Azure Parking Fine

ShMcWs

Hi, I’ve read the newbies thread and a couple of others and I’m still quite confused. I received a parking fine today for the St Peters way car park in Northampton which is run by azure and has a free 2 hour stay.

The fine was for an overstay, I had to go onto their website to find I have overstayed by less than 10 minutes from entry to exit. Can I appeal this as they have not accounted a full 10 minute grace period?

My biggest source of confusion is over the bpa code of practice, because they don’t have to be in full compliance until 2026, does this include the grace period?

SPECIFICS:

ENTRY TIME: 10:22:50

EXIT TIME: 12:32:16

TOTAL TIME: 2:09:26

If anyone could help me clear up the confusion I would be most grateful. And if I can appeal it should I use the template on the newbies thread?

Coupon-mad

LOL, it is almost a joke: Azure Parking use ZZPS to send their letters and our cases show they scam people left, right & centre.

Show us the PCN please, both sides. Showing the dates and the timings. I want to add this to my evidence that ZZPS are off the chart for breaching the Code of Practice and misleading consumers, even lying to them.

You are right. This is in breach of the CoP and ZZPS should never have obtained your data at all. The 10 min grace period has been mandatory for at least a decade.

ShMcWs

Hi @Coupon-mad, Sorry for not replying I didn’t see the comment before now, attached below are the pictures of the ntk I received.

I sent in an appeal on 21/12/25 using the appeal format from the newbies thread. As I’m sure you’re aware with the zzps appeal you must state if you were the driver so I put I was not as I’m not required to identify the driver.

I checked my emails this morning and realised I received an email from zzps on 15/01/26 essentially saying I had to identify the driver.Which I have not done nor will I do. I am planning on replying with something along the lines of…

I am appealing as the registered keeper and will not be identifying the driver. You received my appeal on 21/12/25, if you wish to reject the appeal then you must provide me with a popla code. Additionally a complaint will be lodged and escalated to the bpa if needs be.

Does this make sense? Is there a better way to put it? Is this even the right step to take at this point? Any help you can provide is really appreciated as I still dont really understand what I’m doing. And finally sorry if the formatting is weird, I’m doing this on my phone and am not having a good time trying to get the pictures in.

  

ChirpyChicken

sounds fine to me

Coupon-mad

ShMcWs said:

Hi @Coupon-mad, Sorry for not replying I didn’t see the comment before now, attached below are the pictures of the ntk I received.

I sent in an appeal on 21/12/25 using the appeal format from the newbies thread. As I’m sure you’re aware with the zzps appeal you must state if you were the driver so I put I was not as I’m not required to identify the driver.

I checked my emails this morning and realised I received an email from zzps on 15/01/26 essentially saying I had to identify the driver.Which I have not done nor will I do. I am planning on replying with something along the lines of…

I am appealing as the registered keeper and will not be identifying the driver. You received my appeal on 21/12/25, if you wish to reject the appeal then you must provide me with a popla code. Additionally a complaint will be lodged and escalated to the bpa if needs be.

Does this make sense? Is there a better way to put it?

Is this even the right step to take at this point? Any help you can provide is really appreciated as I still dont really understand what I’m doing.

And finally sorry if the formatting is weird, I’m doing this on my phone and am not having a good time trying to get the pictures in.

ZZPS misleading a keeper appellant yet again. Lying that they need to hear from the driver and putting up barriers against appeals from keepers.

Their conduct is utterly appalling and I suspect will only get worse now they've created a 'legal' arm to sue people, headed by Scott Wilson, the ex 'Head of Legal' at Wonga.

user57

HI, I had similar a similar response, they issued a ticket as the car allegedly wasn't within the marked bays, which is debatable and there are no signs displayed at the entrance to the site, here's the ticket:

Parking Charge to Registered Keeper:

This Parking Charge has been issued to the above-mentioned vehicle due to a breach of the terms and conditions of parking on private land location noted above. The reason for issue and the date and time to which this Charge relates detailed above. Evidence this contravention be found on our website www.PayMyParkingCharge.com. 

Having identified that a contravention occurred, your data the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing, Regulations 2002); their records indicate that you were the registered Keeper of the vehicle has been released by the DVLA as we have reasonable cause (under Regulation 27(1)(e) date of the parking event.

The terms and conditions, which the driver agreed to be contractually bound are clear y. parking Charge is now owed to the Creditor. placed at the entrance to the site and in prominent throughout. By breaching the terms and conditions of parking as set out in the signage, this Parking Charge is now owed to the Creditor 

You are notified that the driver is required to pay this Parking Charge in full. If you were not the driver at the time, you should tell us current postal address of the driver and pass this Parking Charge to them.

You are warned that if, after 29 days from the date given, the Parking Charge has not been paid in full and we do not know both the name and current address of the driver, we may recover any unpaid part of the Parking Charge from you.

Should you provide an incorrect address for service we may pursue you for any Parking Charge that remain unpaid. 

Should you provide an incorrect address for service, we may pursue you for any Parking Charge amount that remains unpaid. Should you identify someone, who denies they were the driver, we may pursue you for any Parking Charge amount that remains unpaid. Photographic evidence is held on file to support this claim in accordance with the Data Protection Act The data is used for the sole purpose of pursuing settlement of this Parking Charge.

My Appeal:

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle referenced in this Parking Charge Notice. I am appealing this charge in full. No admission is made as to the identity of the driver, and I will not be naming the driver.

1. No contract formed – inadequate signage

The signage at the location was not sufficiently prominent, clear, or legible to form a contractual agreement with the driver. Any alleged “designated bays” were not clearly marked or distinguishable, and the terms were not brought to the attention of the driver in accordance with the BPA Code of Practice.

In the absence of clear, prominent signage at the point of parking, no contract can be said to have been formed.

2. Failure to meet BPA Code of Practice

As a BPA Approved Operator, you are required to ensure that parking terms are:

• Clearly displayed

• Positioned so drivers can read them before parking

• Unambiguous in their meaning

This site does not meet those standards. The signage and bay markings fail the BPA’s requirements for clarity and prominence, rendering the charge unenforceable.

3. No evidence of a breach

Your photographs do not demonstrate that the vehicle was parked outside a clearly defined designated bay. There is no visible evidence of clear boundary markings or signage establishing what constitutes a “designated bay” at this location.

The burden of proof rests with you.

4. Disproportionate and punitive charge

The amount demanded is punitive and unconscionable. ParkingEye v Beavis does not apply in cases where signage is unclear and no legitimate commercial interest has been established. In this case, the alleged breach arises solely from unclear markings and signage.

5. No keeper liability established

If you are attempting to transfer liability to me as the registered keeper, you must demonstrate full compliance with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. If any requirement has not been met, keeper liability does not apply and the charge must be cancelled.

6. No evidence of landowner authority

You are put to strict proof that you have a valid and current contract with the landowner authorising you to issue Parking Charge Notices and pursue charges in your own name at this site.

---

Required action

For the reasons above, I require that this Parking Charge Notice be cancelled immediately.

If you reject this appeal, you must provide:

• A POPLA verification code

• A copy of the landowner contract

• Evidence of BPA Code of Practice compliance

• Photographs of all signage and bay markings relied upon

Any further processing of my personal data beyond this appeal is not consented to.

Yours faithfully,
Registered Keeper

Their Response:

Thank you for your correspondence.

We have received your appeal as the Registered Keeper. Please be advised, the contravention was on 05/12/2025 and we had sent the Parking Charge on 16/12/2025 therefore, the  Parking Charge does comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 as the initial notification of the Parking Charge was sent within 14 days of the contravention. Whilst we do not dispute what you have or have not received and in what timeframe, the progression of the matter begins from the day the Parking Charge is sent. Due to this, we would require the driver to appeal the issuing of the Parking Charge, in the absence of an appeal within the twenty-eight (28) day timeframe the registered keeper will remain liable for this matter.

Whilst we understand you state the signage is not clear, we can confirm the signage on is approved by the British Parking Association prior to use. It is sufficient in notifying motorists that when parking on site the vehicle must be in a designated bay. 

We note you state that there is no evidence of a breach of the terms and conditions on site. However please note that our client maintains that the photographic evidence ( Available on our website www.paymyparkingcharge.com) is sufficient in showcasing a breach of the terms and conditions for parking on site.

As you have confirmed not to be the driver on the day, please either provide the drivers full name and serviceable address within seven (7) days of the date of this email so we m ay give them the opportunity to appeal or make payment. Alternatively, please request the driver appeals directly to appeals@paymyparkingcharge.com. Within this email they will need to confirm their full name, serviceable address and confirmation that they were the driver on the day.

As per the Single Code of Practice, Annex C, the driver is often the same person as the keeper and/or the hirer. Where a keeper or hirer fails or refuses to provide the name and serviceable address of the driver when requested to, it may be assumed they are the driver, based on that failure or refusal. In absence of driver details, you as the registered keeper can therefore be assumed to be the driver.

We have placed the account on hold for seven days. The options available are to provide driver details, appeal the issuing of the Charge and outline the reasons you believe a Charge should not have been issued, or make payment.

Kind regards

John brown.

My Reply:

I write as the registered keeper in response to your email.

Misstatement of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012`

Your assertion that keeper liability applies solely because the Notice to Keeper was issued within 14 days is incorrect. Compliance with PoFA Schedule 4 requires full adherence to all mandatory conditions, not merely service within 14 days. You have not demonstrated that such compliance exists, and this matter remains disputed.

No lawful presumption that the keeper was the driver

Your statement that the registered keeper may be “assumed to be the driver” in the absence of driver details is legally incorrect. There is no such presumption in law, and PoFA does not permit an operator to assume the identity of the driver. The Code of Practice cannot override statute or established case law.

Improper restriction of appeal rights

You have stated that only the driver may appeal. This is improper. I have exercised my right to appeal as the registered keeper, and you are required to consider that appeal without imposing conditions such as naming the driver.

Unlawful payment surcharge

You have failed to address my complaint regarding the additional £1.95 fee imposed for making payment. This appears to be an unlawful payment surcharge and contrary to consumer protection legislation and the BPA Code of Practice. This fee is disputed and unenforceable.

---

Required action

Please now either:

1. Confirm cancellation of the Parking Charge Notice, or
2. Issue a formal Notice of Rejection, together with a POPLA verification code, so the matter may be referred to independent adjudication.

If you continue to misstate keeper liability, assume driver identity, or obstruct the appeals process, I will escalate this matter to the British Parking Association, the DVLA, and other relevant authorities without further notice.

Yours faithfully,
Registered Keeper

Syon33

@user57 what was the outcome of your appeal?

user57

@Syon33 apologies for the late reply, they rejected my appeal:

Thank you for your email, all comments made have been noted and any evidence provided has been fully reviewed.

We can confirm this matter has not been issued in accordance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. 

The £1.95 handling fee reflects the genuine administrative cost incurred in allocating and processing payments made to us. It is a standard charge applied to cover the resources involved in managing individual transactions.

A copy of the landowner contract is business sensitive information and will not be provided, due to data protection.

We write to confirm your appeal and any supporting evidence has been considered and a formal response will be sent via email

their formal response was:

user57

So I went for a POPLA Appeal with the following grounds:

Ground 1: The operator has expressly confirmed they are not relying on keeper liability under PoFA 2012

In the Notice of Rejection dated 18 February 2026, the operator states:

“Our correspondence does not seek to invoke keeper liability under [the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012].”

As a result, keeper liability cannot apply. The operator must therefore prove that the appellant was the driver. No such evidence has been provided.

It is well established that the registered keeper is not presumed to be the driver, and there is no obligation to identify the driver. As the operator has expressly declined to rely on PoFA, this appeal must be allowed on this ground alone.

Ground 2: No evidence has been provided that the appellant was the driver

The operator suggests it may pursue the keeper “on the balance of probabilities.” DVLA keeper data does not identify the driver, and refusal to name the driver is not evidence.

The operator has provided no admission, witness evidence, or contemporaneous proof of driver identity. In the absence of PoFA reliance, the operator has failed to discharge the burden of proof.

Ground 3: The parking charge is not a single fixed sum – unlawful £1.95 payment surcharge

The Notice of Rejection states:

“Please note, a £1.95 handling fee applies to all payment methods.”

This additional mandatory fee means the parking charge is not a single stated sum, contrary to the BPA Code of Practice. It also constitutes an unlawful payment surcharge under consumer protection legislation. This renders the charge unfair and unenforceable.

Ground 4: Misuse of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis

The operator relies on ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis. That case concerned driver liability, exceptionally prominent signage, and did not permit assumptions regarding driver identity or the addition of payment fees. Reliance on Beavis is therefore misplaced.

Ground 5: No conclusive evidence that the vehicle was parked outside a marked bay

The operator alleges that the vehicle was parked outside a marked bay. The vehicle in question is the black vehicle shown on the left-hand side of the operator’s image.

The photographic evidence does not show any wheel or bodywork of that vehicle outside the marked bay. At most, the vehicle is positioned close to a bay line, which is insufficient to establish a breach of the terms and conditions.

The adjacent vehicle to the right is encroaching towards the shared bay boundary, materially restricting the available width of the bay. In addition, the bay markings are worn and indistinct. No close-up or perpendicular image has been provided to demonstrate a clear breach.

The burden of proof rests with the operator. As the evidence is ambiguous and inconclusive, the operator has failed to prove that any breach occurred.

Ground 6: Procedural unfairness and misleading conduct

The operator has issued contradictory statements regarding PoFA, previously asserted an unlawful presumption that the keeper was the driver, and imposed an unlawful payment surcharge. This conduct is misleading and contrary to the BPA Code of Practice.

———————-I received the following letter from POPLA:

The operator has contacted us and told us that they have withdrawn your appeal.

If you have already paid your parking charge, this is the reason your appeal will have been withdrawn. Unfortunately, you cannot pay your parking charge and appeal, which means that POPLA’s involvement in your appeal has ended. You will not be able to request a refund of the amount paid in order to resubmit your appeal to us.

If you have not paid your parking charge, the operator has reviewed your appeal and chosen to cancel the parking charge. As the operator has withdrawn your appeal, POPLA’s involvement has now ended and you do not need to take any further action.

user57

Most likely reason they folded

Their written admission that PoFA does not apply

They explicitly stated in writing:

“This matter has not been issued in accordance with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.”

This is extremely damaging for a parking operator.

Why this matters

Without PoFA Schedule 4, they cannot hold the registered keeper liable.

That leaves them with only one option:

Prove who the driver was.

But I never admitted being the driver

They had no evidence of driver identity

The only data they had was DVLA keeper information

Courts and POPLA repeatedly confirm:

Registered keeper ≠ proof of driver

So if POPLA had issued a written decision saying this, it would have created a clear precedent against the operator’s approach.

Cancelling avoids that.

user57

My thanks to everyone who has created and contributed to this forum. Although I used AI to help draft my appeal—which made the process simple and efficient, hopefully wasting far more of their time than mine—I would never have taken the appeal this far without the knowledge I gained here.

As many people often say, never admit you were the driver.