Parking Eye, Sankt Augustin Retail Park, Grantham

g0wfv

*smug face*

1980 characters (still not what I want to say though!)

Refer to email to info@popla.co.uk sent XX XXX XX at XXXX

There is no evidence that the vehicle was parked for the entire period. The evidence shows the vehicle at one location at 1228 and at another location at 1524. To prove that the vehicle remained in the car park evidence should show the vehicle on site at various times throughout the period stated.

PE’s sign map is dated Nov & Dec 14. Mine is more recent and shows signs that were not present on 23 Jul and on a later date to collect evidence.

There is no evidence that the signs comply with the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007.

PE’s statement is not enough to prove they have authority to operate. The authority at this site is convoluted. The landowner is Buckminster Estate (BE). The tenant is the South Yorkshire Pension Authority (SYPA). The manager of the land is Cushman & Wakefield (CW).

With whom does PE have a contract? PE has not named their principal and if the principal is not BE, does the other party have the authority to make a contract? These questions are not answered by PE’s evidence. We need to see the tenancy agreement between BE and SYPA, the contract between SYPA and CW, and the contract between PE and their principal; none of which have been provided.

Fairlie v Fenton supports my case - PE if acting as broker cannot enforce the contract.

As an agent they must render themselves “personally liable on the contract.” The signs state “We are not responsible for the car park surface, damage or loss to or from vehicles or general site safety.” They are unable to enforce the contract as they deny liability.

PE v Beavis & Wardley is a CoA judgement subject to appeal in the SC. Judgment has been reserved. It is possible that the CoA judgments could be overturned. My appeal should be heard assuming that the CoA judgments can’t be relied on in law. At worst my appeal should be adjourned until a judgment from the SC is handed down.

(In comparison, the original is 6000+ characters!)

Coupon-mad

Good one, well done! In fact the cases where I have emailed a PDF rebuttal have not been decided yet.

g0wfv

Bullet bitten, rebuttal submitted! As above and referred to emailed PDF attachment.

And wait .....

(I'm still going to phone on Monday to inform them I've received the evidence and to make sure they received my email and comments!)

g0wfv

I spoke to POPLA on Monday, and the gist of the conversation is that my emailed rebuttal has been accepted alongside the 2000 character text box abbreviated version.

There is however a fly in the works in that SKDC have reversed their stance on the legality of the signage (just one of my appeal points). They now judge them to comply with Class A of Schedule 1 to the Control of Advertisements Regulations ("An advertisement displayed on enclosed land") so are exempt from advertising consent; quite how, I am still trying to bottom out!

This site is neither a shopping mall, nor is it a covered shopping arcade, and all the signs are visible from the public highway, so there's obviously some very dodgy interpretation of the written law going on here! (Or maybe they just can't be bothered to enforce it as has been mentioned before?)

Have a look and see what you think (clicky linky)....

Edit: I'm probably not going to change their minds, but I can try!

g0wfv

The adjudication is in - We were SUCCESSFUL in our appeal.

As suspected, POPLA found that PE did not provide evidence of having the landowner's permission to operate on this site.

Result posted the the decisions thread here.

Folkiedave

The have to be seen from the highway. Otherwise they do not follow the Code of Practice!! (Just two at the entrance if nothing more!!)

Umkomaas

Well done you.

Please consider taking the following action which will exact some revenge/pain on the PPC!

Please complain/write to the following:

1. DVLA.
Ask the DVLA to stop providing keeper details to the PPC for that particular site in view of the POPLA statement that they have no authority to operate on this land.

2. BPA.
Ask the BPA to confirm they will be issuing sanction points to the PPC in view of the POPLA statement.

Copy your POPLA decision, emphasise the statement that no authorisation exists, to both the DVLA and the BPA.

Well done on your successful appeal by the way. Please let us know what the outcomes of your complaints are. Link to this original thread with the details when received.

It's imperative we stop these outfits in their tracks if they are flouting requirements placed on them by the BPA/DVLA/PoFA, in order to fleece the general public and profit from their misfortune - without prodding, neither the BPA nor DVLA will do tap all!