What is the specific contravention alleged? Show us the Notice to Keeper (NtK). Your argument is irrelevant if the alleged contravention is something completely unrelated to signs.
Your interpretation is correct — in plain English, the signage clearly specifies when parking regulations and the “maximum stay” apply. The phrase:
“This applies Sunday–Thursday: 10:30 am – 00:30 am and Friday & Saturday: 10:30 am – 1:30 am”
means the 90-minute restriction is only operative during those hours. By implication, times outside those stated periods (e.g. before 10:30 am) are unregulated and therefore not prohibited.
Under BPA Code of Practice 18.6, operators must use clear and unambiguous wording so that drivers can easily understand when restrictions apply. If the intention were to prohibit parking outside those hours, the sign would need to say so explicitly (e.g. “Parking prohibited outside these hours” or “No parking before 10:30 am”). It does not.
Because the vehicle was recorded between 09:20 and 09:40 am, i.e. before the restriction start time, no contractual terms were in effect and thus no contract was formed. The signage offers terms only during the operational hours it specifies. Accordingly, no breach could occur, and any “unauthorised parking” allegation is baseless.
The phrase “NO OVERNIGHT PARKING”, in the context of this signage, reinforces your interpretation rather than weakening it.
Here’s how it reads in contractual and plain-English terms:
- The sign first defines when the “maximum stay 90 minutes” rule applies — from 10:30 am until 00:30 am (or 01:30 am at weekends).
- Immediately after that, it adds “NO OVERNIGHT PARKING.”
That secondary clause is logically and grammatically linked to the time periods above. In ordinary English, it means once the car park closes at 00:30 am (or 01:30 am), you cannot remain parked overnight. It does not introduce a separate prohibition covering the early-morning hours before 10:30 am.
If the operator intended to forbid parking both before 10:30 am and after 00:30 am, the sign would need to say something like:
“No parking permitted outside these hours.”
or
“Car park closed to the public before 10:30 am and after 00:30 am.”
It does not. Instead, “NO OVERNIGHT PARKING” is a limited restriction applying only after the stated evening cutoff, preventing vehicles from being left on site when the car park is effectively closed.
Thus, the overall interpretation remains:
-Permitted (unregulated) before 10:30 am.
-Regulated (max 90 min) between 10:30 am and 00:30 am / 01:30 am.
-Prohibited after that (overnight).
Accordingly, a stay between 09:20 am and 09:40 am is outside any defined restriction period, meaning no contract was capable of being formed.
IAS won't agree. The same firm that owns the IAS also owns the IPC, the very ATA that is supposed to regulate their members and approves/audits the signage for compliance.
If you want to just
**** them off, then appeal with the following to the IAS:
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability for this parking charge and appeal in full.
The parking operator bears the burden of proof. It must establish that a contravention occurred, that a valid contract was formed between the operator and the driver, and that it has lawful authority to operate and issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) in its own name. I therefore require the operator to provide the following:
1. Strict proof of clear, prominent, and adequate signage that was in place on the date in question, at the exact location of the alleged contravention. This must include a detailed site plan showing the placement of each sign and legible images of the signs in situ. The operator must demonstrate that signage was visible, legible, and compliant with the IPC Code of Practice that was valid at the time of the alleged contravention, including requirements relating to font size, positioning, and the communication of key terms.
2. Strict proof of a valid, contemporaneous contract or lease flowing from the landowner that authorises the operator to manage parking, issue PCNs, and pursue legal action in its own name. I refer the operator and the IAS assessor to Section 14 of the PPSCoP (Relationship with Landowner), which clearly sets out mandatory minimum requirements that must be evidenced before any parking charge may be issued on controlled land.
In particular, Section 14.1(a)–(j) requires the operator to have in place written confirmation from the landowner which includes:
• the identity of the landowner,
• a boundary map of the land to be managed,
• applicable byelaws,
• the duration and scope of authority granted,
• detailed parking terms and conditions including any specific permissions or exemptions,
• the means of issuing PCNs,
• responsibility for obtaining planning and advertising consents,
• and the operator’s obligations and appeal procedure under the Code.
These requirements are not optional. They are a condition precedent to issuing a PCN and bringing any associated action. Accordingly, I put the operator to strict proof of compliance with the entirety of Section 14 of the PPSCoP. Any document that contains redactions must not obscure the above conditions. The document must also be dated and signed by identifiable persons, with evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the parties to the agreement. The operator must provide an agreement showing clear authorisation from the landowner for this specific site.
3. Strict proof that the enforcement mechanism (e.g. ANPR or manual patrol) is reliable, synchronised, maintained, and calibrated regularly. The operator must prove the vehicle was present for the full duration alleged and not simply momentarily on site, potentially within a permitted consideration or grace period as defined by the PPSCoP.
4. Strict proof that the Notice to Keeper complies with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA), if the operator is attempting to rely on keeper liability. Any failure to comply with the mandatory wording or timelines in Schedule 4 of PoFA renders keeper liability unenforceable.
5. Strict proof that the NtK was posted in time for it to have been given within the relevant period. The PPSCoP section 8.1.2(d) Note 2 requires that the operator must retain a record of the date of posting of a notice, not simply of that notice having been generated (e.g. the date that any third-party Mail Consolidator actually put it in the postal system.)
6. The IAS claims that its assessors are “qualified solicitors or barristers”. Yet there is no way to verify this. Decisions are unsigned, anonymised, and unpublished. There is no transparency, no register of assessors, and no way for a motorist to assess the legal credibility of the individual supposedly adjudicating their appeal. If the person reading this really is legally qualified, they will know that without strict proof of landowner authority (
VCS v HMRC [2013] EWCA Civ 186), no claim can succeed. They will also know that clear and prominent signage is a prerequisite for contract formation (
ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67), and that keeper liability under PoFA is only available where strict statutory conditions are met.
If the assessor chooses to overlook these legal requirements and accept vague assertions or redacted documents from the operator, that will speak for itself—and lend further weight to the growing concern that this appeals service is neither independent nor genuinely legally qualified.
In short, I dispute this charge in its entirety and require full evidence of compliance with the law, industry codes of practice, and basic contractual principles.
Any arguments about the signs would be useful in court but this would never reach a hearing stage before being discontinued.
