Shoreham port - GXS NTK on byelaws land Options

[bearclaw]

Hello,

I'm helping a somewhat computer phobic freind deal with a parking ticket from GXS and just wanted to check on the approach with the people on here....

In short,

Driver, who has not been identified parked on the Basin Road south at Shoreham port. The signage may have changed recently, but no up to date images have been obtained yet (if anyone does have any we would be grateful). The vehicle is insured on any driver policy and there could be a reasonable number of people who were permitted to drive it.

NTK arrived within time frames, and that is where we are sat.

As the area is within the area of the port as defined by the relevant Act, and as the bylaws contain provisions for parking (basically do what the harbour master instructs) it's not relevant land, so it was proposed to send the following back as a starter... your thoughts on this and the contents of the letter are appreciated.

Dear <GXS Parking>

I am the Keeper of the vehicle VRM <reg number> and was the keeper at all relevant dates in regard to this matter.

I am writing in response to your letter of <date from letter> which I have just received concerning a parking matter on <date of parking>. You have described the location as SPA Basin Road South, which clearly indicates you realise that this is within the Shoreham Port Authority.

The specifed area appears to be not relevant land as defined by paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 which states that

"3(1)In this Schedule “relevant land” means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than—

(a)a highway maintainable at the public expense (within the meaning of section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980);

(b)a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority;

©any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control."

As this parking area lies within the area of the Port of Shoreham, as defined by the Shoreham Harbour Act 1926 (as amended) and as the harbour byelaws contain provisions to regulate parking, this land is therefore subject to statutory control as per section (3)(1)© as above.

You cannot, therefore, transfer liability for the alleged charge from the driver at the time to me, the keeper.

There is no legal requirement to name the driver at the time and I will not be doing so.

I do not expect any further communication with me on this matter, apart from confirmation of no further action and my details being removed from your records. As you should be aware and are now in fact aware, you are not able to transfer liability to the Keeper and your further processing of my personal data in this matter save as above will be considered vexatious and harassing. This includes communication from any Debt Collection companies you care to instruct whose wasted costs will be yours alone to bear.

Signed

[Advertisement]

[DWMB2]

If the street is definitely on byelaws land (which it seems to be) then an appeal along those lines seems appropriate.

I'd be tempted to change "The specified area appears to be not relevant land as defined by paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012" to "The specified area is not relevant land as defined by paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012". If you're confident it's not relevant land then maintain that confidence in your letter.

The vehicle is insured on any driver policy and there could be a reasonable number of people who were permitted to drive it.

As a small aside for future reference, who is specifically insured on a vehicle is generally irrelevant when it comes to who may or may not have been driving. My insurance covers me to drive other vehicles (with permission), for example.

[bearclaw]

Good point especially since we are certain about the extent of the Port, will amend that.

[ostell]

Add in any other Pofa fails

... the land is not relevant but even if it were you have failed to POFA conditions .....