Azure Parking tickets for stopping a few mins in car park

Grizebeck

There is nothing in there that says the keeper has to identify the driver or they are liable ( where it's non pofa)

Coupon-mad

Danny30 said:

Coupon-mad said:

That's it.  I recall that lie.  They should be ashamed about stating something completely untrue, but they won't be.

We need to test this at POPLA by making them decide whether - according to POPLA - the law (POFA schedule 4) trumps the Code.

Although it isn't an ombudsman, POPLA is run by Ombudsman Services so this could be interesting.  We need to embarrass them by writing something clever.

But this is why NOT to try only this single point at POPLA any more until we've tested their stance in light of the fake Code of Practice, which is littered with self-serving falsehoods and sneaky wording that (to the uninitiated) looks a bit like the stalled DLUHC Code

I can see the new code was implemented on October 1st 2024, which is after the issue date of the NTK I received so I assume this new code of practice wouldn't be applicable anyway? 

OK no need to test it in your case then.

Danny30

On the Popla appeal, which box would I select from the below, or does it not make a difference? I would assume the 'I was not incorrectly parked option and the 'other' option?



The Popla site also says this which I again assume is irrelevant as the appeal would be based solely on the points included:

We know you want your appeal to be successful and might have looked for guidance from successful claims on other sites, however, using templates or copying and pasting text won't help your claim. Our site has been designed so that you can provide most of the information we need in just a few clicks and without too much typing. Where needed, using your own words to describe your situation is the best way to proceed with the appeal.

Grizebeck

Ignore that statement
And select other.

Coupon-mad

Danny30 said:

On the Popla appeal, which box would I select from the below, or does it not make a difference? I would assume the 'I was not incorrectly parked option and the 'other' option?

But the third post of the NEWBIES thread already tells you which box to tick.

It also tells everyone all about POPLA COMMENTS stage too. All the basics are covered there to stop people having to ask us.

Danny30

UPDATE - Operators reply to POPLA

Hi all, so Azure have no replied to Popla and just hoping for some advice on what to respond. Below is Azures reply and my thought on the below.

AZURE REPLY

The vehicle remained on site and was not allowed to park. • 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 not park in this area. • The vehicle was on site from 08:41 – 08:48 (7-minutes) and the signage clearly states no parking at any time. • The registered keeper has failed to confirm the driver details even after being asked multiple times. As this charge is POFA 2012 compliant, keeper liability has been established and the Registered keeper will remain liable for this charge. • The Parking Charge has been issued correctly as the vehicle was not allowed to park at this location. We note the further points raised within the keepers appeal to POPLA. The charge is POFA complaint and therefore keeper liability has been established and the Car Park Operator will pursue the charge with the keeper as the liable party. A copy of the Landowner Agreement has been provided within the evidence. All signage is fully approved by the British Parking Association. The 10-minute grace period does not apply to this site as it is 'No Parking' at any time. Please refer to the photographic evidence of the site and signage provided by the Car Park Operator.

Then in an attachment they mention this:

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 not park in this area.

The vehicle was on site from 08:41 – 08:48 (7-minutes) and the signage clearly states no parking at any time.

The registered keeper has failed to confirm the driver details even after being asked multiple times. As this charge is POFA 2012 compliant, keeper liability has been established and the Registered keeper will remain liable for this charge.

The Parking Charge has been issued correctly as the vehicle was not allowed to park at this location.

CONTINUED ON NEXT POST

Danny30

Looking at their argument, they claim the invoice is POFA compliant even though we confirmed it’s not.

 

See the signage enclosed which shows the signage is no t adequate as they claim. Am I correct on this. No signage visible while entering, only a small sign on the wall when actually entering the car park and only signage is 3 small signs in the car park on the far wall.

 

The Landowners contract seems okay I think. See attached.

Any other points to argue?

First  image is Entrance to car park 

Second is only sign when entering on right side wall

Third is landowner contract

Fourth is only sign visible

Fifth is Close up of sign

Grizebeck

This why you focus on one argument only so minds are focused.

Coupon-mad

Just point out why it's non-POFA.

KeithP

How can a sign that states NO PARKING AT ANY TIME form the basis of a contract to park?