DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 89838--------------------------------------------------
Re: Received Letter Before Claim from ParkingEye – No Rejection
Letter or POPLA Code Ever Sent, Godwin Court Camden Town
DIR By: a124
Date: September 13, 2025, 5:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
ParkingEye have got back to me with a POPLA code.
This is what I was going to include in my appeal to POPLA. Any
thoughts or feedback on what else to include (or leave out) in
the appeal to POPLA would be greatly appreciated.
--- Quote ---
> I appeal this PCN on the following grounds:
>
> 1. Inadequate signage — BPA Code breach (19.7)
> The BPA Code requires entrance signage and specific-terms
signs to be placed so drivers can read them at the time of
parking; signs must be conspicuous, legible and intelligible,
and terms should be available without the motorist having to
leave their vehicle or search the site. Where I parked —
directly outside the launderette — there were no signs between
the site entrance and the launderette, and no sign close enough
to my parking spot to bring the terms to my attention before I
parked. My video clearly shows the absence of signage at the
location I used. Under the Code, this means drivers were not
given adequate notice of any terms.
>
> 2. Lack of transparency / unfair terms — Consumer Rights Act
2015 (s.62 & s.68)
> For any contract to be enforceable, terms must be fair and
transparent. Where key terms and charges are not properly
displayed or are effectively hidden, they cannot be said to have
been accepted by me. Attempting to enforce a charge based on
terms that were not visible or intelligible breaches the
requirement for transparency and fairness in consumer law.
>
> 3. Genuine customer
> I was a bona fide customer of the launderette and parked
immediately outside while using their service. Penalising
genuine customers where signage does not fairly bring the terms
to their attention is unreasonable and contrary to proper site
management.
>
> Conclusion
> Given the absence of required signage where I parked (BPA
19.7), the lack of transparency under the Consumer Rights Act,
and the fact I was a genuine customer, I respectfully request
that POPLA allow this appeal and cancel the PCN.
--- End Quote ---
I will also submit all the images/videos I posted earlier as
evidence, like I did on the initial appeal.
#Post#: 89856--------------------------------------------------
Re: Received Letter Before Claim from ParkingEye – No Rejection
Letter or POPLA Code Ever Sent, Godwin Court Camden Town
DIR By: b789
Date: September 14, 2025, 3:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I would suggest that you make the POPLA appeal slightly more
relevant. Here is a suggested content:
--- Quote ---
> I appeal on the following grounds.
>
> [indent]1. Inadequate signage (BPA AOS Code of Practice v9,
Feb 2024)
> Whilst there is an estate entrance sign, there were no
ParkingEye terms-and-conditions signs between that entrance and
the forecourt outside the launderette where the vehicle was
parked, nor any readable from the parked position. My
walkthrough video shows no operator T&Cs or charge amount at or
near the bays used.
>
> BPA CoP v9 requires specific parking-terms signs placed
throughout the site so that drivers have the chance to read them
at the time of parking/leaving the vehicle; signs must be
conspicuous, legible and intelligible (§19.3). With no T&Cs
signage at or near the bays, the core terms (including any
charge) were neither accessible nor prominent, so no contract
could be formed.
>
> 2. Lack of transparency / unfair terms (Consumer Rights Act
2015)
>
> Any price/charge term must be transparent and prominent (CRA
ss.62, 64(2), 68). No parking charge or key terms were visible
or prominent at the relevant location. Enforcing an
undisclosed/inaccessible term fails transparency and prominence.
>
> 3. Landowner authority and site boundary (PPSCoP v1.1,
§14.1(a–j))
>
> ParkingEye is put to strict proof that, on 28/04/2025, it held
a valid, contemporaneous, unredacted, written agreement flowing
from the landowner. The operator must produce either (i) the
full, unredacted contract, or (ii) if relying on a letter of
authority, that letter must itself expressly confirm each and
every requirement in PPSCoP v1.1 §14.1(a–j). This includes,
without limitation, the landowner’s identity, the precise extent
of the controlled land (with a boundary/plan), the terms/charge
regime permitted, responsibility for and approval of signage
(with a sign/location schedule), and express authority to issue
and pursue parking charges and legal proceedings in the
operator’s own name for the material period. Generic, redacted,
templated or out-of-date documents (or witness statements) are
not sufficient.
>
> 4. Consideration and grace periods (PPSCoP v1.1 §5.1–§5.2 and
Annex B) — applied to the facts
>
> The PPSCoP prohibits enforcement unless a driver has first had
a reasonable consideration period to locate a bay, identify and
read the terms, and decide whether to accept them or leave.
Annex B sets minimum timings, which only start to run once a
driver encounters a readable T&Cs sign.
>
> At this site there were no T&Cs signs anywhere between the
estate entrance and the forecourt outside the launderette, and
none readable from the parked position (see video/stills).
Because no T&Cs were available to read at or near the bay, the
consideration period never began and no contract could be
accepted. ANPR timestamps at an estate entrance cannot evidence
the start of a parking contract or the expiry of a consideration
period where the operator failed to place any T&Cs signage at
the relevant location.
>
> Accordingly, enforcing a charge here is improper under
§5.1–§5.2 and Annex B. ParkingEye must strictly prove where the
nearest readable T&Cs sign was in relation to the bay used and
that, after the driver could first read those terms, at least
the Annex B minimum consideration time elapsed before
enforcement. They cannot do so on this evidence.
>
> 5. Operator maladministration — relevance to evidence and
weight (context to this appeal)
>
> The operator misaddressed the rejection/POPLA code (copy
attached). This proven addressing error is directly relevant to
evidential weight and case management. I ask the Assessor to:
>
> [indent](i) admit all of my evidence without adverse inference
about timing, because timely ADR was denied by the operator’s
error;
> (ii) require strict proof of any communication the operator
claims to have sent (including headers/logs for emails, and
proof of correct addressing/service), and place reduced weight
on bare assertions; and
> (iii) approach the operator’s evidence (including any
unsigned/redacted templates) with appropriate caution given this
demonstrated administrative inaccuracy.[/indent][/indent]
>
> Conclusion
>
> Given the absence of required T&Cs signage under BPA CoP v9,
the lack of transparent/prominent terms (CRA), the
consideration/grace requirements, and the lack of strict proof
of landowner authority meeting PPSCoP §14.1(a–j), I respectfully
request that POPLA allow this appeal and cancel the PCN.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 89949--------------------------------------------------
Re: Received Letter Before Claim from ParkingEye – No Rejection
Letter or POPLA Code Ever Sent, Godwin Court Camden Town
DIR By: a124
Date: September 15, 2025, 4:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks, Much appreciated! Appeal sent to POPLA.
#Post#: 91601--------------------------------------------------
Re: Received Letter Before Claim from ParkingEye – No Rejection
Letter or POPLA Code Ever Sent, Godwin Court Camden Town
DIR By: a124
Date: September 26, 2025, 6:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I've been invited to make comments on the evidence provided by
ParkingEye part of the POPLA appeal. Any advice on what comments
are to be made at this stage?
Here is a link to the evidence pack:
HTML https://1drv.ms/b/c/65d99d5b27829f48/ETEjkIdb0q9PjvM_goAuOHoBV3y802QyyZ33eKOLcH2ilg?e=gEeuB7
#Post#: 91609--------------------------------------------------
Re: Received Letter Before Claim from ParkingEye – No Rejection
Letter or POPLA Code Ever Sent, Godwin Court Camden Town
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: September 26, 2025, 7:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hang fire before sending anything as I've only had chance for a
very brief skim but a couple of things stand out:
- Excessive redaction of the landowner contract (incl.
importantly the section about how the agreement may be
terminated)
- Their signage plan confirms your position, that the driver did
not pass at any point (either on foot or by car) a sign
detailing the full terms and conditions
#Post#: 91640--------------------------------------------------
Re: Received Letter Before Claim from ParkingEye – No Rejection
Letter or POPLA Code Ever Sent, Godwin Court Camden Town
DIR By: b789
Date: September 26, 2025, 9:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I think you'll also find that that agreement is signed by a
managing agent, not the landowner, as claimed in the wording.
Camden Council explains that estates with a Tenant Management
Organisation (TMO) are managed “on our behalf” under a Modular
Management Agreement; TMOs deliver services but do not own the
land.
The Godwin & Crowndale TMO’s own site describes itself as a
resident-controlled management body, not an owner. Camden’s
Council-led project pages and newsletters for the Godwin &
Crowndale estate (including the car park between Godwin Court
and Crowndale Road) treat the land as Council estate land and
note that the TMO “manage the grounds, repairs and parking on
the estate.”
Conclusion: The car park at Godwin Court & Crowndale Road, 5
Crowndale Road, London NW1 1TU sits on Camden Council estate
land; “Godwin and Crowndale Tenant Management Co-operative Ltd”
manages it on Camden’s behalf, i.e., they are an agent/manager,
not the landowner.
The car park is not relevant land for PoFA if Camden Council (a
“traffic authority” as defined) provides or controls it—even if
day-to-day management is via a TMO/agent or a private parking
contractor. “Controlled by” does not require a TMO/byelaws;
contractual control via the council still suffices to exclude
it.
So, having now been given sight of the contract between the
managing agent and the operator, there is no evidence that the
managing agent has authority flowing from the landowner that
authorises it to operate and to issue PCNs in its own name. The
agreement states that it is between the landowner and the
operator. There is no evidence that the landowner (Camden
Council) have agreed to anything.
The initial appeal clearly put the operator to strict proof of a
contract "flowing from the landowner". What has been evidenced
is only a contract between the landowners agent and the
operator, incorrectly naming the agent as the landowner. The
contract is not valid and therefore the operator has not
evidenced that it has any authority to operate or issue PCNs in
its own name at the location.
Further, it is now apparent that the land is not relevant for
the purposes of PoFA and so liability for the charge rests with
the unidentified driver. There can be no Keeper liability.
#Post#: 91665--------------------------------------------------
Re: Received Letter Before Claim from ParkingEye – No Rejection
Letter or POPLA Code Ever Sent, Godwin Court Camden Town
DIR By: a124
Date: September 26, 2025, 11:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks both [member=26]b789[/member] and
[member=103]DWMB2[/member].
--- Quote ---
> Further, it is now apparent that the land is not relevant for
the purposes of PoFA and so liability for the charge rests with
the unidentified driver. There can be no Keeper liability.
--- End Quote ---
Just on the above point. The driver has been identified to them
whilst filling out the appeal form. (They are kicking them self
for doing this.)
HTML https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji22.png
HTML https://i.imgur.com/PBQ3YXx.jpeg
#Post#: 92110--------------------------------------------------
Re: Received Letter Before Claim from ParkingEye – No Rejection
Letter or POPLA Code Ever Sent, Godwin Court Camden Town
DIR By: a124
Date: September 29, 2025, 6:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Good Morning,
Sharing my draft for the comments section of the evidence pack.
Any feedback would be most welcome.
--- Quote ---
> I respectfully submit the following comments in response to
the evidence provided by ParkingEye in this matter.
>
> 1. Excessive Redaction of the Landowner Contract
>
> ParkingEye has produced a contract that has been excessively
redacted. Crucially, the section concerning how the agreement
may be terminated has been withheld. This omission makes it
impossible to establish whether the agreement remains valid and
enforceable.
>
> Because of these redactions, the evidence provided does not
show that ParkingEye has the authority it claims to operate and
issue Parking Charge Notices at this site.
>
> 2. No Evidence of Landowner Authority – Managing Agent is not
the Landowner
>
> The contract provided is signed by a managing agent,
incorrectly described as the “landowner.” This is inaccurate.
>
> The car park at Godwin Court & Crowndale Road, 5 Crowndale
Road, London NW1 1TU sits on Camden Council estate land; “Godwin
and Crowndale Tenant Management Co-operative Ltd” manages it on
Camden’s behalf, i.e., they are an agent/manager, not the
landowner.
>
> Camden Council explains that estates with a Tenant Management
Organisation (TMO) are managed “on our behalf” under a Modular
Management Agreement; TMOs deliver services but do not own the
land.
>
> Camden’s council-led project pages and newsletters for the
Godwin & Crowndale estate, including the car park between Godwin
Court and Crowndale Road, reat the land as Council estate land.
These sources also state that the TMO “manage the grounds,
repairs and parking on the estate” on Camden’s behalf.
>
> The contract ParkingEye relies upon is therefore not “flowing
from the landowner.” It is only between the operator and an
agent managing services. There is no evidence that the landowner
(Camden Council) have agreed to anything.
>
> The appeal put ParkingEye to strict proof of a contract
“flowing from the landowner.” What has been evidenced is only a
contract between the landowner’s agent and the operator, with
the agent wrongly described as the landowner. The contract is
not valid, and therefore the operator has not evidenced that it
has any authority to operate or to issue PCNs in its own name at
this location.
>
> 3. The Site is Not Relevant Land
>
> The car park at Godwin Court & Crowndale Road is not “relevant
land” as defined in Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012 (PoFA). This is because the estate is controlled by Camden
Council, which is a statutory traffic authority.
>
> PoFA excludes land provided or controlled by a traffic
authority from being classed as relevant land. This applies even
if day-to-day management is delegated to a Tenant Management
Organisation (TMO) or another agent.
>
> The fact that this site is excluded from PoFA reinforces that
Camden Council is the controlling body for this land. ParkingEye
has only shown a contract with a TMO, which cannot create
landowner rights. The absence of relevant land status underlines
that the operator has failed to produce a contract flowing from
the actual landowner.
>
> 4. Signage Plan Confirms My Position
>
> ParkingEye’s own signage plan confirms my original appeal. A
driver entering via the Goldington Crescent NW1 entrance,
travelling directly to the launderette, and parking immediately
outside (as I did) would not pass any sign displaying the full
terms and conditions — neither by car nor on foot.
>
> There are also no signs in the immediate vicinity of the
launderette. My walk-around video and photographic evidence
clearly demonstrate this. ParkingEye’s signage plan therefore
supports my position that the terms and conditions were not
properly displayed or communicated.
>
> 5. Conclusion
> The contract provided has been excessively redacted, hiding
critical information such as termination rights.
>
> The agreement is with a managing agent/TMO incorrectly
described as the landowner, not with the actual landowner.
>
> Camden Council is the true landowner of the estate, and the
operator has failed to demonstrate authority flowing from them.
>
> The site is not relevant land under PoFA, which confirms
Camden Council’s control and further undermines ParkingEye’s
claim to authority.
>
> The operator’s own signage plan proves that no terms and
conditions were passed or displayed along the route I took, nor
near the launderette where I parked.
>
> For these reasons, ParkingEye has failed to establish that it
has the authority or legal basis to issue and enforce Parking
Charge Notices at this location, and has also failed to comply
with the BPA Code of Practice regarding proper signage. I
respectfully request that POPLA allow this appeal.
--- End Quote ---
Thanks in Advance
#Post#: 92171--------------------------------------------------
Re: Received Letter Before Claim from ParkingEye – No Rejection
Letter or POPLA Code Ever Sent, Godwin Court Camden Town
DIR By: b789
Date: September 30, 2025, 8:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Not sure why the PoFA bit is in there as the driver has been
identified. PoFA is only for transferring the liability from the
driver to the Keeper if the driver is unidentified. Apart from
that, good to go.
#Post#: 92175--------------------------------------------------
Re: Received Letter Before Claim from ParkingEye – No Rejection
Letter or POPLA Code Ever Sent, Godwin Court Camden Town
DIR By: a124
Date: September 30, 2025, 8:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the feedback. Much Appreciated!
I'll leave out the PoFA bits.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page