DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 97790--------------------------------------------------
Re: Received Letter Before Claim from ParkingEye – No Rejection
Letter or POPLA Code Ever Sent, Godwin Court Camden Town
DIR By: a124
Date: November 12, 2025, 2:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Result!!! POPLA allowed the appeal and cancelled the ticket.
Thanks [member=26]b789[/member] and [member=103]DWMB2[/member]
for all your help and support on this
HTML https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji120.png
#Post#: 97792--------------------------------------------------
Re: Received Letter Before Claim from ParkingEye – No Rejection
Letter or POPLA Code Ever Sent, Godwin Court Camden Town
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: November 12, 2025, 2:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Well done... Can you share the assessor's comments?
#Post#: 97796--------------------------------------------------
Re: Received Letter Before Claim from ParkingEye – No Rejection
Letter or POPLA Code Ever Sent, Godwin Court Camden Town
DIR By: a124
Date: November 12, 2025, 3:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes sure, Here it is.
Decision Successful
Assessor Name Redacted
Assessor summary of operator case: The operator has issued the
parking charge notice (PCN) for not purchasing the appropriate
parking time.
Assessor summary of your case:
The appellant has raised the following points in their grounds
of appeal: 1. Inadequate signage 2.
Lack of transparency and unfair terms, re Consumer Rights Act
2015 3. Landowner authority and
site boundary 4. Consideration and grace period 5. Operator
maladministration In the comments,
they have raised three points. To support their appeal, the
appellant has provided: 1. Three photos
of the entry and area they parked 2. A video of the area 3. A
photo of their laundrette receipt
Assessor supporting rational for decision:
This decision relates to PCN: (REDACTED) The operator is a
member of the British Parking
Association (BPA), which uses a code of practice detailing the
standards that it needs to uphold as a
part of its membership - the Private Parking Single Code of
Practice. It is the operator’s
responsibility to demonstrate to POPLA that they have issued the
parking charge correctly. I am
allowing this appeal, with my reasoning outlined below: In this
case, the appellant has challenged
the signage, providing photos and a video of the entry and where
they parked outside the
laundrette. The appellant’s evidence shows there is an entry
sign, but no terms and conditions
signs between the entry and up along the row of businesses. This
evidence casts doubt on the
placement of the first number 2 sign, just after the entrance on
the operator’s site map. The site
map shows signs throughout estate, however, they all appear to
be down the road and round the
corner from the businesses at the entry. If a motorist was
simply visiting one of those businesses,
they would have no reason to walk round the flats looking for
signs, and I don’t consider it
reasonable to expect a motorist to do that. Accordingly, I
conclude that the signage doesn’t meet
the standard required by Section 3 of the Code of Practice, and
that no contract existed between
the operator and the appellant, and therefore, I allow this
appeal.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 3
DIR Previous Page