03-27-2026, 02:43 PM
I understand the situation but as the IAS are unlikely to agree, this would only be resolved if it were to go to court. That sign is fatal to any “contract” argument.
It is purely prohibitive. It does not offer parking on terms. It says “NO PARKING” in the largest text on the sign, and then tries to bolt on a £100 charge underneath.
That is not how a contract works. A contract requires an offer capable of acceptance. This sign does the opposite — it withdraws permission entirely. There is no offer to park, no licence granted, and therefore nothing capable of being accepted by a driver.
What they are trying to do is have it both ways:
“No parking”
but also
“if you park, you agree to pay £100”
Those two positions are legally incompatible.
If parking is not permitted at all, then there is no contract. The only possible cause of action would be trespass, and they cannot pursue that in their own name or for a fixed sum.
This is exactly why they keep going on about “39 minutes stationary” — they are trying to shift the focus away from the fact that their signage does not create a contract in the first place.
Also note how the sign is structured:
Big bold headline: NO PARKING
Then buried text: “by entering or remaining… you agree…”
That doesn’t create a clear contractual offer. It’s an attempt to impose terms after removing permission.
In short:
That is your strongest point in this case, far stronger than anything about duration or “obstruction”.
Also, the signage in their photos is not clearly legible from a driver’s position.
In the wider shots, the signs are small relative to the environment and positioned off to the side of the roadway. The dominant visual impression is of an industrial access road, not a controlled parking area. A driver entering or exiting the site would not reasonably be expected to stop and read dense contractual wording.
Even where the sign is visible, the only element that is immediately readable is “NO PARKING”. The detailed terms — including the £100 charge and contractual wording — are not legible at distance and would require a driver to stop, approach the sign, and read it closely.
That creates two problems for them:
Also, none of their photos demonstrate the driver’s eye view on approach. They show static, curated angles. That is not evidence that a driver would have seen, read, and accepted the terms before the alleged breach.
If this ever got in front of a judge, this is exactly where the case would turn. If no luck with the IAS, would the Keeper to driver be willing to challenge this in court?
It is purely prohibitive. It does not offer parking on terms. It says “NO PARKING” in the largest text on the sign, and then tries to bolt on a £100 charge underneath.
That is not how a contract works. A contract requires an offer capable of acceptance. This sign does the opposite — it withdraws permission entirely. There is no offer to park, no licence granted, and therefore nothing capable of being accepted by a driver.
What they are trying to do is have it both ways:
“No parking”
but also
“if you park, you agree to pay £100”
Those two positions are legally incompatible.
If parking is not permitted at all, then there is no contract. The only possible cause of action would be trespass, and they cannot pursue that in their own name or for a fixed sum.
This is exactly why they keep going on about “39 minutes stationary” — they are trying to shift the focus away from the fact that their signage does not create a contract in the first place.
Also note how the sign is structured:
Big bold headline: NO PARKING
Then buried text: “by entering or remaining… you agree…”
That doesn’t create a clear contractual offer. It’s an attempt to impose terms after removing permission.
In short:
- They are not offering parking on terms
- They are prohibiting parking entirely
- Therefore no contract can be formed
That is your strongest point in this case, far stronger than anything about duration or “obstruction”.
Also, the signage in their photos is not clearly legible from a driver’s position.
In the wider shots, the signs are small relative to the environment and positioned off to the side of the roadway. The dominant visual impression is of an industrial access road, not a controlled parking area. A driver entering or exiting the site would not reasonably be expected to stop and read dense contractual wording.
Even where the sign is visible, the only element that is immediately readable is “NO PARKING”. The detailed terms — including the £100 charge and contractual wording — are not legible at distance and would require a driver to stop, approach the sign, and read it closely.
That creates two problems for them:
- No clear contractual offer. The only prominent term is “NO PARKING”, which is prohibitive, not contractual.
- Failure of prominence and transparency. The charge and terms are not sufficiently prominent to bind a driver, particularly on an access road where vehicles are engaged in active commercial movements.
Also, none of their photos demonstrate the driver’s eye view on approach. They show static, curated angles. That is not evidence that a driver would have seen, read, and accepted the terms before the alleged breach.
If this ever got in front of a judge, this is exactly where the case would turn. If no luck with the IAS, would the Keeper to driver be willing to challenge this in court?
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
