Parking dispute help. County Court Claim issued, my DEFENCE in post #63

Coupon-mad

There is no parking order for my street. Does this kill my 'not relevant land' defense, despite the fact that that oxford city council is considered a traffic authority ?

No it doesn't matter, as you say the area is 'provided' by a Traffic Authority.

This bay or space is indisputably, a:

“parking place” {with} ...the meaning given by section 32(4)(b) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/32

which says:

Quote:
32 (4) (b)“parking place” means a place where vehicles, or vehicles of any class, may wait;
thus it is:

Quote:
a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority;

Nothing says it has to be a parking place that's the subject of any statute or Order. It just has to be ''provided by'' a ‘traffic authority’.

Moreover, recently the Local Authorities Ombudsman agreed, after thorough scrutiny of this matter:

https://www.kentonline.co.uk/kent/news/council-issued-motorist-illegal-parking-ticket-197975/

Full report

https://www.lgo.org.uk/assets/attach/4521/REPORT%2017004169%20KENT%20CC.pdf

''Kent County Council has been forced to pay a motorist £100 for issuing a parking ticket illegally.

The Local Government Ombudsman found the council issued penalty charge notices on public land through a private contractor which is against the rules.

The person who was charged with the fine was also told by the contractor he must pay the charge then appeal but once the charge is paid, he lost his right to an appeal.

The driver was parked in Lullingstone Country Park.

Following KCC's mistakes, the ombudsman Michael King is now warning other local authorities they must follow the "correct process".

Mr King said: “While councils have every right to charge people for parking at their country parks, and motorists can expect consequences for not paying, councils must ensure they are issuing any parking penalties under the correct process.''

It was the fact that a PPC was saying a keeper was liable under the POFA that decided that case, as I read it. The Ombudsman held that such land is always 'non-relevant land' and the POFA cannot apply, so a keeper cannot be pursued or told they are liable in law.