Euro Car Parks & Morissons in trouble over ANPR

surveyor_101

No planning for ANPR!


http://www.somersetcountygazette.co.uk/news/14781343.Morrisons_fining_overstay_parkers___despite_not_having_permission_for_camera/

Myriddin

"County Gazette lawyer Simon Westrop said 'It doesn't seem to me that either Morrisons or Euro Car Parks has acted unlawfully in any way......'

Except for ignoring The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 which is an offence carrying a level 4 fine of £2500.

But, what's the betting they won't be prosecuted?

bod1467

CCTV ... erm, no it isn't

Fines / Penalties .. erm, no they aren't

Given that Morrisons/ECP have committed a criminal act ... what's the related offence? Gaining a pecuniary advantage through an illegal act?

surveyor_101

My local council care not!

Coupon-mad

Here you go, this is how to argue the sort of defence point, that no man should profit from his crime (this was about the same issue and PE threw in the towel without a hearing but *could* be tweaked and used to argue a clear breach of the Equality Act 2010, for example):

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/parkingeye-discontinue-two-cases.html

''2.4 The Judge’s attention is also drawn to RTA* (B/1). This case is drawn to the Court’s attention for the purposes of evidencing paragraph 34 in which the Judge discusses the relevance of the public law principle going back well over 200 years that no man should profit from his crime; it is submitted that this is particularly relevant in this action. The Judge cited Lord Mansfield CJ to explain that:

“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.”

In this claim there has been a transgression of a law (the 2007 Regulations) and it is submitted that the Court should not “lend its aid” to this Claimant “who founds his cause of action upon an illegal act”.



*References in this defence to RTA are references to RTA (Business Consultants) Limited V Bracewell [2015] EWHC 630 (QB) (12 March 2015).