Parking eye appeal 3 days left

Car1980

If you phrase a Popla appeal in the style of "mitigating circumstances" it will be rejected.

Think contract law.

Did you form a contract considering you could not pay and therefore left? Was consideration exchanged? Did they get money and did you hire a parking space as a result of the contract?

No
No
No

Wait for the court claim and defend as no contract ever being formed, let alone breached.

Vagatha1

ok yes will do, I have the court claim already so this is my defense. I get to do a witness statement don't I so I can send photos of the signs at that stage can't I.

is what I have written ok or should I look into other threads a bit more so i can quote things more like I have with the BPA CoP?

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 22/09/25 and having completed the AoS in a timely manner your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 27/10/25 You say it is your defence but it looks like a POPLA appeal.  Just find and use the template defence, one of the announcements on the first page of the parking forum.  Show us your paragraph #3.  All paragraphs must be numbered.

Vagatha1

Hi, sorry that was my paragraph 3 as the post said not to bother posting all the other paragraphs.
I realise now it needs to sound more contract law-y haha so I'm going to have some time later when I haven't got my kid so I can concentrate and find other posts that I can use about landowner & grace time. I can't think of anything else I could use unless you have some other words I could use to search with?

1505grandad

Can you post a copy of the claim form redacted including VRM, password etc

Le_Kirk

As @1505grandad writes, we need to see the POC because that is what you will be defending against, although it should be written in the third person, so no "I" but "the defendant".

Vagatha1

Hi, sorry it took so long, had to wait till I got home and could sneak away from my toddler haha. Hope I've redacted all that needs it.

Vagatha1

Hi,

here is my defense, please can someone tell me if this is good enough to send and if its numbered ok? Thank you! the picture is of the entrance signage which i have referenced.

3.a The Defendant was in the car park for approximately ten minutes. During this time, they made genuine attempts to comply with the displayed payment instructions. The Defendant attempted payment via the online address stated on the signs, but the system returned the message “payment not accepted at this time.” The Defendant also telephoned the payment number displayed on the signage, which responded “location unknown.” Screenshots of both the failed payment message and the Defendant’s call log evidencing the attempt are available for the Court’s inspection. Upon observing wording suggesting that church patrons might be able to validate parking, the Defendant walked to the adjacent church to clarify, but it was closed, so the Defendant promptly left the site without parking, having never parked or accepted any offer. Accordingly, no contract was formed. Under paragraphs 13.1 and 13.2 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice (version 8, Jan 2020), operators must allow a reasonable grace period—at least ten minutes—for drivers to read the signage and decide whether to stay or leave. The Defendant’s brief stay falls entirely within that period and therefore cannot constitute acceptance of any contract.

3.b The entrance sign is cluttered with multiple messages: "Pay on Arrival” in large print, suggesting public paid parking vs another sign stating “Elim Church Private Car Park / Permit Holders Only” directly beneath, contradicting the first message; Additional small text listing various time restrictions and payment methods, which cannot be read safely from a moving vehicle. The sign also references “Patrons only Monday–Friday 8am–6pm” in small print, which is not clearly readable upon entry without needing to stop or leave the vehicle, contrary to BPA CoP Section 19 and the transparency and prominence requirements of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, sections 62–68.

These contradictions made it impossible for a reasonable driver to discern who was entitled to park, at what times, or how to pay. It is denied that the Claimant took reasonable steps to bring the terms of any alleged contract to the Defendant’s attention. As held in Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA Civ 106, no contract can be formed if terms are not clearly brought to the driver’s attention.

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 requires contractual terms to be transparent (s.68) and prominent (s.64).Any ambiguity must be interpreted in favour of the consumer (CRA 2015, s.69)

3.c Furthermore, the Claimant is not the landowner and is put to strict proof of legal standing to enter into contracts or pursue parking charges in their own name. The Defendant requires production of a contemporaneous, unredacted copy of the written agreement with the landholder, including full terms, scope, site boundaries, and dates of authority, as required by BPA CoP Section 7. In the absence of such evidence, the Claimant lacks standing.

3.d The Defendant also notes that the signage fails to clearly display that Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras are in operation and fails to specify the lawful purpose of data collection, contrary to the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018. The lack of transparency regarding data processing renders the Claimant’s collection and use of the Defendant’s personal data unlawful.

kryten3000

This is too much detail for a Defence and you can't send the photo via the moneyclaim site. It also repeats other paragraphs.  All you need is:

3 The Defendant intended to park on the material date but was unable to make payment after multiple attempts. When it became clear that payment was not possible, the Defendant vacated the site and parked elsewhere. No contract was formed as a result of the Defendant's actions.

Or something like this.  Leave the rest to the Witness Statement stage.

Vagatha1

will this do?

3. The Defendant was in the car park for approximately ten minutes. During this time, they attempted to make payment via both the website and telephone number displayed on the signs; however, the website failed to load and the telephone system stated “location unknown.” On observing a reference to church patrons, the Defendant went to the adjacent church to clarify the parking conditions, but it was closed, so the Defendant promptly left without parking. Under paragraphs 13.1 and 13.2 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, operators must allow a reasonable grace period—at least ten minutes—for drivers to read the signage and decide whether to stay or leave. The Defendant’s brief stay falls within that period and therefore cannot constitute acceptance of any contract. The signage was unclear and contradictory (“Pay on Arrival” versus “Elim Church Private Car Park / Permit Holders Only”), with key terms in small print unreadable from a vehicle, contrary to BPA CoP section 19 and the transparency and prominence requirements of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (sections 62–68). Furthermore, the Claimant is not the landowner and is therefore put to strict proof of their legal standing to offer parking contracts or pursue charges in their own name, including the production of a contemporaneous, unredacted agreement with the landholder that confers such authority.