KADOE agreement & Signs

Castle

Reading through a sample KADOE agreement I did note this:-

PART C
USE OF THE DATA
C1. Signage, Terms & Conditions and Correspondence
C1.1. The Customer shall ensure that signage, terms and conditions of service for parking customers and correspondence with data subjects comply with the Law and with the requirements of the ATA’s Code of Practice or Conduct.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/455973/Annex_A_-_KADOE_Fee_Paying_Contract_V4.pdf

Sounds to me that any signs without advertising consent is a breach of the KADOE agreement.

pappa_golf

yup , but the BPA , IPC and the DVLA all turn a blind eye to this .


there is clear WRITTEN evidence in the case of JLA , however DVLA continue to process data.

yotmon

Could be a handy piece of mud to sling into the defence pack though. If you can discredit the signs that the ppc rely on as their main contract forming point, then a Judge may just listen.

I find it bizarre that these companies rely so heavily on the 'signs' to form a contract, yet never seem to quite get it right re' size, wording or planning. Maybe they are in too much of a rush to get the money coming in.

Herzlos

yotmon wrote: »

I find it bizarre that these companies rely so heavily on the 'signs' to form a contract, yet never seem to quite get it right re' size, wording or planning. Maybe they are in too much of a rush to get the money coming in.

If you make the signs clear enough, you don't make any money from infractions since people will follow your made up rules.

TDA

I'm not convinced that this is the best angle of attack.

The issue at the moment seems to be that signs exceed the prescribed size limit under the Town and Country Planning (Advertisements) Regulations 2007. All a PPC would need to do to comply would be to reduce the sign size on site to 500mm x 500mm and they would have deemed consent per the class 2a requirements in Schedule 3 of those same regulations.

Unless it is ruled that all such charges issued during that period were invalid and have to be refunded, the only consequence could potentially be that signs are made smaller than they currently are! Akin to shooting oneself in the foot it seems...

Fruitcake

TDA wrote: »

I'm not convinced that this is the best angle of attack.

The issue at the moment seems to be that signs exceed the prescribed size limit under the Town and Country Planning (Advertisements) Regulations 2007. All a PPC would need to do to comply would be to reduce the sign size on site to 500mm x 500mm and they would have deemed consent per the class 2a requirements in Schedule 3 of those same regulations.

Unless it is ruled that all such charges issued during that period were invalid and have to be refunded, the only consequence could potentially be that signs are made smaller than they currently are! Akin to shooting oneself in the foot it seems...

My interpretation is that the limit on size of signs is the total cumulative area of all signs, not each individual sign.

There was a handy pdf guide to advertising consent posted here recently that gave that implication. For example it said that you could only have two signs of up to 0.3m2 each if you put one at each entrance.

I am however often wrong about many things so I am happy to be corrected.

TDA

The regulations at class 2a talk of 'an advertisement', singular, not exceeding 0.3 square metres. If they had meant that to
Mean the aggregate of all signs on site they would have used the plural and stated as such, as indeed they do with regard to class 6.