Background
Summary of Council decision:
Two issues were investigated, both of which were Upheld.
Ad description
A leaflet for Parc, a car parking app, seen on windscreens in Manchester in February and March 2026. The leaflet was in a yellow and black plastic wrapper. Text on the wrapper stated "PARKING CHARGE NOTICE" and " WARNING - UNAUTHORISED PERSONS MUST NOT REMOVE OR INTERFERE WITH THIS TICKET".
The leaflet inside the wrapper featured the Parc logo and text stating "NEVER GET A PARKING TICKET AGAIN” and “SO [sic] sorry if we gave you a scare. Seeing what looks like a parking fine can ruin your day in seconds. This one isn't real, promise. But that horrible sinking feeling you just had is awful. We know it, you know it […]”.
Further text stated "THIS IS NOT A FINE. YOU OWE NO MONEY […] Now that you're relieved you didn't get hit with a parking tickets [sic] [...]. Again we are sorry if we gave you a scare. This isn't a real parking fine. But if you did actually get one today...that's exactly the kind of stress we're trying to stop”.
Issue
Three complainants, who found the ad on windscreens on cars, challenged whether the ad was:
1. obviously identifiable as such; and
2. likely to cause unjustifiable distress.
Response
1. & 2. Parc AI Ltd t/a Parc said that the intention behind the campaign was to highlight the stress that parking fines caused drivers. However, they accepted that consumers could have believed, even briefly, that they had received a real parking ticket before opening the leaflet and understood that this could have caused distress, particularly for vulnerable consumers or those facing financial pressure.
After receiving reports and concerns directly, Parc had addressed the matter with their marketing team and the consumers concerned, and said they would put a stricter review process in place for future marketing activity. Parc said they were sorry for any distress caused and would ensure future marketing communications were obviously identifiable as advertising from the outset and would not resemble a parking ticket, penalty notice, enforcement notice, or any other official-looking document. They confirmed they would not use the ad complained about again.
Assessment
1. & 2. Upheld
The CAP Code stated that marketing communications must be obviously identifiable as such and must make clear their commercial intent, if that was not apparent from the context. It further stated that marketing communications must not cause fear or distress without justifiable reason; if it could be justified, the fear or distress should not be excessive. The Code required marketers not to use a shocking claim or image merely to attract attention.
The ASA considered that the text “"PARKING CHARGE NOTICE" and " WARNING – […] THIS TICKET" on the wrapper implied that it contained a parking ticket. We considered that the appearance of the wrapper, which was yellow and black plastic, and its placement on car windscreens further contributed to the overall impression that it was a parking ticket.
We acknowledged that the leaflet inside the wrapper featured the Parc logo and text such as "THIS IS NOT A FINE. YOU OWE NO MONEY [...]. This isn't a real parking fine”, and that, having seen that, most consumers would understand that the leaflet was a marketing communication. However, we considered that from the outset, it was neither obviously identifiable as such, nor its commercial nature clear.
We considered that seeing something resembling a parking ticket on their car windscreen that would result in a fine would be likely to cause consumers distress, particularly for vulnerable consumers such as those facing financial difficulties, which was not justified. We noted that the advertiser had acknowledged that in the leaflet itself with text such as “sorry if we gave you a scare. Seeing what looks like a parking fine can ruin your day in seconds. […] that horrible sinking feeling you just had is awful. We know it […]” and “sorry if we gave you a scare […] that's exactly the kind of stress we're trying to stop”.
For those reasons, we considered the ad was not obviously identifiable as a marketing communication and did not make its commercial intent clear from the outset, and was likely to cause unjustified distress, we concluded that it breached the Code. We welcomed Parc’s assurance that they would not use the ad again.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 2.1, 2.3 (Recognition of marketing communications) and 4.2 (Harm and offence).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Parc AI Ltd t/a Parc to ensure that all future marketing communications were obviously identifiable as such and made clear their commercial intent. We also told them to ensure their future ads did not cause unjustified distress to consumers, for example, by resembling parking tickets.
