Azure parking - PCN sent outside the statutory period

Rickerdoom

Hi, 
I've been sent PCN by Azure parking and it's 15 days outside the statutory 14 days period. Azure uploaded 2 pictures, one of entrance and one of exiting the area (only 1 cark park spot).

I appealed using the advice from the forum, and It has been rejected but I've been provided with a POPLA code. 

This is my draft appeal, and i wondered if anyone has any advice. [Point 2 is adpated from another thread on the forum). Thank you in advance.

I, the Registered Keeper of vehicle [Insert Registration], am writing to appeal parking charge notice [Insert PCN Number] issued by the Operator.

1)    POFA 2012 Non-Compliance

The Notice to Keeper (NtK) issued by Azure Parking is dated __ April 2025, relating to an alleged event on __ March 2025. This means it was issued 25 days after the parking event.

Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(5), a Notice to Keeper must be delivered to the registered keeper within 14 days of the alleged contravention if no Notice to Driver was left on the vehicle.

POFA 9(6) states that a notice sent by post is presumed to be delivered on the second working day after posting. Even generously assuming it was posted on __April, it would not be deemed delivered until __April 2025 — 15 days outside the statutory deadline.

As such, Azure Parking cannot hold the keeper liable under POFA. There will be no admission as to the identity of the driver, and no assumptions may be made.

2)    Signage and Visibility

The signage at the entrance to the site was inadequate. It was not prominently positioned at the entrance, but rather located on an inside wall in small print, making it not readily visible from a moving vehicle. This was exacerbated by the hours of darkness and the absence of sign lighting. As per the evidence submitted by Azure Parking, visibility at the site is clearly low. The vehicle was parked in reverse, and the only sign was located in small print to the left of the driver, further reducing its visibility and making it unreasonable to expect the driver to have seen or understood any contractual terms.

The wording on the sign was minimal & unclear, and it was unreasonable to expect the driver to notice it, let alone enter into a contract under those conditions. Even upon retrospective viewing, the sign's information does not clearly establish a contractual agreement.

This contravenes the BPA Code of Practice. Paragraph 18.3 states:

“Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.”

“Signs should be readable and understandable at all times, including during the hours of darkness or at dusk if and when parking enforcement activity takes place at those times. This can be achieved in a variety of ways such as by direct lighting or by using the lighting for the parking area. If the sign itself is not directly or indirectly lit, we suggest that it should be made of a retro-reflective material.”

The above also indicates a contravention of BPA Code of Practice (18.2), which states: “you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area.”

The photos confirm that the alleged contravention occurred during hours of darkness. There is insufficient lighting at the site and the signs cannot clearly be seen during the hours of darkness.

 [The next two points copy and pasted from the newbies thread]

3) The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself 

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

Rickerdoom

This is the picture of the sign (on the left). There is a sign behind the car on the wall. As the car is reversed into the parking spot, that would not be visible. 

Coupon-mad

Joke PCN, with what I would say is a trap and likely illegal surveillance - it films every pedestrian and the street! This is not allowed and should be reported to the Information Commissioner.  Please do.

Anyway yes, that POPLA appeal will win.