We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
We're aware that some users are currently experiencing errors on the Forum. Our tech team is working to resolve the issue. Thanks for your patience.

Planning Permission for PPC Signs/Cameras

1234568»

Comments

  • peter_the_piper
    peter_the_piper Posts: 30,269 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    They may/may not owe a refund but getting it is another problem altogether. These people collect ccj's like we do xmas cards.
    I'd rather be an Optimist and be proved wrong than a Pessimist and be proved right.
  • hoohoo wrote: »
    I dont think parking terms and conditions count as advertisements (but I'm not a planner so who knows)
    EDIT: Actually I withdraw that after re-reading the note from the planner. It seems like 'advertisements' can cover a multitude of different content.
    Just to clarify - yes, in planning terms, any sign is classed as an advertisement. For example, a sign displaying a house number is an advert for the purposes of the Advertisement Regulations - however most small signs like that either don't need Advertisement Consent or benefit from a deemed consent under the Regulations, which means they don't require consent from the Council.
    Paperbird wrote: »
    I got the same link to regulations from our local planning and I took it to mean as long as the signs came under the permitted development regs planning consent would be given but it would still be needed for them.
    No - just to clarify, if a sign benefits from a deemed consent under the Advertisement Regulations, it means consent is automatically granted under that legislation (like a 'blanket' grant of Advertisement Consent for certain types of sign). It's only if a sign does not comply with the Advert Regs that it requires separate consent from the Council.
  • taffy056
    taffy056 Posts: 4,895 Forumite
    Parc Tawe is private land and as such the company can impose conditions regarding the parking of vehicles on their land. They are within their rights to apply penalties as do the majority of supermarkets retail outlets and land owners. The signage they use would be held as best practice due to its clarity. Penalties can be charged and collected via the County Court.

    I cannot advise you regarding the matters relating to planning and have therefore forwarded you e-mail to my colleagues in the planning department with a request they respond to your queries.

    Anyone got anything that states who can issue penalty charge notices, because obviously they are getting things slightly wrong in my local council. The complain by the way is about signs in Parc Tawe in Swansea that state that they will issue penalties
    Excel Parking, MET Parking, Combined Parking Solutions, VP Parking Solutions, ANPR PC Ltd, & Roxburghe Debt Collectors. What do they all have in common?
    They are all or have been suspended from accessing the DVLA database for gross misconduct!
    Do you really need to ask what kind of people run parking companies?
  • ManxRed
    ManxRed Posts: 3,530 Forumite
    That's one for Trading Standards.

    Send them something that contains a pic of the signs and something like:

    "...
    the signs erected on site in relation to private parking terms appear to be in direct contravention of the British Parking Council’s code of practice, specifically section 15.4 which prohibits a private parking company from engaging in ‘Misrepresentation of Authority’, specifically:

    “15.4 You must not use terms which imply that you are acting under statutory authority; this will include terms such as ‘fine’, ‘penalty’ or ‘penalty charge notice’.”

    As can be seen from the enclosed photograph, the signs at XXXXXXXXX claim that the charges sought in relation to breach of the parking terms are ‘insert the term on the signs'

    This is also therefore an offence under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations, specifically Schedule 1 para 4 – a matter ‘actionable’ by Trading Standards.
    Je Suis Cecil.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 354.5K Banking & Borrowing
  • 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 455.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 247.4K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 604.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 178.5K Life & Family
  • 261.6K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.7K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.