PE Penrith Morrison's Unlawful Signage

g0wfv

The_Deep wrote: »

Ex turpi causa?

Short for ex turpi causa non oritur actio - from a dishonorable cause an action does not arise.

See

http://www.drukker.co.uk/publications/reference/ex-turpi-causa-non-oritur-actio/#.VfVMnlQrJrk

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_turpi_causa_non_oritur_actio

Basically another way of stating ex dolo malo non oritur actio.

g0wfv

Some more interesting links here ...

http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Ex-turpi-causa.php

bazster

Once upon a time this would've been a problem, but PE has shot themselves in the foot over that by admitting before the Supreme Court that their charges do not represent a loss:

The public policy factor often cited for ex turpi causa non oritur actio, is that it is wrong to allow a criminal to profit from his crime. However, such reasoning is difficult to reconcile in tort law where the Claimant is seeking compensation for a loss rather than seeking to make a gain.

polyplastic

g0wfv = I would have a look at my post 10 above for the legal arguments. Cumbria Trading Standards has confirmed the argument at paras 7-10

ParkingEye has said in the Beavis case that their actual costs for chasing a motorist are around the £20 mark and that the rest is profit. The Beavis case of ParkingEye is that the sum they are claiming is not damage but a commercial sum. Thus it is seeking to make a gain by its crime. The argument there is that ParkingEye has to commit a crime to create the alleged contract set out in the signage


Polyplastic

Northlakes

G0wfd # That looks very good as part of your POPLA/OS appeal.

In a similar appeal at Milton Keynes (on Pepipoo) PE provided a contract to POPLA which was unusual and I read this as PE moving ground as they don't normally do this, outside court proceedings. This is probably in response to the current winning appeal point 'no standing'. In the MK case the contract was unsigned and undated so the assessor rather than using this new point of unlawful signage invalidated the contract evidence. I'm not sure that at this point at POPLA wanted to go into 'new territory'

In the light of this, the unlawful signage arguments, are another future appeal point at OS where your appeal is heading.

In the arguments with PPC's we are on shifting sands, 18 months ago it was GPEOL now 'no standing' but if PE start disclosing unredacted contracts there needs to be another good point for appeal. PE know this and that's why the signage size has been reduced on new contracts. A new argument then starts can you actually read this smaller signs? Judging by the new signs at Aldi a driver will need 'telescopic' vision to notice them.

polyplastic

They may be using smaller signs but the BPA COP indicates thus
18.2 Entrance signs play an important part in establishing a
parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore,
as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about
the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have
a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the
parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car
park is managed and that there are terms and conditions
they must be aware of. Entrance signs must follow some
minimum general principles and be in a standard format.
The size of the sign must take into account the expected
speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and it is
recommended that you follow Department for Transport
guidance on this. See Appendix B for an example of an
entrance sign and more information about their use.

So DfT guidance on signage bearing in mind the speed of approach and the need to read the entrance sign as you go past - although the COP does not make following that guidance mandatory.

Then check Appendix B and see if the signs actually comply with those requirements. Remember that now there is legislation that makes it obligatory to comply with the COP and that may assist.

Polyplastic

bazster

Northlakes wrote: »

PE know this and that's why the signage size has been reduced on new contracts. A new argument then starts can you actually read this smaller signs? Judging by the new signs at Aldi a driver will need 'telescopic' vision to notice them.

Why on earth don't they just apply for advertisement consent? I imagine it would be granted.

Northlakes

bazster wrote: »

Why on earth don't they just apply for advertisement consent? I imagine it would be granted.

Yes it would be granted if the wording and terms agreed with the parking management plan which was supposed to be submitted to the Council before the store was enlarged. This was in 2010 and the Council have done nothing about it this outstanding planning condition.

The answer to your question in general terms may be found in this,

Billing authorities have a statutory duty to notify valuation
officers and listing officers where they believe changes may be required to a rating or valuation list. In the case of Business Rates the Valuation Office Rating
Manual Volume 5 suggests thus

"In some cases whilst there is no provision for parking charges,
the
operator rigidly applies a policy of penalty charges to anyone who
overstays their free parking period. Where a significant income is
generated from this source, there is a presumption of value; how
much will depend on the facts.

Penalty charges may be levied by car park operators. In most cases, penalty charges should be considered to be part of the Gross
Receipts."


Looks like what the Valuation Office is stating is that incidental ticketing may be insufficient income to alter the value for business rating purposes but where significant income is derived from penalty or contractual charges could have an effect on the rating valuation of a car park. So retailers beware! We manage your car park for free may not be strictly true.

polyplastic

The Following message has been posted on the Whatdotheyknow web site https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/morrisons_car_park_penrith_light#outgoing-480086


As a matter ofPublic Interest I have pasted below part of a
complaint to the Eden District Council relating to its handling of
a number of Information requests. In addition to the request in
this thread now suffering a contravention of the relevant law there are other similar difficulties

"Requests for Informationimproperly dealt with

I will now move to the issues involved in this complaint and that
is that the Council has failed to comply with its statutory
obligations and its own policies. The complaint concerns two facets
1. Statutory compliance, and
2. Breach of Policy

Each of which can amount to maladministration as well as,
potentially, a crime.

Requests for information under the EnvironmentalInformation
Regulations 2004

The first obligation on the Council is to respond promptly to
requests. The second obligation is to reply by the specified long
stop date and which is 20 working days after the request has been
made. Guidance issued by the ICO indicates that the requirement to respond 'promptly' and the requirement to respond no later than 20 working days are to be considered as separate obligations.

I have set out below requests that have been submitted under the
statutory regime. They concern breaches of planning control and a
parking enforcement regime that is operating in breach of a
planning condition and as such are matters of public interest.
Hence the request was posted on a public forum so that others can benefit from the disclosure of the requested information. Public bodies need to be held to account and if a failure in their conduct is detrimental to the public then that information, in my view, should be in the public domain

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/m...
submitted on the 21st August 2015, and for which there should have a reply by the 21st September 2015 – No reply provided – Breach of the Regulations

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/s...
Submitted on the 3rd September 2015, and to which the long stop
date for a reply is the 1st October. The Council’s FOI Officer had
the relevant information on the 8th September 2015. A failure to
send it then (promptly) is a breach of the Regulations. Further
there is an appearance that the Council is seeking to provide far
greater information than has been requested in a file format that
cannot be delivered to the email address provided for a response
due to its size. Alternative arrangements have been suggested by
the complainant but which have been rejected by the Council.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/m...
This was submitted on the 4th August 2015, and should have been
responded to by the 3rd September 2015. The request concerned
breaches of Planning Control by Morrisons/ParkingEye at the car
park at Morrisons Supermarket in Penrith. A partial response was
provided within the statutory timeframe that included confirmation that the first that the Council knew of the breach of planning control was on the 30th June 2014. However press reports indicate that the Council was aware of issues at this car park back in 2011. Further my request was for "copies of any letters to ParkingEye/Morrisons over this breach of planning". A breach of planning relating to the parking regime at Morrisons not only concerns the unlawful erection of signage and ANPR cameras, but also a breach of Condition 5 on planning consent 10/178 and also the s52 agreement of the 30th July 1986. I received correspondence from 2015 only. I enquired as to any earlier correspondence as this breach had been ongoing since 2010. This suggests that the response to my information request may not have been accurate. I still await a response to these aspects of my request. Breach of the Regulations

Requests for information under theFreedom of Information Act 2000
[This is the request in this thread]

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/b...
This involves a request for information as to whether the Council
complied with its duty to notify the valuation office of any
changes that may be required to a rating or valuation list in
connection with the car park at Morrisons Supermarket as a result
of its development (erection of ANPR Cameras and signage). This
request was submitted on the 2nd September and a response is
required by the 1st October 2015. A partial reply has been received but this part of the request was not included in the Council’s response. It appears to have been overlooked. Thus the request has not been dealt with promptly. Breach of the Act

Offence

Section 77 of the Freedom of Information Act indicates that it is a
criminal offence to alter, block, destroy or conceal information.
Regulation 19 of the Environmental Information Regulations mirrors section 77 of the Freedom of Information Act.

Obligation
No exclusions have been cited in connection with the above requestssuch that the information should now be provided without delay.

Complaint/Representation
In relation to the infringements of the Freedom of Information Act
these matters should be dealt with as a complaint and, under the
Environmental Information Regulations this should be regarded as
representations under s11 of the Environmental Information
Regulations.



On another development the Leader of Eden Coucnil has stated in a recent Committee meeting that nothing unlawful is going on at this car park. Funny then that the Council has written to Morrisons stating that it has committed a crime and may be prosecuted. Right and left hand????

Polyplastic

g0wfv

Also on WhatDoTheyKnow (related to my own appeal) ...

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/planning_consent_for_anpr_camera

In this instance the council involved have written to PE to remove the signs or apply for consent.