Have we been missing something obvious?

Guys_Dad

It has just struck me on reading a thread on here that we may have missed something on our appeal point on the validity of the contract. The thread in question was to do with the latest Fistral Beach charge and a letter from the council said that a lease had been granted giving the leaseholder full delegated authority.

We know that there has to be a lawful contract in force granting the right for the PPC to levy charges on motorists between the PPC and their client. However in many cases their client is not the landowner but an intermediary such as in the case of supermarkets and management companies of blocks of flats.

I believe that we should advise as a first step that OPs should establish who the landowner actually is from council planning dept. Then in the appeal, demand that the PPC show a contract or a trail of contracts that shows that the PPC has authority traced back to the land owner that grants them the authority to pursue charges. If PPC already object to producing their contracts they are not going to like also having to get a copy of the client's authority from the landowner.

The point being that there may well be a valid contact between the PPC and their client but not between the client and the landowner.

Iceweasel

This is a good idea - but it may not be as easy as it sounds.

My local authority only have the last 10 years of planning applications available to search on-line.

There is a whole web of distractions and 'red herrings' involved.

Many supermarkets have changed hands more that once in that time and I see no fresh applications - just a straight take-over.

Many Safeways were taken over by Morrisons and then had to be sold on to Tesco for example as a result of Monopolies Commission intervention, if I remember correctly.

Tesco put up restriction signs where there were none before. I am currently asking for sight of the original planning application - but I'm told it's 'lost in the archives' due to a change of regional boundaries, and will need a comprehensive search at several locations.

I'm sure some of this is a deliberate ploy, to put off people like myself who question the legality of the current owners of car parks to do as they please

Custard_Pie

Surely it's as easy as requiring the PPC to produce a copy of the original contract that demonstrates that they have the right to charge alleged offences £xxx per event and to pursue through to Court, etc.

If they don't have it then its unenforceable, end of.

They either own the land or they don't. If they do and keep the cash themselves then it's a penalty and the associated invoice rules and VAT charges apply, which the PPCs have always denied.

If it's not, then all monies should go to the landowner/landlord, unless they have a contract specifically in place that states they can keep it.

I'd also say that I doubt that there is any contract in place (e.g. with the Supermarket) who claim to be the Landlord. If we specifically word appeals to say Landowner/Landlord, we instantly negate any PPC defense where they prove that they have a contract with their client who is not the Landlord/Landowner. In most cases I doubt that the Landowner will even know what's going on. In theory, it could even be breach of contract lease as they are in theory sub-letting the car park to a third-party. If you have a mortgage on your house, you can't legally let a room out and charge rent. If the house was reposessed, then the mortgage company would have to get a court order to remove the tenant. I suspect that it would be the same for the PPC and the sitting tenant (supermarket).

Thoughts?

Buzby

The Planning Department is a red herring. It is the Valuation Roll you need to check, and is kept with the Electoral Rolls in libraries.

This will provide the identity of the landowner and tenant (if appropriate). I use this all the time to discover the owner - not many supermarkets have owners rights.

Custard_Pie

Buzby wrote: »

The Planning Department is a red herring. It is the Valuation Roll you need to check, and is kept with the Electoral Rolls in libraries.

This will provide the identity of the landowner and tenant (if appropriate). I use this all the time to discover the owner - not many supermarkets have owners rights.

Maybe a worthwhile thing to do if facing a LBA, but for PoPLA, I'd say a statement requiring the PPC to provide the original contract with the Landowner/Landlord giving them permission would suffice. We all know in most cases that they don't have it. Even if they do, they have to pass the monies on as a remedy, or it's considered legally a penalty.

Guys_Dad

Custard_Pie wrote: »

Maybe a worthwhile thing to do if facing a LBA, but for PoPLA, I'd say a statement requiring the PPC to provide the original contract with the Landowner/Landlord giving them permission would suffice. We all know in most cases that they don't have it. Even if they do, they have to pass the monies on as a remedy, or it's considered legally a penalty.

But if they produce a contract, ostensibly with the landowner, how can you disprove that the other party is not the landowner other than by having proof of who the landowner is? Buzby is right, I got it wrong saying planning department. They may be of some help, but it may be the valuation department, but a quick at the Land Registry's on line system may be helpful as a first step.

Edit:- Actually, the planning department may still be a good source as well. As you know, from 2009 all their applications are on line, so this could be an armchair exercise in some cases.

At the end of a planning application, the applicant has to sign certificates A, B, C or D depending on if they are the landowner or not. The certificate they signed will determine if they are the landowner or not.

Pre 2009, it's a visit to the Planning department with the problem highlighted that the current business may not have been the one that applied for the signage and use. However, it is probable that if the planning applications were submitted by a freeholder or tenant, the land will either still be freehold or leased.

Iceweasel

Buzby wrote: »

The Planning Department is a red herring. It is the Valuation Roll you need to check, and is kept with the Electoral Rolls in libraries.

This will provide the identity of the landowner and tenant (if appropriate). I use this all the time to discover the owner - not many supermarkets have owners rights.

Brilliant - a whole new approach to be used at the same time as the Planning Dept Application request.

Why didn't I think of that!

Thanks Buzby.

betteroff

I'm just about to update my own thread about the issue of landowner/holder, intermediary, supermarket, PE and contracts as there's an interesting twist come up in my case

hoohoo

ParkingEye say the landowner of Fistral Beach car park is Fistral Beach Ltd, and produce a witness statement signed by Jon Briant, manager (he also seems to be a director of Fistral Beach Ltd)

FISTRAL BEACH LTD
TOLCARNE BEACH VILLAGE
NARROWCLIFF
NEWQUAY
CORNWALL
ENGLAND
TR7 2QN

Guys_Dad

hoohoo wrote: »

ParkingEye say the landowner of Fistral Beach car park is Fistral Beach Ltd, and produce a witness statement signed by Jon Briant, manager (he also seems to be a director of Fistral Beach Ltd)

FISTRAL BEACH LTD
TOLCARNE BEACH VILLAGE
NARROWCLIFF
NEWQUAY
CORNWALL
ENGLAND
TR7 2QN

Not according to the council who say they own the land an have it on a 125 year lease to someone else. However, the letter from them, on another thread, says that the lessee has full designated rights.

nigelbb

Fistral Beach car park (& all the other land) is owned by the local council & leased to a company called Britannic Industries which despite it's grand sounding name is actually a property development company run by a local couple called Nicholas & Linda Briant
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1505951.stm
http://www.newquayvoice.co.uk/news/5/article/3428/