PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN in Ruislip Lido, Vehicle not authorised to park
Pavy
post Tue, 3 Jul 2018 - 14:21
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 179
Joined: 24 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,465



Hi all

We visited Ruislip Lido (London Borough of Hillingdon) after nearly 1 year to enjoy the weather on a Wednesday evening with our toddler . Only on our return to the car park we realized that the car park is not just free. when checked other cars in the same lane none of them had any parking tickets, so we thought we wouldn't need one. The signs were confusing, it was late to undo anything and no one was around to confirm we left the car park.

A week and half later we received PCN for vehicle parked @ M&B -The Water's Edge- Ruslip, Reservoir Road by remaining at the car park without authorisation.

I am not sure what to do, any ground to challenge?

Appreciate your help.

Thank you!


[Image removed]


This post has been edited by Fredd: Mon, 16 Jul 2018 - 16:56
Reason for edit: Image removed at OP's request
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4  
Start new topic
Replies (60 - 67)
Advertisement
post Tue, 3 Jul 2018 - 14:21
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Pavy
post Today, 07:57
Post #61


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 179
Joined: 24 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,465



QUOTE (kommando @ Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 19:33) *
John Dull/Bull does not seem to be a M&B director

The following are directors of the Company:

Bob Ivell (Chairman)
Ron Robson* (Deputy Chairman)
Phil Urban (Chief Executive)
Tim Jones (Finance Director)
Stewart Gilliland* (Senior Independent Director)
Keith Browne*
Dave Coplin*
Eddie Irwin*
Josh Levy*
Colin Rutherford*
Imelda Walsh*

We had one contract thrown out as the sig was not one of a director.


Thanks kommando but do u have further reference on that case ?

I checked the following site and yes John is not listed

https://www.mbplc.com/investors/businesscon...boardstructure/

This post has been edited by Pavy: Today, 08:02
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kommando
post Today, 08:49
Post #62


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,029
Joined: 6 Oct 2012
Member No.: 57,558



Its on the forum somewhere, it was a small claims hearing and the contract was dismissed as the signatory was not an authorised signatory, you do not have to be a director to be authorised but with no job title on the form it suggests they are not, also neither company has its full legal name on the contract which also makes it a nonsense document. I would be insisting on proof of authorisation to sign documents of both signees to be able to sign contracts for the respective companies and raising the lack of full legal names as making it void.

https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/authorised-signatory

This post has been edited by kommando: Today, 09:04
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Today, 09:01
Post #63


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,146
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Or this is a "contract" that has been knocked up by the back office so that it looks good.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kommando
post Today, 09:03
Post #64


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,029
Joined: 6 Oct 2012
Member No.: 57,558



I wasn't going to say but it has all the hallmarks of a made up contract, especially as previous pages off the BPA have the full legal name for ECP.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pavy
post Today, 10:26
Post #65


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 179
Joined: 24 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,465



QUOTE (kommando @ Fri, 21 Sep 2018 - 10:03) *
I wasn't going to say but it has all the hallmarks of a made up contract, especially as previous pages off the BPA have the full legal name for ECP.



Really how do they hope such contracts which, on the face of it, appears illegal may still be enforceable?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ViroBono
post Today, 15:27
Post #66


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 106
Joined: 9 Jan 2011
Member No.: 43,323



QUOTE (kommando @ Fri, 21 Sep 2018 - 10:03) *
I wasn't going to say but it has all the hallmarks of a made up contract, especially as previous pages off the BPA have the full legal name for ECP.



The numbers are written in a style that suggests a non-UK education. John Bull indeed!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pavy
post Today, 15:35
Post #67


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 179
Joined: 24 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,465



I need some support in identifying POFA 2012 non-complaint .. otherwise I have drafted below response, would like to hear feedback before I send this today as its 7th day from the day operator submitted evidence.

Dear Sirs

I write in response to the POPLA appeal from ECP.

While I raised number of grounds for appeal, ECP have focused on following proving to be deceitful
I question the operator’s authority from the landowner, to enforce any parking charges at this car park. Section 7.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice informs parking operators that “if you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you authority to carry out all aspects of car park management for the site you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges”.
The operator has provided POPLA with a copy of a redacted contract, signed and dated by non-director with no job title assigning rights to charge and enforce in the courts in their own right. I say that any contract is not compliant with the requirements set out in the BPA Code of Practice and does not allow them to charge and issue proceedings for this sum for this alleged contravention in this car park. In order to comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA Code of Practice, a non-landowner private parking company must have a specifically-worded contract with the landowner – not merely an ‘agreement’ with a non-landholder managing agent – otherwise there is no land authority.
Without authority to operate on the land, a parking company doing so is committing fraud, breaching the BPA and IPC Code of Practice, and has no right to Keeper Details or to seek to invoke Keeper Liability. Indeed, without authority to operate, the company cannot even pursue the driver for a Parking Charge.
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.''

Further my appeal the question on accuracy of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) technology and what that data is used for is unanswered. section 21.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice that states motorists must be ‘informed that this technology is in use and what the Operator will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for’. Further, within Section 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice, it is stated: “You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent
manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.”

Additionally, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states that any “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand”.

Within its response, the operator has provided evidence of the signage at the location. while it advises that the “car park monitored by ANPR systems”, it does not inform the motorist what it is using “the data captured by ANPR cameras for”, as required under Section 21.1 of the BPA Code of Practice. Therefore, the operator has failed to meet the minimum standards set out within Sections 21.1 and 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice.

The signage in the car park were confusing, and terms and conditions cannot be read from ground level. This is the first time I parked after the free parking is made paid. The signage is not only illegible from the ground, but at the entrance signage puts the free parking sign above the Hillingdon council sign and the arrows go the other way.
Section 18.3 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice states: “Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand” but the T's & C's are placed so high up on poles it is impossible to agree to them let alone read them. There are no signs that can be read from the car for disabled people as clearly stated in the code of conduct. Clause 18.9 and 28.8 - So that disabled motorists can decide whether they want to use the site, there must be at least one sign containing the terms and conditions for parking that can be viewed without needing to leave the vehicle. Ideally this sign must be close to any parking bays set aside for disabled motorists.
ECP have been deceitful in their evidence not including any photos of actual site and suggesting the signs are big and easy to read when they are deliberately positioned high up on poles to make them difficult to read and T's & C's were tiny letters to advise the hours and tariff apply to vehicles and payment method
I hope that the POPLA assessor upholds my appeal based on the serious and misleading evidence provided by this private parking operator and provide consistent judgement applied to this previously.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kommando
post Today, 15:53
Post #68


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,029
Joined: 6 Oct 2012
Member No.: 57,558



QUOTE
The operator has provided POPLA with a copy of a redacted contract, signed and dated by non-director with no job title assigning rights to charge and enforce in the courts in their own right.


The operator has provided POPLA with a copy of a redacted contract, signed and dated by non-directors with no job titles to confirm an authorised signatory has signed, in addition the full legal company name is not used in the redacted contract including below the signatures making the contract unenforceable as this contract cannot apply to the companies involved without the full legal names being used.
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: Friday, 21st September 2018 - 16:47
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.