Free Traffic Legal Advice

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.