Yet Another Parking Eye Planning Breach

trisontana

Thanks to the OP on PPP for flagging this up. This time it's at the Beehive Centre Cambridge:-

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/planning-consent-cameras-enforcing-parking/story-27507841-detail/story.html

I like the way that PE say it's nothing to do with them, but blame it on the landowner. Surely when they approach the landowner about infesting the site they should inform them that the cameras may need planning permission? Or are PE's sales team not bothered as long as the contract is signed?

Northlakes

The comment following the article is knowledgeable.

You also need to check to see if the advertisement consent for their signage. They didn't have at Burton Hospital, staffordshire and in Stoke and Barrow in Furness. Its looking pretty common with ParkingEye. If they do not have advertisement consent then by virtue of reg 30 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements)(England) Regs that is a criminal offence. It is an established principle of English Law that the courts will not support anyone seeking to profit from criminal conduct. If they take you to court remind the judge of the words of Lord Mansfield CJ in Holman v. Johnson (1775) 1 Cowp. 341, 343:- "The objection, that a contract is immoral or illegal as between the plaintiff and defendant, sounds at all times very ill in the mouth of the defendant. It is not for his sake, however, that the objection is ever allowed; but it is founded in general principles of policy, which the defendant has the advantage of, contrary to the real justice, as between him and the plaintiff, by accident, if I may so say. The principle of public policy is this; ex dolo malo non oritur actio. No Court will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or an illegal act. If, from the plaintiff's own stating or otherwise, the cause of action appears to arise ex turpi causa, or the transgression of a positive law of this country, there the Court says he has no right to be assisted. It is upon that ground the Court goes; not for the sake of the defendant, but because they will not lend their aid to such a plaintiff. So if the plaintiff and the defendant were to change sides, and the defendant was to bring his action against the plaintiff, the latter would have the advantage of it; for where both are equally in default, potior est conditio defendentis." The BPA COP indicates that its members have to comply with the COP and that says that ParkingEye has to comply with the law. Have a look at Reg 5(3)(b) of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regs and the Consumer Protection amendment regs 2014.(Breach of a COP). The 2014 Regs allow you now to recover from a Parking Company any monies paid when they have breached Reg 5(3)(b) so there is another defence to work on It almost will not matter if Mr Beavis loses as ParkingEye are kindly giving motorists up and down the land new defences. If the Council confirm that there is no advertisement consent then urge them to consider prosecuting ParkingEye. ParkingEye have been told by any number of Council's about the planning requirements so they have no excuse. On convictio nthe Counci lcan then apply to the Magistrates Court for an order under the Proceeds of Crime Act to take from Parkingeye all the money they have received from parking charges. Helps the Council's budgets Mike Mike

Read more: http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/planning-consent-cameras-enforcing-parking/story-27507841-detail/story.html#ixzz3hSwzDTBz
Follow us: @CambridgeNewsUK on Twitter | cambridgenews on Facebook

bazster

Still waiting for my council to confirm that PE's camera pole and signs are unlawful at Morrisons.

ff1d1l

A freedom of information request to Gwynedd Council confirms my suspicions that the Parking Eye signage and plate recognition cameras in the Car Park at Morrisons, Upper Bangor do not have planning permission.

Morrisons also told me informally on a separate occasion that the Car park is owned by Gwynedd Council, but contracted to Parking Eye.

The legal ramifications of these two pieces of information could bear further examination, IMHO.