5 Minute minimum consideration period of the BPA operators code (annex "B") (you'll need to check that against the times shown on the original PCN)

Could you elobarate on these sorry

2) there is a copy of a self ticketing agreement
3) is that a photograph of your car? the sigange6 redacted is what thjey sent, its not my car

[davec2019]

Thanks again for all your help btw.

Once I submit my response and wait for outcome, what is usually the process if they reject my appeal?

[des8]

[QUOTE=davec2019;n1715957]Can I just check the bits in red are just the claimants comments
Yes, it makes it easier to read

This part will need updating my side? Yes, you need to refer to the original notice to find how long you were in the park, and enter that where it shows "XXxminutes"

Could you elobarate on these sorry

2) there is a copy of a self ticketing agreement The attachment LOA SITEMAP includes the agreement between Azure and the landowner which, together with the ZZPS statement was interesting
ZZPS are basically debt collectors but here are issuing the NTKs etc on behalf of Azure
3) is that a photograph of your car? the sigange6 redacted is what thjey sent, its not my car[/QUOTE]Good!


Can you check that you actually stopped in the area shown on the site map, and not perhaps on the approach road, which appears not to be covered by the landowners agreement

You might be able to add that the driver stopped in a part not covered by the landowner agreement

[davec2019]

I have seen people try to complain to BPA and include the local MP & councilor if POPLA rejects the appeal. Low chance, I'm sure, but at that point, what do you have to lose?

POPLA is institutionally biased toward operators, it seems. BPA is a trade association of parking operators, so Azure Fund POPLA, Its such a fundamentally wrong system that the two are intertwined.

Can you check that you actually stopped in the area shown on the site map, and not perhaps on the approach road, which appears not to be covered by the landowners agreement
There is no where else to park that isnt covered by the area unfortunately

[davec2019]

So I have had my Popla appeal come back as unsuccessful with the following

Decision
Unsuccessful
Assessor Name
Alexandra Roby
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant parked without authorisation.

Assessor summary of your case
For the purpose of my report, I’ve summarised the appellant’s grounds into the following points and checked each point before coming to my conclusion. The appellant has stated that: • the operator hasn’t provided evidence of its landowner authority; • the signage is inadequate and non-compliant, so a contract wasn’t formed; and • the precedent set by the Supreme Court Case ParkingEye v Beavis doesn’t apply. To support their appeal, the appellant has provided: • photographs of various signs at the site; and • photographs of the entrance and access road to the site. This evidence has been considered in making my determination. After reviewing the operator’s evidence, the appellant has reiterated and expanded on their grounds of appeal. I’ve addressed these within my rationale. Within their comments, the appellant has also explained how they spent their time at the site and that they didn’t abuse the car park. The motorist comments stage of our appeal process is to allow the motorist to expand upon their initial grounds of appeal in light of the evidence provided by the operator. POPLA does not allow the appellant to raise new grounds of appeal at this stage, and any new grounds of appeal raised will not be considered. Therefore, I will not be addressing this as part of my response.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
The operator has provided photographs of the signage on site, which sets out the terms and conditions. The terms and conditions of the site state that parking is for the use of permit holders only. Failure to comply will result in a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) of £100. In this case, the operator has issued the PCN as the appellant parked without a permit. While the appellant was only on site for four minutes, within their appeal to the operator they advised they parked to drop off documents. By utilising the site, I’m satisfied that the appellant parked. The appellant has raised three key grounds of appeal, each of which I’ll address separately: • The appellant has stated that the signage is inadequate and non-compliant, so a contract wasn’t formed. Regarding signage, section 19 of the applicable British Parking Association Code of Practice states that parking operators needs to have signs that clearly set out the terms of parking; signs must be easy to see, read and understand. Section 19.2 states that parking operators must have entrance signs to advise motorists that they are entering into private land and that there are terms they must be aware of. In this case, both the appellant and the operator have provided images of the signage throughout site, including at the entrance. Having reviewed this, I’m satisfied that there is sufficient signage to clearly communicate the parking conditions in a reasonable-sized font, along with the consequences of failing to comply with them at the entrance and throughout the parking area. Both parties’ evidence shows that there is signage at the entrance and throughout the site. Though I accept that the appellant has also shown that it’s a narrow entrance off a busy road, I consider that they would have seen the signs within the site, had they missed the entrance signage. Further, though the appellant has stated that the signage is prohibitive, parking is permitted with a permit. Therefore, I cannot agree with this claim. Although there is signage stating that parking isn’t permitted in certain areas, the PCN was issued for parking without a permit. Within their appeal, I note that the appellant has also provided images of various signs at the site demonstrating that various bays belong to various businesses. While I do not dispute that this signage is in situ, this doesn’t invalidate the parking conditions. Though parking may be reserved for certain users, a permit is still required at all times. Further, the appellant’s own images demonstrate that there are many signs located throughout. As such, I can only be satisfied that they were presented with a reasonable opportunity to review and comply with the site’s terms and conditions. By parking, I’m satisfied that the appellant entered into a parking contract. • The appellant has stated that the operator hasn’t provided evidence of its landowner authority. Section 14.1 of the applicable Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice states that where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner, written confirmation must be obtained before a parking charge can be issued. In response to this ground of appeal, the operator has provided a copy of its landowner agreement. Having reviewed this and taking into consideration the fact that there are many signs at the site, I am satisfied that the operator has sufficient authority to issue PCNs on the land. • The appellant has stated that the precedent set by the Supreme Court Case ParkingEye v Beavis doesn’t apply. The Supreme Court considered private parking charges in a high-profile case, ParkingEye v Beavis. The Court recognised that parking charges have all the characteristics of a contractual penalty, but nevertheless were enforceable because there were legitimate interests in the charging of overstaying motorists. It concluded that a charge in the region of £85 was proportionate, and it attached importance to the fact that the charge was prominently displayed in large lettering on the signage itself. While the specific facts of the case concerned a free-stay car park where the motorist had overstayed, I consider the principles that lie behind the decision remain the same. Taking these principles into account, I am not going to consider whether the loss is a genuine pre-estimate of loss or whether it reflects a correct loss to the landowner. Rather, I am going to consider the charge amount in the appellant’s case, as well as the legibility of the signage. After reviewing the signage provided by the operator, I am satisfied that the signage is legible, and the charge amount is in the region of £85 and therefore allowable. After considering the evidence from both parties, I’m satisfied that the appellant parked without authorisation and therefore didn’t comply with the terms and conditions of the site. As such, the parking charge has been issued correctly. Accordingly, the appeal is refused.

[des8]

Not unexpected,so now await the barrage of letters requesting payment and (if not paid) the court claim

[davec2019]

If it goes to court are you liable for extra charges or would it still just be the £100?