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.
Thanks both
@b789 and
@DWMB2.
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.
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.)
Good Morning,
Sharing my draft for the comments section of the evidence pack. Any feedback would be most welcome.
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.
Thanks in Advance
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.
Thanks for the feedback. Much Appreciated!
I'll leave out the PoFA bits.
Result!!! POPLA allowed the appeal and cancelled the ticket.
Thanks
@b789 and
@DWMB2 for all your help and support on this
Well done... Can you share the assessor's comments?
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.
Angry x 1
View List
Winner x 2
View List