Parking Eye - Two Saints Retail Park Ormskirk

jemgee

Thanks to the advice on your forum! Pleased to report that PE have cancelled my Parking Charge after I appealed on basis of no GPEOL also that time of entry and time of exit did not prove that I was parked longer than free time as I was waiting for space and also held up getting out of the car park
I also pointed out that their charge for 1 hour parking in excess of the free time is £2 therefore prima facie case that any amount significantly above that was an unenforceable penalty

Google search for Capita aquire Parking Eye press release
Quote

ParkingEye's automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) based management system is used by clients to provide remote enforcement, management information and alerting systems. The technology, which is adaptable across market sectors, is designed to ensure that car parks are used by individuals with a legitimate right to use them and allows clients to retain a fair approach to parking charges and cancellations. The business currently provides services to clients such as Aldi, Morrisons and British Land.

ha ha ha

Cygnus_Alpha

jemgee wrote: »

Thanks to the advice on your forum! Pleased to report that PE have cancelled my Parking Charge after I appealed on basis of no GPEOL also that time of entry and time of exit did not prove that I was parked longer than free time as I was waiting for space and also held up getting out of the car park
I also pointed out that their charge for 1 hour parking in excess of the free time is £2 therefore prima facie case that any amount significantly above that was an unenforceable penalty

Google search for Capita aquire Parking Eye press release
Quote

ParkingEye's automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) based management system is used by clients to provide remote enforcement, management information and alerting systems. The technology, which is adaptable across market sectors, is designed to ensure that car parks are used by individuals with a legitimate right to use them and allows clients to retain a fair approach to parking charges and cancellations. The business currently provides services to clients such as Aldi, Morrisons and British Land.

ha ha ha

I didn't know PE were owned by Capita. Disgraceful behaviour for a ftse100 company.

jemgee

Could it be something to do with the fact that Parking Eye had a turnover of £25.8 million and made a profit of £8 million last year

So crime does pay after all

jemgee

Oh I also sent copies of the test case judgement shown on BPA website where PE were told that the £100 was not a GPEOL

jemgee

I thought I would try to find out who owns or owned the Two Saints retail park so I googled it. If I understand correctly it appears that the previous owner defaulted on loans and a company called Hatfield Phillips auctioned it off to the highest bidder late last year. Again if I understand it correctly it is now owned by a company called Deco 12 - UK4 Plc who are based in Dublin

jemgee

Interesting - thought I would check West Lancs Borough Council website for planning applications. I have highlighted in red a few queries in my mind

Application made 30 April 2014 for RETENTION of ANPR cameras
Email 28 May 2014 from PE .... difficulties contacting the land owners due to receivership
29 May Certificate notice served on land owners Kathleen McAndrew and Robert Andrew Baldwin of Borehamwood Investments 43/45 La Motte Street, St Helier, Jersey
WLBC Case officers report dated 22 Jul 2014 refers to retention of ANPRC cameras but in clause 5.2 .. the applications states 1 x camera
Full permission granted 24 July 2014

From my previous post I found that the land was sold in November to a new company based in Dublin

QUESTIONS

1) until 24 July 2014 PE did not have planning permission - query any PCN issued before this date?
2) There are 2 cameras mounted on 1 pole - I guess 1 for entry and 1 for exit. Query breach of planning consent?
3) Do PE have to get new permission for cameras from the new land owners ?
4) Do I fire off a FOI or query to West Lancs Borough Council stating the above and asking for their response

Ralph-y

For me ..... Yes ..... why not

Ralph:cool:

jemgee

I have obtained further details from West Lancs on line record of the planning application

PE applied on 20 Jan 2014 for Retention of ANPR cameras and signage
The application states that PE installed these between 1 August 2013 and 31 August 2013 and that they were not the landowners

Pre advice from WLBC Enforcement officer states:
West Lancashire Borough Council has received an allegation of a breach of planning control and a breach of advertisement consent at Two Saints Retail Park, Park Road,
Ormskirk, Lancashire. L39.
It is alleged that two ANPR cameras have been erected overlooking the access / egress of the car park (i.e. the car park for the Two Saints Retail Park) without the benefit of planning permission. In addition, it is alleged that signage advertising car parking tariffs have been erected within the car park, without the benefit of advertisement consent.
I understand that this particular car park was formerly managed by West Lancashire Borough Council on behalf of the land owners and this arrangement changed with effect from 13th August 2013.
I have visited the Two Saints Retail Park and established that two ANPR cameras have been installed onto an existing lamp post within the car park. The installation of the two ANPR cameras at this location does require planning permission, primarily as they have been erected within ten metres of each other. Therefore, there is a breach of planning control in relation to this issue.
I have also established that two signs advertising current car parking tariffs have been erected within the car park, replacing the previous signage. These two signs are attached to metal supports affixed to the ground (see photograph 1 which shows one of these two signs).
In addition, nine further signs (advertising current parking tariffs) have also been erected within the car park attached to existing lamp posts (see photograph 2 which shows one of these nine signs).
The erection of the 11 signs advertising current car parking tariffs do require advertisement consent and therefore there is a breach of advertisement consent in relation to the erection of this signage.
In such circumstances, Council policy allows land owners to submit a retrospective planning/advertisement consent application in order to regularise any breach of planning control/advertisement consent.
I would therefore ask that a valid retrospective planning application be submitted for the retention of the ANPR cameras at the Two Saints Retail Park and a valid
retrospective application for advertisement consent be submitted for the retention of the signage (as outlined above), by Tuesday 24th December 2013.

So PE did not actually apply until 20 January 2014 and WLBC finally granted planning permission on 24 July 2014

Thus from 31 August 2013 until 24 July 2014 PE were in breach of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and control of Advert regs 2007.

So as these were being used illegally
1) I assume that any PCN issued between those dates is void and victims could request refund and damages from PE ?
2) I assume the BPA could be advised and request appropriate disciplinary action is taken against PE ?

Ralph-y

Quote:"So as these were being used illegally
1) I assume that any PCN issued between those dates is void and victims could request refund and damages from PE ?
2) I assume the BPA could be advised and request appropriate disciplinary action is taken against PE ?"

well ...
point 1 is probably correct if you fell foul during this time .....

Point 2 is back the the make believe world of private car parking......; the BPA will not be interested in the least

Ralph:cool:

jemgee

I have just provided this to the BPA on their feedback page!
I wish to know what sanction the BPA will apply in relation to the use of ANPR to generate parking charges notice to registered keepers obtained from the DVLA, when the operator has installed ANPR cameras and signage without planning permission and thus illegally used them for a period of 11 months. Your AOS code of practice clauses 5.9 and 5.16 appear to be relevant. I will happily provide full details of the operator and relevant documentation when I receive your response. I will also be drawing this matter to the attention of the DVLA and the ICO

jemgee

Reply from BPA. Does this sound familiar?

[FONT=&quot]Good morning Mr Grimes[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Please provide copies of any documents, letters, photos etc you may have, in order for us to look into this matter.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Approved Operator Scheme (AOS) and its Code of Practice was developed by the BPA to bring a degree of regulation to an industry without primary legislation. Regrettably as we are not a regulatory authority, we are not empowered to become involved in individual disputes between the motorist and the car park operator and have no authority to overturn an operator’s decision. Therefore, any action regarding your individual circumstances are out of our control and should be directed to the operator. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]As a membership association and not a regulatory body we cannot recall charges progressed to a debt collection and have no power to intervene in the appeals procedure with either the operator or POPLA and cannot request an operator to cancel, refund or recall any parking charge notices referred to a debt collection agency.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]We can however investigate evidence of a possible breach of any of the points raised in the Code of Practice.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The private parking landscape significantly improved for motorists who had received a PCN and felt that it had been issued inappropriately issued on 1st October 2012 when the BPA launched POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals) in England and Wales – a service that gave the motorist the chance to have their case independently heard by suitably qualified assessors after having their initial representations to the parking operator rejected. POPLA is free to the motorist, fully funded by the private parking sector and its decisions are binding on the operator but not on the motorist. Since the arrival of POPLA over 35,000 motorists have had their appeal independently assessed and at no cost to them.[/FONT]