Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: PPN from ParkingEye for parking on foreshore of Weymouth Bay!
FightBack Forums > Queries > Private Parking Tickets & Clamping
ballymunboy
Hi!

Here's a curious one.

Registered Keeper just received £100 PPN. Vehicle ANPR'ed when entering and exiting ParkingEye car-park at Café Oasis, Bowleaze Cove, WEYMOUTH. DT3 6PN

Google Street View of Café car-park here: http://goo.gl/maps/mAYQjTSdmXs

Unusual circumstances :- Driver went straight through Café Oasis car-park. Never stopped. And parked on shingle foreshore beyond. But was clocked entering and exiting car-park and billed as if s/he had parked there.





Café has controversial owner who contentiously claims ownership of foreshore. With ParkingEye contracted to manage it.

Land Registry indicates freehold of foreshore owned by Crown Estate (title no. DT365239)

Leasehold of (part of) foreshore owned by Weymouth & Portland Borough Council (title no. DT333228)

Leasehold title for Oasis Café includes part of foreshore. (title no. DT315220). See triangle area outlined in red below.



Yet Oasis Café submitted planning application, claiming ownership of much larger area of foreshore. See below :-



http://webapps.westdorset-weymouth.gov.uk/...ocs/1024273.TIF
http://webapps.westdorset-weymouth.gov.uk/...9%2f00126%2fFUL

Which plan is true? How much foreshore does Café really own, if any?

Driver cannot recall exactly where s/he parked on foreshore. Although naturally some way down beach towards sea. Well away from Café Oasis and the stench of their burning chip fat.
---

In circumstances, what would make good case to put to ParkingEye/POPLA? ---

Never parked in car-park itself? Drove straight through it.
Lack of Signage? No signs on beach about parking charges.
No Evidence of Landowner Authority (of foreshore or beach).


Thanks for your interest!
nosferatu1001
The registered leasehold is correct.

Appeal to parking eye strating you have definitive proof that the land is not leased to the cafe, but is owned by the crown. Thy have no authority to ticket on this land and must cease and desist.
bama
I thought all foreshore in the UK was property of The Crown.
ostell
QUOTE (bama @ Fri, 11 Aug 2017 - 14:40) *
I thought all foreshore in the UK was property of The Crown.


Unfortunately not.
ballymunboy
QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Fri, 11 Aug 2017 - 05:52) *
The registered leasehold is correct.


Hi Nosferatu, Yeah, it would seem that the registered leasehold for this cafe does include part of the foreshore. Whether foreshore is legitimately part of the title or not, it nevertheless is included in the title plan.

The cafe owner has tried to enclose 'his' area of the beach with large boulders, attempting to force motorists to park where he and ParkingEye can then gouge them for parking charges. Though the foreshore area he has enclosed with rocks is much larger than illustrated as 'his' on the Land Registry plan!

QUOTE (bama @ Fri, 11 Aug 2017 - 14:40) *
I thought all foreshore in the UK was property of The Crown.


I thought that. But according to Hansard's Written Answer from Angela Eagle, then Chancellor of Exchequer....



https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200...#09021065000033

QUOTE (ostell @ Fri, 11 Aug 2017 - 15:40) *
QUOTE (bama @ Fri, 11 Aug 2017 - 14:40) *
I thought all foreshore in the UK was property of The Crown.


Unfortunately not.


"The Crown Estate manages around half of the foreshore around the UK coastline..the remainder is owned or managed by bodies such as the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall." Other significant owners of foreshore, according to Cornwall Council, "include the Church Commissioners in Durham, Duke of Beaufort on Severn Estuary and Beaulieu Estate on River Beaulieu."
---

For parking purposes, this begs several questions :-

Is a parking charge payable for simply crossing a car park when accessing foreshore beyond?
What extent of foreshore does the café owner actually lease?
Does cafe owner and ParkingEye have permission of foreshore landowner to offer parking, and enter into parking contracts?
Is parking contract enforceable when there are no parking signs on foreshore itself? It would be easy enough to erect signs in the shingle on the beach. So why doesn't cafe owner do that?
cabbyman
If they say 'parking,' they're ANPR can't possibly specify that you were parked.

I would go with the usual arguments of signs, ANPR deficuences, failure to comply with PoFA, failure to form a contract, etc.

Getting involved in the leasehold title dispute is a can of worms that should really be left to the lessor and lessee to argue over. Nothing to do with you.
ballymunboy
QUOTE (bama @ Fri, 11 Aug 2017 - 14:40) *
I thought all foreshore in the UK was property of The Crown.


The agent for the Crown Estate in Dorset Coastal was helpful in this matter.

It turns out the Crown commonly owns the foreshore up to 'Mean High Water'.

In the case of Weymouth Bay, foreshore above 'Mean High Water' is owned by the Borough Council. The Council then subleases part of it. One lessee is notorious owner of Café Oasis, Weymouth, a Mr Paul Frederick Cocks, b. 3 Jun 1954 Weymouth; mother Hobbs.

Paul Frederick Cocks is a controversial ex-lawyer and former director of bankrupt Weymouth FC. Mr Cocks contracts ParkingEye to manage his café car-park and a leased area of foreshore, plus further areas of foreshore he has enclosed illicitly, it seems, for his own commercial gain. Exploiting that extra council foreshore -- for which he does not pay a lease -- for even more charged parking and for additional outside seating for his cafe customers! The Senior Estates Surveyor for the local authority is investigating earnestly!
ballymunboy
Hi, brief update on the PPN for Café Oasis Weymouth / parking on sea foreshore issued by the low-lifes at ParkingEye, on behalf of contracting café owner, Paul Frederick Cocks.

No contract was formed. Vehicle never parked on relevant land (Café Oasis car-park). No "reasonable cause" for obtaining keeper details from DVLA.

Using Timothea's template on MoneySavingExpert, a "Section 10 Data Subject Notice" was duly served 15 August on ParkingEye.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5585388

The Section 10 Notice advised ParkingEye that it is misusing the keeper's personal data; data misuse which is causing the keeper "unwarranted substantial distress"; and that ParkingEye is instructed to cease and desist from processing the keeper's personal data any further.



Under the 1998 DPA, the Data Controller (ParkingEye) has 21 days to respond to a Section 10 Notice. The Data Controller (ParkingEye) must reply, either :
a. stating that it has complied or intends to comply with the Data Subject Notice; or
b. stating its reasons for regarding the Data Subject Notice as to any extent unjustified and the extent (if any) to which it has complied or intends to comply with the Data Subject Notice

Perhaps no surprise, the anonymous slime-mould at the "ParkingEye Team" did neither.

Instead, ParkingEye spewed out yet another Threat-o-Gram, with yet another demand for £100.

And instead of reply to the Section 10 Notice as required by the 1998 DPA Act, ParkingEye treated the Notice as if it were an "Appeal". An "Appeal" which naturally had failed. With a warning that "the Parking Charge still stands.. and payment can be made by telephoning our offices on blahblahblah."



The "ParkingEye Team" also enclosed a "FAQ"; wholly irrelevant, and making much of Parking Eye v Beavis to scare the reader shitless. [aside:was Beavis a 'trojan horse' ??]

That irrelevant "FAQ", sent by the slime-mould at ParkingEye in response to a S.10 Data Subject Notice :-


page 1 of 2


page 2 of 2
---
What's next move? Report ParkingEye to the Information Commissioner? Using a "Section 42 Request for Assessment"?

[under Section 42 of the 1998 DPA] ...a data subject may request that the Commissioner performs an assessment as to whether it is likely or unlikely that a data controller has satisfied its obligations under s.10 (3)..
An individual may make a request for an assessment under s.42 of the DPA where:
* A data controller has not responded to a notice at all.
* A data controller has not responded within the 21 day time-frame.
* A data controller has not provided its reasons for refusing to comply with a notice.
* A data controller has failed to comply with the data subject's request to cease processing.

https://www.kingqueen.org.uk/data-controlle...ico-now-assess/
https://www.kingqueen.org.uk/wp-content/upl...1-July-2016.pdf
https://www.kingqueen.org.uk/wp-content/upl...8-July-2016.pdf

Crapita (t/a ParkingEye) is nothing if not consistently loathsome!
nosferatu1001
Yes, report to ico
Report to BPA
"Appeal" to popla if you want.
ballymunboy
To, complaints@popla.co.uk and info@bpa.co.uk


QUOTE
Today (Monday, 18th September) I received a POPLA verification code from ParkingEye Ltd in its Notice of Rejection of my appeal of a disputed parking charge.

That Notice of Rejection from ParkingEye is dated 1st September, seventeen days ago. Yet it arrived just this morning, with a POPLA Code expiring on 28 September. This leaves me just 11 days to file an Appeal with POPLA.

Either that Rejection Notice took 17 days to reach me by First Class Royal Mail, or ParkingEye did not enter the Notice into the postal system on the date stated (1 September)

Since this is not an isolated incident, but one among many reports online, the following contention is submitted for your urgent investigation :

ParkingEye is wilfully delaying the sending of POPLA verification codes. An underhand tactic effected by not posting out a Rejection Notice until many days after the time-expiring POPLA code was created.

This hugely handicaps the Appellant motorist. Dramatically reducing the time available to him for composing an appeal at POPLA, and ultimately sabotaging his chances of success.

This 'inequality of arms' created by that posting delay is, I suspect, a wilful tactic of ParkingEye Ltd. A cynical ploy worked deliberately into ParkingEye's postal processes, to disadvantage the Appellant.

A motorist appealing in haste is likely to overlook critical evidence and key arguments. Unable to re-visit relevant land; unable to inspect signage; and unable to seek expert legal opinion, his appeal is much more likely to fail. This is a postal delaying tactic that works to the obvious legal and commercial advantages of ParkingEye Ltd.

The POPLA Appeal process was established with the motorist granted a clear 28 day period for submitting a POPLA Appeal. Yet no safeguards appear to be in place to prevent this unethical behaviour by rogue operators like ParkingEye. Nothing to stop this underhand practice of intentionally delaying the posting of a time-expiring POPLA verification code in a Notice of Rejection.

Since this delaying tactic appears commonplace, the BPA and POPLA are requested to conduct a thorough and urgent investigation of the practice.

In the meantime, where the disadvantaged motorist warns POPLA that the operator has denied him that 28 days' notice prescribed in the POPLA process, it should be arguable that his Appeal should be allowed automatically.

Your response is awaited with some urgency. It will be posted online for the wider consideration of others.
hexaflexagon
Was there a postmark date on the envelope and if so have you retained it?
ballymunboy
Nope, no postmark date. At least not in human-readable form.

Ain't it noteworthy that ParkingEye will always get its skates on when it is critical for a letter to arrive promptly.
Yet when it is NOT in ParkingEye's interest to ensure prompt despatch and delivery, well, need we state the obvious?

What a nasty bunch of perverted legal low-lifes they are.
nosferatu1001
Easy to find out how to decipher the date on the envelope, I thought.

They used to use a remailer like UKMail, which bundled, so delays of over a week werent uncommon.
cabbyman
Is this anything to do with the following thread:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=115853&hl=

Are you intending to post various snippets all over the forum or give us details of the incident can that we can see the whole picture?

Hit ! REPORT and ask a mod to merge.
ballymunboy
Just had another letter from the pondlife at ParkingEye. Burgeoning file here! This time signed Most Sincerely by a Ms Rosanna Breaks. Who turns out to be in-house lawyer at ParkingEye Ltd. The Prankster has already fingered Ms Breaks several times over for filing dubious cost claims, &c. Here and here.

Briefly.. .Vehicle was driven straight through an ANPR'ed car-park, without even stopping for one second. Vehicle exited and later re-entered the car-park by a second unmonitored exit. A glaring flaw in the ANPR installation. Which likely means that thousands of other motorists have been charged unlawfully. ParkingEye must have noted that issue long ago :- during site surveying, when signage was erected, during meter installation, during road marking and site maintenance, &c. In other words this scam is 'knowingly and recklessly' executed by ParkingEye.

Legally: the vehicle was never parked on relevant land. There was no contract. DVLA keeper details were obtained without reasonable cause. Keeper data is being unlawfully processed by ParkingEye. With numerous threat-o-grams and demands for money sent to keeper. Each unwarranted demand for money causing substantial distress.

Back to Ms Breaks though...

In response to complaint to ParkingEye and after serving a S.10 'cease-and-desist' Notice on the ParkingEye Data Controller, the delightful Ms Breaks (b.1984 Bradford; mother: Scott) writes to Keeper...

QUOTE
"I have noted, however, that we do not hold a copy of your signed ID on file (driving licence, passport etc.) and I would be grateful if you could forward a copy at your earliest convenicence (sic).."


WTF?!

Like anyone would send sensitive personal ID to the Chorley mafia!
nosferatu1001
I would love to know why they need a copy of ID

Is this related to any other thread?
djdest
I would imagine it is just a sly way of trying to find out who the driver was
Jlc
QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 20 Sep 2017 - 07:53) *
I would love to know why they need a copy of ID

This can be quite reasonably requested where email is being used to validate identity. But we just get snippets and a bit of a rant.
cabbyman
QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 20 Sep 2017 - 07:53) *
Is this related to any other thread?


Numerous other threads but I just can't be bothered to go and find them anymore. If anyone reports this thread to a mod, could they ask the mod to have a word with the OP about multiple threads, please.
ballymunboy
QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Tue, 5 Sep 2017 - 01:27) *
Yes, report to ico
Report to BPA
"Appeal" to popla if you want.


Thanks for advice, nosferatu1001. Complaint filed with BPA, who immediately shared it with ParkingEye - what a symbiotic relationship these two bed-fellows have.

ICO were very helpful. Advised me to file a Request for Assessment under S.42 of 1998 Act. ICO will then open a case to determine extent to which ParkingEye has breached the DPA. Useful in lodging a compensation claim for distress against ParkingEye under S.13 of DPA.

From https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/section/42
QUOTE
42 Request for assessment.

(1)A request may be made to the Commissioner by or on behalf of any person who is, or believes himself to be, directly affected by any processing of personal data for an assessment as to whether it is likely or unlikely that the processing has been or is being carried out in compliance with the provisions of this Act.


ParkingEye has already admitted to, and apologised for, breaching S.10 of the 1998 Act - ignoring S.10 Data Subject Notice and failing to respond within 21 days (and, it continues to process keeper's personal data in breach of the 1998 Act).

ParkingEye disputes that its repeated and unwarranted demands for money are causing substantial distress to Keeper.

Quite untrue. Naturally, the Keeper is deeply distressed by ParkingEye. By its repeated and unwarranted demands for money. And by its written and steadfast refusal to leave the Keeper alone. What can the Keeper do to stop this ongoing harassment? Except lodge a compensation claim under S.13 1998 Act for damages and distress? With that enduring psychiatric injury confirmed by a general practitioner or, better, through a specialist referral?




------

EDIT: viz ParkingEye and its request for signed ID (driver licence or passport) from Keeper. This is in relation to a Subject Access Request. ICO advises that it is "not reasonable" behaviour by ParkingEye.

From the ICO's Subject Access Code of Practice (20170609 Version 1.2) -- https://ico.org.uk/media/for-organisations/...of-practice.pdf

QUOTE
"Confirming the requester’s identity

You can ask for enough information to judge whether the person making the request is the individual to whom the personal data relates (or a person authorised to make a SAR on their behalf).

The key point is that you must be reasonable about what you ask for. You should not request a lot more information if the identity of the person making the request is obvious to you. This is particularly the case when you have an ongoing relationship with the individual.
[..]
The level of checks you should make may depend on the possible harm and distress that inappropriate disclosure of the information could cause to the individual concerned
[..]
Before supplying any information in response to a SAR, you should also check that you have the requester’s correct postal or email address (or both).



* ParkingEye are not being reasonable in asking for signed passport and/or driving licence. Keeper's identity is obvious to them.
* ParkingEye have ongoing relationship with Keeper, evidenced by burgeoning correspondence, some personally signed at ParkingEye.
* ParkingEye have confirmation, from previous correspondence, of Keeper's correct postal address.
* ParkingEye holds low-value personal data. Possible harm/distress to Keeper from inappropriate disclosure is low. Therefore their demand for stringent ID checks is not reasonable.

ICO says it does not look favourable upon Data Controllers who demand stringent ID checks as means of stalling in their response to subject access requests.
zzzzps
You say it isn't reasonable, Ballymunboy, but I suspect you would be the first to shout and scream if they'd sent your personal data concerning (for example) where you were and where your vehicle was parked to your ex-wife who then used it against you in a divorce claim.

All they have is emails from somebody who SAYS they are Ballymunboy. When you threaten the Data Protection Act against them, it should not surprise you that they are going to be careful about what they do next. There are of course other ways to establish and prove your identity, so maybe try one of those?
zzzzps
Also, don't forget that the extent of the land identified on a Land Registry Title Plan is not definitive and is for the purposes of identification only. For a definitive definition, you have to look both at the lease itself, and also consider the extent to which (and whether) they have adversely possessed any land and / or it has accreted to their title and removed from the council's title by diluvion or otherwise. Certainly only the borough council (or possibly the crown) have a better title than the cafe, and if they accept the cafe's placing of boulders to demarcate their land, it seems to me it would be difficult for you to gainsay that.

SO for that reason, I'd concentrate on tried and tested defences concerning the signage and driver, etc.

But then again, I'm not a POPLA adjudicator, so who knows?
ballymunboy
QUOTE (zzzzps @ Thu, 21 Sep 2017 - 15:18) *
You say it isn't reasonable, Ballymunboy, but I suspect you would be the first to shout and scream if they'd sent your personal data concerning (for example) where you were and where your vehicle was parked to your ex-wife who then used it against you in a divorce claim.


Huh, Zzzzps? But that's exactly what ParkingEye does. It sends personal data - including geo-located and time-stamped photographs of a vehicle - to an address provided by DVLA for the registered keeper. And it does that without making any attempt beforehand to establish whether the driver was the keeper.

Your argument about "the ex-wife and the divorce claim" is a non sequitur. What it does prove is the exact opposite about ParkingEye. ParkingEye does not safeguard personal data; and does not verify the identity of the driver and keeper before sending unsolicited personal data through the mail.

QUOTE (zzzzps @ Thu, 21 Sep 2017 - 15:18) *
All they have is emails from somebody who SAYS they are Ballymunboy. When you threaten the Data Protection Act against them, it should not surprise you that they are going to be careful about what they do next.


Erm, nope, nope, and nope, not according to the ICO.

Correspondence to and from ParkingEye has always been by Royal Mail, not by email. Therefore ParkingEye has already confirmed the keeper's address through that correspondence. That's one of the recommendations in the ICO's Code of Practice for Subject Access Requests -- confirm the postal address of the SAR requester.

But why would ParkingEye need the keeper's photograph, his date and place of birth, his nationality gender, driver and passport numbers, and so on? How is that data relevant to ParkingEye?

So why is ParkingEye demanding copy of keeper's passport / driving licence? That's not reasonable. Not reasonable according to the ICO; the body tasked with performing the S.42 Assessment of ParkingEye; the body tasked with deciding how, why and where the rogue parking operator has breached the Data Protection Act.

QUOTE (zzzzps @ Thu, 21 Sep 2017 - 15:18) *
There are of course other ways to establish and prove your identity, so maybe try one of those?


Oh, pray do tell what other ways you have in mind? How does the keeper prove his identity to ParkingEye? And why does he need to? What about a DNA test, on the Jeremy Kyle Show?

P.S. Interesting that you home in on this single thread, Zzzzps. [Thread keywords: Cafe Oasis, Bowleaze Coveway, Weymouth, DT3 6PN, Paul Frederick Cocks, Benjamin Kieran Jaquemet-Cocks, Alison Karen Cocks, ParkingEye, Rosanna Breaks]. You joined pepipoo on 27 July 2017, Zzzzps, but offer no comments on anything else?? Limited interest contributor? Playing devil's advocate over a single parking charge? No problem with that; always useful to get a sense of what maybe in store for the courtroom :-)

ballymunboy
QUOTE (zzzzps @ Thu, 21 Sep 2017 - 15:30) *
Also, don't forget that the extent of the land identified on a Land Registry Title Plan is not definitive and is for the purposes of identification only.

Yes an Official Copy of the Title Plan is definitive. Read the caveat in red from Land Registry above....

QUOTE
"An official copy of the title plan is admissible in evidence in a court to the same extent as the original. A person is entitled to be indemnified by the registrar if he or she suffers loss by reason of a mistake in an official copy."


QUOTE (zzzzps @ Thu, 21 Sep 2017 - 15:30) *
For a definitive definition, you have to look both at the lease itself, and also consider the extent to which (and whether) they have adversely possessed any land and / or it has accreted to their title and removed from the council's title by diluvion or otherwise. Certainly only the borough council (or possibly the crown) have a better title than the cafe, and if they accept the cafe's placing of boulders to demarcate their land, it seems to me it would be difficult for you to gainsay that. SO for that reason, I'd concentrate on tried and tested defences concerning the signage and driver, etc.


Erm, thanks, but no thanks. I will keep 'no landowner authority' firmly in place, since it's probably the most compelling argument of all.

The vehicle was not parked in the car park of Cafe Oasis, Weymouth. The vehicle was driven straight through the cafe car-park, and was parked on the shingle foreshore of Weymouth Bay. Far beyond the area outlined in red on the Cafe title plan (no. DT315220, see above). And parked far beyond that ever-shifting row of boulders placed illicitly on the beach by the slippery cafe owner. And the insufferable scum of ParkingEye Ltd are put to strict proof to show anything otherwise.

What is especially relevant (with respect to the Data Protection Act) is the Site Survey that ParkingEye apparently carried out at Cafe Oasis, Weymouth. That survey must have recorded that the ANPR'ed site has a second, unmonitored, entrance and exit to it. Allowing cars to be driven straight through the cafe car-park and onto, and off, the beach at Weymouth Bay. Therefore the ANPR system in use at this car park is totally defective. But ParkingEye is knowingly and recklessly operating it regardless. Procuring keeper data en masse from DVLA without reasonable cause. Unlawfully processing that keeper data. Sending out unlawful parking charge demands for £100 and more. And causing substantial and unwarranted distress to hundreds, maybe thousands of motorists.

It's time to bring this nasty scam to a close, Zzzzps.
nosferatu1001
"Huh, Zzzzps? But that's exactly what ParkingEye does. It sends personal data - including geo-located and time-stamped photographs of a vehicle - to an address provided by DVLA for the registered keeper. And it does that without making any attempt beforehand to establish whether the driver was the keeper."

they do not need to establish the keeper was the driver, however. POFA does not require that (of course it doesnt) and neither do the DVLA (of course they dont)

You get nowhere at all ith that argument, but feel free to rant to the ICO, who will pay no attention as it is settled as far as they are concerned: The POFA perfectly entitles PE to send out a notice to the RK of a vehicle, caring not one jot about who the driver is.

You also misread the red text:

" to the same extent as the original. "

As pointed out, the title plan is not necessarily definiitve and accurate. So the copy is relied upon as far as the original can be, it does not state - and you have misrepresented otherwise - that it is infallible.
cabbyman
The whole point of the Land Registry is to have a central register that the state guarantees. The provision of a land certificate under The Land Registration Act 1925 guarantees absolute title on registered land. Unregistered land still requires proof from abstract of title going back at least 30 years, if my memory serves.
ballymunboy
Here's the Copy Lease and Plan for the two pieces of land. The first piece comprises the Café Oasis buildings and car park. Secondly, a separate piece of land on the seaward side of the seawall. The Lease Plan shows essentially the same extent as Land Registry Plan. However the Copy Lease indicates a boundary structure on the curtilage of the seaward side. That boundary is not there. It does not exist. There are no obstacles to prevent the motorist from driving across this private land to park on Local Authority and Crown Estate land.



EDIT: And here's the Written Authority of the Landowner. Dated 10 March, but the ink is still wet?



The Written Authority is defective anyway, since it is non-compliant with BPA Code of Practice which states :-

QUOTE
The written authorisation..must set out: the definition of the land on which you may operate, so that the boundaries of the land can be clearly defined.


This Written Authority of Landowner (Paul Frederick Cocks) does nothing of the sort. It does not even attempt to define the land nor the boundaries within which ParkingEye is contracted to operate. Contrary to Condition 7.3 of the BPA Code of Practice.

With ParkingEye refusing to cancel this bogus charge, it is now referred to POPLA. Will report back when outcome known.

A S.13 DPA claim for compensation against Parking Eye and Landowner is now being drawn up. Long overdue. There are many similar complaints online. See Tripadvisor and Google reviews for Café Oasis. Numerous motorists snared in the same nasty trap and parking scam. It's time to nail these rogues, once and for all.

Incidentally, we paid a visit to the site to survey the boundaries (or lack of), and to photograph signage (or lack of). The cafe staff realised our purpose and thundered outside to hurl abuse -- "you're a right ****, aren't you!" Accusing us of trespass (on public land?!), and of annoying their diners (couldn't see any). The cops were on their way, they warned. Ambassadors of the hospitality industry, to be sure! Mine's a latté. Two sugars. And don't spit it in. Thanks!
ballymunboy
Here's the POPLA appeal just submitted.

MikeekiM
I don't know if this is relevant, or too late, but Mr. Cocks has stated on Facebook (Dec 2016) ...............

" As our regular customers know, Cafe Oasis car park is pay and display but up to two hours parking is refunded depending on the amount spent. Non customers have to pay, although quite a few don't. This gives us quite a lot of problems. Our car park is managed by a National Company which issues and does enforce PENALTY (poster's emphasis) tickets.

Early in the new year management of the car park is being transferred to another company which monitors parking by camera. Things will not change for customers in that they will still receive refunds in the same way as now, but non customers will now find that if they don't pay, they will automatically receive PENALTIES (poster's emphasis) through the post. We regret having to do this but abusive parking has been an issue here for many years, because of our location, and our intention is simply to keep the car park flowing freely for our customers"

...............

If this is the person who has authorised ParkingEye to manage his operation, then could it not be regarded that he has authorised ParkingEye to issue PENALTIES regardless of how they word it ?

Just a thought
Jlc
I wouldn't get excited about that - those without legal knowledge will generally call them fines or penalties.
cabbyman
Before Parking Eye v Beavis is was a point worth pleading but the decision in that case put the kibosh on it.
MikeekiM
Point taken

I will, like everybody else, patiently wait for POPLA to find the time to study this 'war and peace' inspired appeal rolleyes.gif
ballymunboy
POPLA Appeal Upheld!

And the Adjudicator DID rule -- No Landowner Authority -- Which should assist similar appeals over parking on this beach. Trying to impose charges for parking on the public foreshore is nothing short of fraud.

Thank you for all the help received here. Another victory for the motorist, and a slap in the face for ParkingEye and Café Oasis Weymouth.

--
QUOTE
POPLA assessment and decision
30/10/2017

Decision: Successful
Assessor Name: Alexandra Roby

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator’s case is that the appellant did not make sufficient payment for the duration of his parking session.

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant’s case is that the vehicle was never parked at the site. He states that he entered the site to access the beach and left through an unmonitored exit. The appellant states that he did park on the beach and has disputed the operator’s authority to issue Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) there. He states that the letter of authorisation from the landowner is not compliant with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. The appellant has disputed the adequacy of the signage at the site. The appellant has disputed the accuracy of the Automatic Number Plate Recognition cameras. The appellant believes that the operator has not complied with the Data Protection Act 1998. The appellant believes that the operator has misrepresented its authority as it has referred to another motorists parking charge as a fine. The appellant states that the operator has not dealt fairly, efficiently and promptly with him. The appellant has provided evidence to support his appeal.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

While I acknowledge that the appellant has raised a number of grounds for appeal, my report will focus solely on landowner authority as this supersedes the other aspects of the appeal. Section 7.1 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice outlines to operators, “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 the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that 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”.

Within his grounds of appeal, the appellant has raised the issue of landowner authority. The appellant states that the motorist passed through the site to access the beach. Upon review of the evidence provided by both the appellant and the operator, I am satisfied that the appellant’s version of events is plausible. Furthermore, the operator has not provided any evidence to suggest otherwise. Ultimately, the burden of proof lies with the operator to show that the motorist has not complied with the terms and conditions of the car park.

While I acknowledge the operator has provided sufficient evidence of the terms and conditions of the car park, the operator has not provided any evidence to prove that it is authorised to issue PCNs on the beach.

Upon consideration of this evidence, I cannot confirm that the PCN has been issued correctly.

Accordingly I must allow this appeal.


---







Jlc
Good stuff. So what now? Unfortunately, they will probably get away with the 'reasonable cause' to request your details from the DVLA. (As it would be argued that the appeals process has 'worked' in your favour)

Frustrating indeed.
The Rookie
The parking company has reasonable cause if the person purporting to be the landowner or legitimate occupier says its their land to enforce on.

However once they have an indication it's not..........

There would also be a case against that 'false' landowner/occupier for engaging the parking company to do something he knew he couldn't (unless he also had a reasonably held belief).

Did Parking Lie contest the appeal on authority with any evidence at all Ballymunboy?
ballymunboy
QUOTE (Jlc @ Sat, 4 Nov 2017 - 09:24) *
Good stuff. So what now? Unfortunately, they will probably get away with the 'reasonable cause' to request your details from the DVLA. (As it would be argued that the appeals process has 'worked' in your favour) Frustrating indeed.

What now?

I will happily front the costs of filing a claim against ParkingEye AND the landholder - demanding compensation under S.13 of the 1998 Data Protection Act - (unlawfully processing the keeper's personal data causing substantial and unwarranted distress); for breaching S.10 of the 1998 Act - (failing to respond to a cease-and-desist Data Subject Notice); and for breaching S.7 of the 1998 Act (failing to respond to Subject Access Request).

Would anyone competent and familiar with the process like to help draw up the claim paperwork? With any winnings going to a worthy charity this Christmas? Does that appeal to someone's benevolent spirit?!

A couple of other avenues to pursue..

Neither the landholder nor ParkingEye has bothered with planning permission for the pole-mounted surveillance camera at this Café Oasis site. Nor have they bothered with advertisement consent for all the unsightly parking signage erected around this sensitive beach-side site, which is a criminal offence, apparently. Bit rich, innit? Glasshouses, stones?

Also, the Valuations Office lists this car-park as zero-rated (i.e free; not revenue-generating) for rating purposes. Clearly not correct. It is operated as a commercial car-park. And has been for years. With hefty penalty charges for overstays; these should be included in gross receipts when calculating rateable value. So the VOA rating needs correcting..

https://www.tax.service.gov.uk/business-rat...uarn=2763092000

http://manuals.voa.gov.uk/corporate/Public...-vol5-s200.html

The landholder, an ex-solicitor, is an arrogant schmuck. He should be named as co-defendant, under the law of agency, in a DPA compensation claim. He refused (twice) to cancel this parking charge when politely requested. Yet he was aware from the outset that it was an invalid charge. Since his car-park has a glaring, unmonitored second exit through which vehicles can be driven onto the public beach. Yet he and ParkingEye continue to sting many other hapless motorists for the same unlawful charges. Most of them just paying up to 'make it go away'.

The landholder also boasted that he'd done court hundreds of times before, and would happily go there again. In the event, POPLA told him and ParkingEye to 'Do One'. Now the boot is firmly on the other foot. And it's time to boot both ParkingEye and the landholder squarely up the jacksie. Since they both love court so much, creating misery for millions, they deserve a damn good dose of their own medicine, Maybe setting a precedent, and certainly through publicity, encouraging others to sue the bastards too.

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Sat, 4 Nov 2017 - 10:20) *
The parking company has reasonable cause if the person purporting to be the landowner or legitimate occupier says its their land to enforce on.

However once they have an indication it's not..........

There would also be a case against that 'false' landowner/occupier for engaging the parking company to do something he knew he couldn't (unless he also had a reasonably held belief).

Did Parking Lie contest the appeal on authority with any evidence at all Ballymunboy?


ParkingEye lied, and then some, in their evidence pack. Quite compellingly. [I can post it to this thread]

They added signs on the site map where in truth there were none.
They claimed we had admitted liability by part-paying their £100 charge, when we had not.
They carefully cropped their site map - to hide the cars parked freely on the adjacent beach.
They artfully hid the second unmonitored exit from their car-park; by strategically placing a label over the top of the exit!

And they baldly stated that we had parked IN their private car-park and NOT on the public beach. Without offering a shred of evidence. Lying bastards.

Thankfully the adjudicator was not fooled by that litany of dishonesty.

But look at the time, money and effort we had to expend in responding to all their lies.. I had to give up a Saturday to visit the Weymouth site. Just to gather photographic evidence for this POPLA appeal. A 350 mile round journey from our W.Mids home. It's a good job I did. Otherwise we would have no proof of that second exit,nor that ParkingEye had invented signs on their site map, where in truth there were none, and so on.

But why should we be out of pocket from all that? ParkingEye is totally out of control. It needs to be hacked down. Anyone here like to help with that please? Through a claim for compensation against this rogue operator and the contracting landholder? I'll cover all costs, with compensation donated to a good cause...
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.