Forbidding sign, grace periods, or both?

Umkomaas

happybagger wrote: »

No real progress, the LA said to which I replied stating that the companies are profiting from the illegal signs, and in some cases from incorrectly issued tickets, and I trust the LA will bear this in mind. Also commented on the Fleetwood PE issues.

Great tenacity.

Advertising Consent for signage (it’s Planning Permission for ANPR cameras) is a legal requirement. It is a criminal offence to use signs (=> 0.3 sq m) without AC. The LA is the enforcing authority; they have no scope for retrospective authorisation - although it hasn’t stopped some weak-kneed authorities providing it.

It just seemed that anyone who has raised the issue with these ‘authorising’ LA’s didn’t have the tenacity to push further beyond the various fob-off lines spun to them.

I wonder if the LAs would be so laissez-faire if little Joe was flogging dodgy DVDs around their town?

RobinofLoxley

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

Typical POPLA, missing the point entirely and as Umkomaas points out in fact they're wrong because the reason the pcn was issued was because the shop was closed (although that was confusing because it had different closing time on a Saturday than week days).
But a win is a win.

But nowhere in the PCN, NTK or their evidence to POPLA did Parking Eye state that they issued the PCN for parking outside of the store opening hours.

They weren't relying on that at all, probably as they would know they would be on dodgy ground. The signs would have to give the store opening hours and they don't.
Also they would have to allow extra time beyond the exact closing time for customers who are at the tills at the closing time to pay for their purchases, leave the store, walk to their car, load the car and then exit the car park.

Coupon-mad

I like that decision.

She is right that the 'permitted' parking time was 1.5 hours and that's what the signs say (she could have added that the phrase about no parking when shops are closed fails to define those hours, but she didn't).

HeatonGuy

Computersaysno wrote: »

Several brave? people have taken single points of appeal to POPLA to get a ruling on a single point.....it forces POPLA to consider just that point of appeal and give a ruling on it.

Unfortunately, the PPC in question then continues issuing tickets on that site, and refuses, other than for the original appellant, to be bound by the decision of POPLA.

This is clearly unreasonable - if they lose on that basis once (think Town Quay as an example) then EVERY ticket issued on that site must be invalid FOR THE SAME REASON, surely?

happybagger

As I'm currently in grumpy Victor Meldrew mode, I intend before Christmas to complain to DVLA about acess to RKs details while having no just cause, quoting parts of the popla adjudication.

I know it will achieve nothing overall but I like letters lol.

And then letters to PE and Home Bargains, after the 6 month trespass rule has passed, which I think they may have difficulty replying to. No disclosure just yet 😉