Barrow Council Tax Payers Subsidise Parking Eye

Northlakes

Ivor_Pecheque wrote: »

I raised an enquiry about the Parking Eye signs at Fistral, but it seemed to get lost in the bureaucracy.

Are planning consents for signeage contained in statutes, or is it down to the opinion of local planning departments ?

Town and Country Planning Act 1992 is the core statute with advertisement amendments in the 2007 Act.

The_Deep

This need a Council Tax Payer to raise as a formal complaint.

Ivor_Pecheque

Oh well, worth a go....

Dear Sir or Madam,

could you please answer the following, under the provision of the Freedom of Information Act.

In a recent "blog" by The Parking Prankster (http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/barrow-council-compensate-motorist-for.html) , it was revealed that Barrow Council has refunded a motorist the sum of a hundred pounds, due to maladministration of the planning department with regards to "Parking Eye" signeage at The Range, Barrow in Furness.

Could you please let me know what services of the council have been deprived as a result of this refund ?

Many thanks,

Ivor_Pecheque

their reply so far

Thank you for your email. I have forwarded this onto our Freedom of Information Officer who will be in touch in due course.



Kind regards,



Leanne Parr

Planning Officer

Planning Policy Section

Development Services

Barrow Borough Council

T: 01229 876388

bod1467

Another FOI might be to request how many refunds (quantity and/or amount in £) have been made to motorists in respect of this incident.

polyplastic

The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations apply to car parking signs in certain circumstances. Broadly if the land is not enclosed and can be seen from the highway but check the regs. Two Saints shopping centre in Ormskirt is another place where the signs are illegal.,Check out https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/two_saints_retail_park_ormskirk?nocache=incoming-669528#incoming-669528

Under Reg 30 the use of signs without advertisement consent is a criminal offence.

The normal arrangement is for the Council to invite an application for consent. Many a Planning Authority calls this a retrospective consent however it is not legall possible to have any such consent. Consent only applies from the date it is granted rather than retrospectively.

If the car parking company does not apply for consent then the Council can prosecute. Having done so it can then apply for a proceeds of Crime Order from the Magistrates Court to take from the parking company all of the profit it has accrued from the parking arrangements.

So its well worth keeping on top of the Planning Authority over these issues to make sure that they do their job.

If they can't be bothered to make sure that such criminal conduct is remedied then they deserve to pay the price for their incompetence.

The BPA COP indicates that every parking company has to comply with the law. When the DVLA/BPA has it drawn to their attention that these parking companies are breaking the law both the BPA and DVLA say that they are not doing. The DVLA is clearly more important that the letter of the law.

Polyplastic

Northlakes

Very interesting that you are pursuing this as many PPC's just ignore these regulations for obvious reasons.

I wonder if unlawful signage has ever been used in a defence in a small claims court?
It would seem obvious to me that a contract 'established' by means of unlawful signage is void.

Some opinions please?

Umkomaas

Even with being able to apply for retrospective approval, there surely must be consideration given to those who have coughed up at a time when the PPC was acting 'illegally'.

Why should the motorist have to pay for a minor indiscretion when a much greater legal indiscretion is blatantly obvious! Absolutely perverse!

Go get em polyplastic!

polyplastic

Well its funny you should all be commenting on the efficacy of using criminal conduct to try and enforce parking charges.

There is a tenet of english law that no one should profit from their crimes. This should lead a County Court to conclude that if the signage was erected in criminal circumstances, and the PPC wishes to rely on that signage, the case should be thrown out.

Then there is the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regs and especially regulation 5(3)(b) which indicates that if any organisation claims to be abiding by a Code of Practice but is in breach of that code then they are prohibited from making a claim in damages where they rely on something that is a breach of that code. This was something brought in by the Consumer Protection (Amendment) regs 2014, which amended the CPFUTR, with effect from the 1st October 2014.

So, for example, if the COP says that you can only claim a genuine pre-estimate of loss and you claim, say, a commercial loss instead, the law prohibits that.

A Trading Standards authority supports this argument. It has recently said

"Further to your email of 8 June I am happy to clarify point 3 of my email which was

“ As I explained previously a breach of Regulation 5 (3) (b) of the CPRs relating to a traders compliance with information contained in a code of practice does not give rise to a criminal offence but is an issue which can be part of any civil litigation between the trader and a customer”

When the EU directive was transposed into UK law failure to comply with the requirements of a Code of Practice was not made a criminal offence but a civil matter.

In this instance if Parking Eye were to sue you in respect of an alleged parking overstay the question of what was in the relevant paragraph of the BPA Code of Practice in operation at the time of the alleged contravention of the parking requirements would be an issue you could raise in the court using Regulation 5 (3) (b)."

Somewhat interestingly the BPA amended its COP on the 1st October 2014 to say that PPCs could claim a commercial loss. Methinks that the BPA lawyers were just getting the BPA members acts together to sue for other than a genuine pre-estimate of loss for parking post 1st October 2014 becasue of this change in the law. However, if you parked before the 1st October then the earlier COP would seem to apply and which limited the PPCs claims to a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

If the PPC claims a commercial loss complain to the BPA and the DVLA about a breach of the COP. They won't give a whatsit of course.

Anyroadup.....with the suppoprt of the Trading Standards authority this argument is to be run. Don't wish to give the game away to the PPC so I will hold fire on which Trading Standards authority for the moment.

We shall see what the Court says

Polyplastic

Umkomaas

The BPA, in connivance with their (diminishing) AOS membership, will twist and turn their CoP to the advantage of their paymasters - and to the disadvantage of the individual motorists they hound and pursue. A bankruptcy of conscience.

PE were (continue to be) a major influencer of BPA policy. After all, they are one of the largest contributors, and, as the adage goes, 'He who pays the piper ............'