DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 100850--------------------------------------------------
Elite Parking PCN – “Free 1 hr / Failure to Register” –
Eddington Avenue, Cambridge – POPLA appeal lost
DIR By: willg88
Date: December 3, 2025, 7:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Background
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. A PCN was issued by
Elite Parking Management on the 10th September, 2025, for an
alleged failure to register a stay in the Eddington 4hr Zone,
Cambridge (CB3). The driver parked for under one hour and relied
on the tariff board on the street-side row stating:
“Up to 1 hour – Free (see above)”
HTML https://ibb.co/RkzT8NVz
The driver did not see any additional entrance sign or any
roadside sign requiring registration to receive this free hour.
The vehicle was parked in the street-side row opposite the
Hyatt/Turing building, not the hotel-side row used in Elite’s
evidence photos.
Appeal sent to Elite and then POPLA. Unfortunately, I only
discovered this forum afterwards, so missed the keeper/driver
point.
What has happened so far
Elite’s case:
Elite issued the PCN on the basis that the vehicle was not
“registered on the JustPark app or displaying a P&D ticket”.
Only one patrol photo was taken of the vehicle, showing no
signage in the shot and showing it located in the street-side
row.
My appeal to Elite and POPLA:
The appeal was based on unclear signage, including:
- Tariff grid showing a free hour with no qualifier in the grid.
- The registration requirement being printed separately and not
prominent.
- Lack of an entrance sign on the approach.
- The operator’s evidence including a different row and wrong
signage locations.
POPLA dismissed the appeal.
'
--- Quote ---
> The images show me that multiple signs are displayed across
the car park, including at the entry point to the car park,
which specifically states, “ALL VEHICLES MUST REGISTER UPON
ARRIVAL VIA PAYMENT MACHINES OR APPROVED CASHLESS PROVIDER…” and
is suitable considering the layout of the site. The signs are
positioned at a height as to not be obstructed by vehicles,
which makes them easy to read and I am satisfied that the size
of the writing is clear so that the terms can be read. I have
considered the appellant’s collective evidence and whilst I note
they believe the signage to be insufficient, I am satisfied from
the evidence provided by the parking operator that the signage
is legible and clearly outlines the terms of parking on the
site.'
--- End Quote ---
Key issues with Elite’s evidence
1. Elite submitted a “hand-drawn map” showing multiple T&C signs
and an entrance sign on the route I used.
After walking the route myself (with photos/video):
- The private land/registration signs do not exist in the
locations shown.
- The private land/registration signs are not at the entrance to
the street parking (or anywhere near).
- The map is not an accurate representation of the site layout.
POPLA appears to have relied on this inaccurate plan in its
reasoning, and have suggested that this was enough to form a
clear contract.
2. The map included a large “red” entrance sign that does not
exist anywhere near the bays used.
- This sign appears somewhere else on the estate (Huntingdon
Road entry),
- but not at any point along the route to Eddington Avenue where
the driver parked.
3. Elite’s “signage photos” for POPLA were taken in the
hotel-side row, not the street-side row.
- The two rows are separated by a grass median and a tree line.
- The signage density is different.
- The sign Elite photographed is not visible from the bay used.
4. There is no Elite entrance sign at the junction of Eddington
Avenue where the driver entered.
I have now walked and recorded the whole route from the
Huntingdon Road entrance to the bay.
There is no clear point where terms are conveyed before parking.
5. POPLA stated that “multiple signs exist across the car park
including at the entry point”.
This is not supported by the actual site layout.
Current status
- POPLA appeal rejected.
- The operator is Elite Parking, who regularly litigate via DCB
Legal.
- I now have full photographic evidence showing that:
-no entrance sign exists on the approach,
-the operator’s map is factually incorrect,
-the only signage visible at the bay is the tariff board that
states “Up to 1 hr – Free”.
What I need advice on
1. Is Elite’s misrepresentation of signage locations (or
non-representative evidence) a significant point for defending
this at the next stage?
2. Given the clarity of my photographs showing no entrance
signage, does this materially change the legal strength of the
claim?
3. What the next best strategy is given they know the driver's
identity.
I have all evidence, including signage, the 'route' and entrance
to the steet parking, their evidence pack and PCN.
Thank you in advance!
HTML https://ibb.co/4nXyZGPW
HTML https://ibb.co/pjxrvzY0
Signs used by Elite parking (first only present at Huntington
Road junction, 250-300m away from parking, second materially
different from blue signs used)
HTML https://ibb.co/HT3mVxv0
HTML https://ibb.co/PsCjwfCq
#Post#: 100924--------------------------------------------------
Re: Elite Parking PCN – “Free 1 hr / Failure to Register” –
Eddington Avenue, Cambridge – POPLA appeal lost
DIR By: b789
Date: December 3, 2025, 1:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You can safely ignore all debt recovery letters that will soon
come your way. Debt collectors are powerless to do anything
except to intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree
into paying out of ignorance and fear.
Come back when you receive your Letter of Claim (LoC) from DCB
Legal. If you follow the advice, you will not pay a penny to
Elite. We will give you the correct template to defend the
eventual claim and is due course, the claim will either be
struck out or discontinued.
It would be helpful if you could post a phot of both sides of
the Notice to Keeper (NtK) without redacting any dates or times.
The actual wording of the alleged contravention is also needed.
#Post#: 100953--------------------------------------------------
Re: Elite Parking PCN – “Free 1 hr / Failure to Register” –
Eddington Avenue, Cambridge – POPLA appeal lost
DIR By: willg88
Date: December 4, 2025, 4:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you, that's very reassuring. NtK letters attached here
HTML https://ibb.co/YB7bpXXX
HTML https://ibb.co/gL5RNgjc
#Post#: 100964--------------------------------------------------
Re: Elite Parking PCN – “Free 1 hr / Failure to Register” –
Eddington Avenue, Cambridge – POPLA appeal lost
DIR By: b789
Date: December 4, 2025, 6:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Oh dear! What a waste of an appeal. The Notice to Keeper (NtK)
is not PoFA compliant which means if the driver is not
identified, they cannot hold the Keeper liable.
I have now gone through the Notice to Keeper and all the
evidence in detail, and I want to set out clearly where you
stand and what will happen next.
First, Elite have made a complete mess of the legal basis they
say they are relying on. On the NtK they state that they are
relying on Schedule 4 paragraph 8 of the Protection of Freedoms
Act 2012. Paragraph 8 only applies where a physical windscreen
ticket (a Notice to Driver) was placed on the car and the driver
then failed to respond. In your case that never happened. The
NtK itself says that the breach was captured by a patrol officer
camera device and that the PCN is being served by post. That
scenario is governed by paragraph 9, not paragraph 8. So from
the outset they have picked the wrong section of PoFA.
Even if there had been a windscreen ticket, which there was not,
a valid paragraph 8 NtK must be served in a strict window
between day 28 and day 56 after the incident. Your alleged
incident was on 9 September 2025 and the NtK is dated 10
September 2025, i.e. the very next day. That alone would make it
impossible for the NtK to comply with paragraph 8. In other
words, whichever way Elite try to spin it, this notice cannot
give them keeper liability under PoFA.
However, that valuable defence point was wasted. In your initial
appeals to Elite and to POPLA you unfortunately revealed who was
driving. That means that although the NtK is not PoFA compliant
and Elite cannot hold you liable as keeper, that line of defence
has effectively been thrown away. They will now pursue you as
the admitted driver. We cannot undo that. What we can do is make
sure the defence focuses on the much stronger points, which are
to do with signage, the formation of any contract, and the
quality of Elite’s evidence.
A key point that Elite have failed to address is whether a
contract was ever formed at all. Their NtK does not state any
“period of parking”. It just gives a single time. That is not
sufficient to show that the vehicle was actually parked for
longer than the minimum 5 minute consideration period. The law
and the PPSCoP both recognise that a motorist must be allowed a
short period on arrival to find a space, read the signs, decide
whether to stay and, if necessary, leave without penalty. Elite
have provided no evidence that the car was parked for longer
than that basic consideration time. No period of parking means
no proof of a breach and therefore no proof that any contract
was actually formed and then broken. If there is no evidence of
consideration at all, there is, in contract terms, no contract.
On top of that you now have strong factual evidence about the
site itself. You have walked the route from the estate entrance
to where the car was parked and taken photographs and video.
That evidence shows that there is no Elite entrance sign on the
approach to the bays you used and no prominent sign anywhere on
that route telling a driver that they must “register” or use the
JustPark app to obtain the free hour. The only sign at the bay
is the tariff board which simply states “Up to 1 hour – Free” in
the grid, with no qualification in that grid about any
registration requirement.
Elite’s own evidence to POPLA is very shaky. Their hand-drawn
site plan shows entrance signs and terms and conditions signs in
locations that simply do not exist on the route you actually
took. Their photographs of the “signage” were taken in the
hotel-side row, not in the street-side row where you parked, and
the two areas are separated by a grass median and trees. In
short, they have not shown that any relevant sign was visible
from your bay, or that the alleged terms were ever properly
brought to the driver’s attention. POPLA’s assessor appears to
have been misled (unsurprisingly) by that inaccurate plan, but
POPLA’s decision is not binding on you or a court, and a judge
will be much more interested in your clear, contemporaneous
photos and video than in Elite’s sketch.
So, when this eventually reaches court, the defence will say in
plain terms:
[indent]1. Elite cannot rely on PoFA because they used the wrong
paragraph, the timing is wrong, and the NtK does not contain the
correct wording. Keeper liability is therefore unavailable,
although that point is mainly useful now as a credibility issue
because the driver has been identified.
2. Elite have failed to prove that any contract was formed. The
NtK does not specify any period of parking and they have
produced no evidence that the vehicle was parked longer than the
minimum consideration period. Without evidence of a period of
parking, there is no evidence of a breach, and without evidence
of consideration there is no contract.
3. The site signage is wholly inadequate. There is no clear
entrance signage or registration requirement on the route taken.
The only sign at the bay is the tariff board promising a free
hour. The registration requirement is, at best, buried elsewhere
and is not visible from where you parked.
4. Elite’s own evidence is unreliable. Their site plan and
photos do not reflect the actual layout of the area where the
vehicle was parked. They have not proved that the terms they
rely on were present or visible at the material time.[/indent]
Because you have this level of evidence, I am confident that if
the matter is defended properly it is very unlikely you would
not be successful. The usual pattern with Elite is that they
will pass the file to DCB Legal, followed by a formal Letter of
Claim (LoC). At that point we will send a detailed reply setting
out the points above. If they then issue a small claim, we will
file a concise, robust defence.
Realistically, once a proper defence is on the record and they
can see that you have evidence of the true site layout and the
lack of a stated period of parking, one of two things will
happen in cases like this: either the claim is struck out by a
judge on the papers, or DCB Legal quietly discontinues shortly
before they would have to pay the £27 trial fee. In other words,
the chances of this going all the way to a contested hearing
where you lose and have to pay are at the very lower end of slim
to zero, provided you follow the advice at each stage and do not
miss any deadlines.
#Post#: 100967--------------------------------------------------
Re: Elite Parking PCN – “Free 1 hr / Failure to Register” –
Eddington Avenue, Cambridge – POPLA appeal lost
DIR By: willg88
Date: December 4, 2025, 6:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I know! Gutted that I came across the forum too late to avoid
naming the driver. Very grateful for you taking the time to
explain all the above.
It’s good to know that POPLA’s decision isn’t binding and that
the real defence will come down to contract formation, evidence,
and the site layout. I’ve walked the route and can confirm there
is no Elite entrance signage at all, so it’s clear their plan
doesn’t reflect reality.
I'll see what comes through the post and make sure to be prompt
with replies and deadlines. Thank you again.
#Post#: 111493--------------------------------------------------
Re: Elite Parking PCN – “Free 1 hr / Failure to Register” –
Eddington Avenue, Cambridge – POPLA appeal lost
DIR By: willg88
Date: February 28, 2026, 6:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I recieved DCB Legal's Letter of Claim this morning, dated 20th
Feb.
HTML https://ibb.co/CKkjdqqK
I would very grateful for any help in writing my reply to them.
#Post#: 111889--------------------------------------------------
Re: Elite Parking PCN – “Free 1 hr / Failure to Register” –
Eddington Avenue, Cambridge – POPLA appeal lost
DIR By: willg88
Date: March 3, 2026, 8:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: willg88 link ---
>
> I recieved DCB Legal's Letter of Claim this morning, dated
20th Feb.
>
>
HTML https://ibb.co/CKkjdqqK
>
> I would very grateful for any help in writing my reply to
them.
>
--- End Quote ---
[member=26]b789[/member] if you're able to help.
#Post#: 112983--------------------------------------------------
Letter of Claim - Elite Parking NtK + DCB Legal (update from
previous thread)
DIR By: willg88
Date: March 12, 2026, 8:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
B789 has been kind enough to help me in my response to Elite
Parking for a NtK I recieved last year when I failed to register
for my 1 hour free parking on an app.
Here is the previous thread for context:
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/elite-parking-pcn-free-1-hr-failure-to-register-eddington-avenue-cambridge-popla/msg100850/#msg100850
I have now recieved my Letter of Claim (LoC) from DCB Legal,
included here:
HTML https://ibb.co/CKkjdqqK
I have also drafted my response based on B789's intitial advice.
As this is my first Letter of Claim, I would be grateful if
anyone could make any suggestions for what I should/shouldn't
say in it. I have until next week to send a formal response.
Response to Letter of Claim
I dispute the debt and deny liability to your client.
Please treat this as a substantive response under the Pre-Action
Protocol for Debt Claims. I am also seeking debt advice. This
matter must therefore be placed on hold for not less than 30
days from your receipt of this response and, if you provide the
documents requested below, for not less than 30 days from your
provision of those documents.
If, as appears, your Letter of Claim was not accompanied by the
required Information Sheet, Reply Form and Financial Statement,
then it is also non-compliant with paragraph 3.1 of the
Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.
My position is as follows.
1. No contract was properly brought to the driver’s attention at
the material location
The vehicle was parked in the street-side row opposite the
Hyatt/Turing building, not in the hotel-side row shown in much
of your client’s evidence.
At the relevant location, the prominent tariff board stated “Up
to 1 hour – Free”. There was no clear Elite entrance sign on the
actual approach to those bays, and no prominent sign at or near
the relevant bays stating that this free hour was conditional
upon prior registration via JustPark or any other method.
If your client contends that registration was a mandatory
condition even for the free hour, that term was not
transparently or prominently communicated at the material
location. The signage, as actually encountered, communicated a
free first hour, not a clearly conveyed “free first hour only if
registered” term. A written consumer notice must be transparent,
and where wording can bear more than one meaning, the meaning
most favourable to the consumer prevails.
2. Your client’s signage evidence is inaccurate and
non-representative
Your client previously relied on a hand-drawn site map and
signage photographs that do not accurately represent the actual
route taken or the actual row in which the vehicle was parked.
The route from the Huntingdon Road entrance to the relevant bays
does not contain the entrance/private land signage in the
positions alleged. The “red” entrance sign relied upon by your
client is not present at the entrance actually used to access
the relevant bays and appears to be located hundreds of metres
away elsewhere on the estate. Your client’s signage photographs
were taken in the hotel-side row, which is physically separated
from the street-side row by a grass median and tree line. Those
photographs do not prove that the alleged registration term was
visible from, or on the approach to, the bay used.
The IPC Code says operators should display entrance signs where
there is a defined entrance, and must adequately display any
signs intended to form the basis of contract. Your client is
therefore put to strict proof that the specific contractual term
relied upon was actually present, visible and legible on the
route taken and at the relevant parking location on the material
date.
3. Your client has not properly proved any contravention or any
accepted contract at the relevant location
Your client’s case appears to rely on a single patrol image and
non-representative signage material, rather than evidence
showing that the alleged term was brought to the driver’s
attention before or at the point of parking in the street-side
row.
Further, the notice and evidence do not identify any true period
of parking, only a single time. That is not proper proof that
the vehicle was parked for longer than the minimum time required
for a driver to enter, find a space, read signs and decide
whether to stay. The IPC Code requires a sufficient
consideration period so that a motorist may make an informed
decision whether to enter or remain. On your client’s own
evidence, there is no proper proof that any contractual term was
fairly communicated, accepted and then breached.
4. Your client’s legal basis has been inconsistently stated
For completeness, your client’s Notice to Keeper was said to
rely on Schedule 4 paragraph 8 of the Protection of Freedoms Act
2012, even though no windscreen notice was served and the notice
was issued by post. Paragraph 8 applies where a Notice to Driver
has first been given; paragraph 9 governs postal notices where
no Notice to Driver was given. That materially undermines the
coherence and reliability of your client’s case.
5. The sum claimed is not properly particularised
Your letter claims £170, said to include the parking charge and
debt recovery costs. Please identify precisely:
- the original parking charge
- each additional sum added
- the legal basis for each additional sum
- where each such sum was expressly and prominently communicated
on the signage said to form the contract
The Debt Claims Protocol requires sufficient information about
the debt and any other charges.
Documents and information required
Please now provide the following so that the issues can be
properly understood and narrowed:
1. A copy of the original PCN / Notice to Keeper and all
photographs relied upon.
2. A copy of the patrol officer’s notes, handheld device record,
and the precise observation times relied upon.
3. A full unredacted copy of the contract, or chain of
authority, with the landowner authorising Elite Parking
Management Ltd to operate and litigate at this site.
4. A contemporaneous site plan for the material date showing the
exact location of every sign relied upon, and identifying which
sign is said to have applied to the street-side row opposite the
Hyatt/Turing building.
5. Contemporaneous photographs of all signage on the actual
route taken and at the actual parking location, not the
hotel-side row.
6. Confirmation of the exact contractual term alleged to have
been breached, with the wording relied upon.
7. Evidence that the alleged registration requirement for the
free first hour was clearly displayed at or before the point of
parking in the relevant row.
8. A full breakdown of the amount claimed, including the basis
of any added sum beyond the original PCN.
9. Confirmation whether your client’s case is pleaded as breach
of contract, contractual charge, or some other cause of action.
I have contemporaneous photographic and video evidence relevant
to the disputed signage, route of approach and parking location,
which will be relied upon if proceedings are issued and/or if it
becomes necessary to do so.
Until the above documents are provided, your client has not
supplied enough information to comply properly with the Protocol
or to enable the issues to be narrowed. If proceedings are
issued prematurely, that non-compliance will be drawn to the
court’s attention.
#Post#: 112988--------------------------------------------------
Re: Elite Parking PCN – “Free 1 hr / Failure to Register” –
Eddington Avenue, Cambridge – POPLA appeal lost
DIR By: InterCity125
Date: March 12, 2026, 9:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Was the driver ever revealed to the operator in either of the
appeals?
#Post#: 112993--------------------------------------------------
Re: Elite Parking PCN – “Free 1 hr / Failure to Register” –
Eddington Avenue, Cambridge – POPLA appeal lost
DIR By: willg88
Date: March 12, 2026, 9:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes, unfortunately the driver was revealed in my initial appeal
to Elite and again at POPLA before I discovered the forum advice
about appealing as keeper only.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page