Notice to Keeper (Minster Baywatch, ANPR)

Coupon-mad

BindiBahji wrote: »

As expected, I've had what looks to be a generic automated 'POPLA declined your appeal; now pay us by date X or we'll pass it on to a debt recovery company' letter.

Can anyone see any drawback if I send a standard 'no debt acknowledged, whole amount disputed and denied, I won't correspond with third party debt collectors' response?

No drawback - although I've never bothered when I got debt letters in the past, re pathetic fake PCNs from idiots.

Doesn't hurt to respond once, but don't get drawn in to protracted replies at all.

BindiBahji

Interesting. All the regulations I've read suggest that an operator requires consent from the 'landowner' to issue contracts in their own right. I was under the impression that this implied that an 'occupier' (or leaseholder) would require written consent from the freeholder?

IamEmanresu wrote: »

Who owns it is immaterial if someone else is the occupier and I'll eat my internet hat if it is not BW.

twhitehousescat

BindiBahji wrote: »

As expected, I've had what looks to be a generic automated 'POPLA declined your appeal; now pay us by date X or we'll pass it on to a debt recovery company' letter.

Can anyone see any drawback if I send a standard 'no debt acknowledged, whole amount disputed and denied, I won't correspond with third party debt collectors' response?

they have not allowed you 28 days to pay (after POPLa) but have gone eagerly into collection mode

Coupon-mad

BindiBahji wrote: »

Interesting. All the regulations I've read suggest that an operator requires consent from the 'landowner' to issue contracts in their own right. I was under the impression that this implied that an 'occupier' (or leaseholder) would require written consent from the freeholder?

I wouldn't push that small difference - a leaseholder has title - and the more vague 'landholder' is the term in the POFA Sch 4 which would include both.

BindiBahji

Finally had some time to look into this further...

Land Registry docs confirm that the car park belongs to the same property as the cinema and Bransby Wilson is neither freeholder nor leaseholder.

The non-domestic rate payer list is publicly available here. BW is not the company listed as liable to pay business rates on the car park.

System

The non-domestic rate payer list is publicly available here. BW is not the company listed as liable to pay business rates on the car park.

Munch, munch ...

According to Planning application 16_02461_FUL--1807546, the owner is Reel Cinemas. Application for the signs was made by BW. The application by BW has been approved by Reel Cinemas so IMHO you're up a blind alley here.

BindiBahji

IamEmanresu wrote: »

The application by BW has been approved by Reel Cinemas so IMHO you're up a blind alley here.

Given that Reel Cinemas is not the landholder (freeholder or leaseholder) recorded with the LR or the occupier listed in the business rates list, could you elaborate why that wouldn't be relevant here (not doubting you, just seeking to understand)?

From PoFA 2 (1):

“relevant contract” means a contract ... between the driver and a person who is—
(a) the owner or occupier of the land; or
(b) authorised, under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land;

Umkomaas

BindiBahji wrote: »

Given that Reel Cinemas is not the landholder (freeholder or leaseholder) recorded with the LR or the occupier listed in the business rates list, could you elaborate why that wouldn't be relevant here (not doubting you, just seeking to understand)?

From PoFA 2 (1):

I'm a bit puzzled too. Hopefully IAE will be along to put over his analysis of the situation.

System

The Planning Permission for the car park as shown on York Council's website shows Reel Cinemas as the owner/tenant (they were Odeon) and BW as the applicant for the P&D signs there.

So unless Reel are lying and unless they are in a fraudulent relation with BW to put up signs there, you'll have to assume that York Council at least has checked they are a bona fide occupant with a bone fide parking company.

Also I know of at least one case where a judge has accepted the above.

Umkomaas

IamEmanresu wrote: »

The Planning Permission for the car park as shown on York Council's website shows Reel Cinemas as the owner/tenant (they were Odeon) and BW as the applicant for the P&D signs there.

So unless Reel are lying and unless they are in a fraudulent relation with BW to put up signs there, you'll have to assume that York Council at least has checked they are a bona fide occupant with a bone fide parking company.

Also I know of at least one case where a judge has accepted the above.

Thanks IAE - but the issue is about the contract Minster Baywatch hold. POPLA accepted a redacted contract that was signed between them (MB) and Bransby Wilson, not between MB (or BW) and Reel Cinemas. RC are not Party to that contract.

Given that essentially BW and MB are one and the same company, how could POPLA possibly view this as 'landowner authority' for MB to operate on the land? Surely just an 'inside job'?