PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Farmfoods Blackburn, ParkingEye ticket
MHU
post Wed, 5 Sep 2018 - 15:12
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 133
Joined: 5 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,412



Hi

This ticket was received whilst shopping at Farm foods then went into town. Did not realize the maximum time allowed in the car park was 60mins and was there for 1 hour 59mins

Can i appeal this or ignore or anything at all?


Thanks

This post has been edited by MHU: Fri, 7 Sep 2018 - 21:03
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4  
Start new topic
Replies (60 - 78)
Advertisement
post Wed, 5 Sep 2018 - 15:12
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
MHU
post Wed, 5 Dec 2018 - 15:51
Post #61


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 133
Joined: 5 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,412



Just spoke to a planning officer, who did not know and said i would need to email in so someone can check the planning database to see if the boards have permission or not
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MHU
post Fri, 7 Dec 2018 - 14:43
Post #62


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 133
Joined: 5 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,412



This is the reply got from council

Hello Mr X,

We do get a lot of requests regarding parking signs and the planning legality of the sign. The reason for this is because there is a belief that without planning permission the signs are invalid and therefore any contract between the car park owner and the vehicle owner is void. I would not wish to comment on this and leave that to the courts to decide.



However with regards to planning permission. Under Schedule 1, Class F, of The Town and Country (control of advertisements) (England) Regulations, an advertisement required to be displayed by Standing Orders of either House of Parliament would not fall within Parts 2 and Part 3 of the regulations and would in most circumstances not require planning permission. The reason for this would be because they are required to be displayed under separate governmental legislation. I will look into this to confirm.



Regards
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Fri, 7 Dec 2018 - 15:02
Post #63


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,579
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



The signs should be under advertising consent, lack of which is a criminal matter. Planning permission, or lack of, is a civil matter and can be applied for retrospectively, unlike advertisement consent. It is the advertising consent, or lack of, that you are looking for.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MHU
post Fri, 7 Dec 2018 - 15:05
Post #64


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 133
Joined: 5 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,412



QUOTE (ostell @ Fri, 7 Dec 2018 - 15:02) *
The signs should be under advertising consent, lack of which is a criminal matter. Planning permission, or lack of, is a civil matter and can be applied for retrospectively, unlike advertisement consent. It is the advertising consent, or lack of, that you are looking for.



Thanks, i have gone back to him requesting the advertising consent.

If i do not hear back by 11th December i will need to fill the POPLA appeal online with the other pointers
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MHU
post Mon, 10 Dec 2018 - 16:17
Post #65


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 133
Joined: 5 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,412



no response as of yet ..
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bearclaw
post Mon, 10 Dec 2018 - 16:27
Post #66


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 404
Joined: 15 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,103



Ring them up and require an answer. Advise them that there is an urgent matter waiting and you would expect them to be able now to answer the question.

It's a council who dont want to do work - the request ius probably in a locked lavatory in a disused basement with a sign on the door etc. etc.... Go chase them, they wont do it for you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MHU
post Mon, 10 Dec 2018 - 16:44
Post #67


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 133
Joined: 5 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,412



Just managed to speak to someone about it

So.. i was making notes as i was speaking to them

The conclusion is they do not have permission .. but the reason is they confirm Under Schedule 1, Class F, of The Town and Country (control of advertisements) (England) Regulations, so there is no requirement and does not contravene advertising regulations. If the sign was very large or illuminated then permission would be required.


Government require to have them up, so does not require permission






Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Mon, 10 Dec 2018 - 22:25
Post #68


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,579
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



That's a cop out if ever I heard one. The government have nothing at all to do with this, it's private land. There is, within the regulations, a maximum size above which advertising consent is required. You seem to have found a "jobs worth"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bearclaw
post Mon, 10 Dec 2018 - 23:35
Post #69


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 404
Joined: 15 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,103



IF the signs are bigger than 450mmx450mm then they need advertisin permission. They dont apparantly have it - if the signs are bigger stick the part in about ex turpi causa and add it into the POPLA appeal. It's another thing they have to address and might be enough to make them not bother.


For info..

CLASS F
An advertisement required to be displayed by Standing Orders of either House of Parliament or by any enactment or any condition imposed by any enactment on the exercise of any function.

1. If the advertisement would, if it were not within this Class, fall within any Class in Schedule 3, any conditions imposed on that Class as to size, height or number of advertisements displayed, shall apply to it.

2. In a case to which paragraph 1 does not apply, the size, height, and number of advertisements displayed shall not exceed what is necessary to achieve the purpose for which the advertisement is required.

3. The advertisement may not be displayed after—

(a)the expiry of the period during which it is required or authorised to be displayed, or

(b)if there is no such period, 14 days after its purpose has been satisfied.




This post has been edited by bearclaw: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 - 23:42
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MHU
post Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 09:41
Post #70


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 133
Joined: 5 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,412



Finding it hard to find a ex turpi example to pop in ..

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bearclaw
post Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 10:03
Post #71


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 404
Joined: 15 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,103



There are loads - stick ex turpi causa in the search box above.

Or write your own - you understand what the doctrine means yes - that someone cannot benefit from someone else illegal act? So something like...

The signs present at <location> do not appear to have advertising consent as required by The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007. As such the <parking company> should not be allowed to benefit from this illegal act under the doctrine of Ex turpi causa non oritur actio - ie from a dishonorable cause an action does not arise. Unless the <parking co> can show there was valid advertising consent in place at the time teh driver parked no such action by them should succeed...

Get your POPLA appeal drafted quick and post it up for critique if it's due to today.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MHU
post Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 12:31
Post #72


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 133
Joined: 5 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,412



I was the hirer of the vehicle relating to the parking charge notice (reference above).
I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge on the grounds listed below and request that they are all considered.


1) The Operator failed to deliver a Notice to Hirer that was fully compliant with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA).
2) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice
3) No Advertising consent for the signs




1) The Operator failed to deliver a Notice to Hirer that was fully compliant with the requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (“POFA”)

In order to rely upon POFA to claim unpaid parking charges from a vehicle’s hirer, an operator must deliver a Notice to Hirer in full compliance with POFA’s strict requirements. In this instance, the Operator’s Notice to Hirer did not comply.

The relevant provisions concerning hire vehicles are set out in Paragraphs 13 and 14 of Schedule 4 of POFA with the conditions that the Creditor must meet in order to be able to hold the hirer liable for the charge being set out in Paragraph 14.

Paragraph 14(2) (a) specifies that in addition to delivering a Notice to Hirer within the relevant period, the Creditor must also provide the Hirer with a copy of the documents mentioned in Paragraph 13(2) (i.e. (a) a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b) a copy of the hire agreement; and © a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement), together with a copy of the Notice to Keeper (i.e. the notice that had originally been sent to the lease company (as Registered Keeper)). The Operator did not provide me with copies of any of these documents.
Should the Operator try to suggest that there is any other method whereby a vehicle’s keeper (or hirer) can be held liable for a charge where a driver is not identified, I draw POPLA’s attention to the guidance given to operators in POPLA's 2015 Annual Report by Henry Greenslade, Chief Adjudicator in which he reminded them of a keeper's (or hirer's) right not to name the driver whilst still not being held liable for an unpaid parking charge under Schedule 4 of POFA.
I draw POPLA’s particular attention to the section entitled “Keeper Liability” in which Mr. Greenslade explains that:

“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.......
.......... However keeper information is obtained, there is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver”.

Through its failure to deliver a compliant Notice to Hirer, the Operator has forfeited its right to claim unpaid parking charges from the vehicle’s hirer. For this reason alone, POPLA may determine that the Operator’s claim against me is invalid.

2) No evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land then I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights - is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to merely put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case I suggest it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, grace periods (which I believe may be longer than the bare minimum times set out in the BPA CoP) and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

Paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

7.2 If the operator wishes to take legal action on any outstanding parking charges, they must ensure that they have the written authority of the landowner (or their appointed agent) prior to legal action being taken.

7.3 The written authorisation must also set out:

a) the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined

b) any conditions or restrictions on parking control and enforcement operations, including any restrictions on hours of operation

c) any conditions or restrictions on the types of vehicles that may, or may not, be subject to parking control and enforcement

d) who has the responsibility for putting up and maintaining signs

e) the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement

3) Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements)(England) Regulations 2007, Regulation 30 makes it a criminal offence to display advertisements without the relevant consent. The signs present at Farmfoods, Blackburn do not appear to have advertising consent as required. As such ParkingEye should not be allowed to benefit from this illegal act under the doctrine of Ex turpi causa non oritur actio - ie from a dishonourable cause an action does not arise. Unless ParkingEye can show there was valid advertising consent in place at the time the driver parked no such action by them should succeed...

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bearclaw
post Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 12:50
Post #73


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 404
Joined: 15 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,103



See what some of the others on here think before you submit it but that looks pretty reasonable to me.

You need to get in neatly formatted and then exported as a PDF file and then upload that to POPLA
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MHU
post Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 13:12
Post #74


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 133
Joined: 5 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,412



on the POPLA appeal page, would i chose the

I was not improperly parked
Selected
The vehicle was not parked where it stated it was on the parking notice.
You were still within the time you paid for.
You did not overstay the free parking allowed in the car park.
You paid the correct amount for parking
Your car parking ticket was clearly displayed
The terms and conditions of the car park were not properly signed
You were parked in an area where you were free to park
You complied with the terms and conditions on the signage
Supporting evidence may include
Evidence of payment, such as your parking ticket


OR

do i just go for the "Other" option
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bearclaw
post Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 13:47
Post #75


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 404
Joined: 15 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,103



Other.

But dont upload it yet - you have until I think about 4pm so see what other people think to the appeal too.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MHU
post Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 13:55
Post #76


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 133
Joined: 5 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,412



ok thank you
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MHU
post Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 16:40
Post #77


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 133
Joined: 5 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,412



no reply, so i will do the appeal
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MHU
post Wed, 2 Jan 2019 - 16:26
Post #78


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 133
Joined: 5 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,412



SUCCESS

Thank you for submitting your parking charge Appeal to POPLA.



An Appeal has been opened with the reference XXXXXXXXX



Parking Eye Ltd have told us they do not wish to contest the Appeal. This means that your Appeal is successful and you do not need to pay the parking charge.



Yours sincerely



POPLA Team


Thank you very much for all your help everyone
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bearclaw
post Wed, 2 Jan 2019 - 16:59
Post #79


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 404
Joined: 15 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,103



Excellent news well done smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Tuesday, 19th February 2019 - 09:42
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.