Euro Car Park PCN at Shorne Woods Country Parks -

MISSY_me

This is my last version.

Kent County Council is a "traffic authority" as defined by POFA and so regardless of whether the land is subject to statutory control, the land is still not relevant land (according to POFA). Shorne Woods Country Parks – Gravesend land is not 'relevant land' and is specifically excluded from 'keeper liability' under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
Paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 4 of POFA defines “traffic authority” as meaning each of the following:

(a) the Secretary of State;
(b) the Welsh Ministers;
(c) Transport for London;
(d) the Common Council of the City of London;
(e) the council of a county, county borough, London borough or district;
(f) a parish or community council;
(g) the Council of the Isles of Scilly.

According to this definition, Kent County Council is, therefore, a "traffic authority".

Paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 4 of POFA defines “parking place” as having the meaning given by section 32(4)(b) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 i.e. a place where vehicles, or vehicles of any class, may wait.

Paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 4 of POFA states that in this Schedule “relevant land” means any land (including land above or below ground level) other than:

(a) a highway maintainable at the public expense (within the meaning of section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980);
(b) a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority;
(c) any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control.

The parking places at Shorne Woods Country Parks, having been provided by Kent County Council (a "traffic authority" as defined under Schedule 4) are therefore not relevant land by virtue of Paragraph 3 (1) (b) of Schedule 4. As I am the registered keeper I am not legally liable as this Act does not apply on this land.

MISSY_me

Hello all. Yesterday I received an reply from POPLA with ECP!!!8217;s evidences. On my point for NOT RELEVENT LAND, they have stated this:
ECP operate under Kent County Parks - this is NOT part of Kent County Council direct
management nor under any off street parking orders as required for a council to enforce under the road traffic act and therefore it is !!!8220;relevant land!!!8221;. Whilst Kent County Council owns the land in the Kent Country the site is not covered by any off street parking orders as would be required for a council to enforce under the road traffic act and therefore does not fall under relevant land.

On my point for late served NTK, their answer is:

Our PCN (Parking Charge Notice) is the first communication with the registered keeper !!!8211; this is referred to as the Notice to Keeper or Notice to Owner
The PCN (NTK/NTO) has been checked by both the BPA and the IPC and we have confirmation that our PCN (NTK/NTO) and has been approved as compliant with POFA
The PCN (NTK/NTO) has been checked by Gladstones Solicitors who specialise in assisting private car park operators !!!8211; legal advice and pre legal advice with regards signage and adhering to POFA and both code of practice
Please be advised once the registered keeper has been sent the PCN (NTK/NTO) if there is no response, payment, appeal, serviceable address of the driver !!!8211; ECP process a Notice To Keeper !!!8211; this is a !!!8220;reminder letter!!!8221; and sent in reference to the PCN (NTK/NTO) that has not been responded to.
If we are in receipt of a serviceable address of the driver !!!8211; the PCN (NTK/NTO) is re-issued
If the registered keeper is in receipt of the PCN (NTK/NTO) and has passed to the driver and the driver appeals !!!8211; we will respond to the appeal strictly following the code and ensure any/all communication is sent to the driver (we would not at this stage re-issue the PCN)
We have been advised that the above is standard practice for all private car park operators in regards to PCN (NTK/NTO) issued on Automatic Number Plate Recognition car parks.

Now I have to submit my comments. Do I still have a chance to win this appeal? Thanks

Coupon-mad

Now I have to submit my comments. Do I still have a chance to win this appeal?

Yes. Keep it snappy, in bullet points as you only have 2000 characters, not words!

- mention any of their old/undated signage photos, too old to show the signs on the day

- mention a lack of an aerial view of signs, or if there is one in the pack, point out if it is undated/unsigned and the little flags or dots are simply dots on a streetview image and no evidence of the signs on the day.

- mention any issue with the landowner contract (date signed/no date of expiry?)

- state that the POFA's definition of 'relevant land' is silent on TROs and the RTA. Any Council-owned land is NOT privately owned and not 'relevant land' which has the express meaning:
''any land...other than:
(a) a highway maintainable at the public expense...
(b) a parking place which is provided or controlled by a traffic authority;
(c) any land not falling within paragraph (a) or (b) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control''.

KeithP

They say:

ECP operate under Kent County Parks - this is NOT part of Kent County Council direct management nor under any off street parking orders as required for a council to enforce under the road traffic act and therefore it is 'relevant land'.

...and then say:

Whilst Kent County Council owns the land in the Kent Country the site is not covered by any off street parking orders as would be required for a council to enforce under the road traffic act and therefore does not fall under relevant land.

Is it relevant land or not? Clearly ECP don't know.

As C-M says, it is not relevant land within the meaning defined in PoFA2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 3.

I would consider using the second of ECP's quotes here... pointing out to PoPLA that ECP clearly agree with you that the land where your vehicle was parked is not relevant land.

Coupon-mad

Good spot!

MISSY_me

Thank you, all! What about for the late served NTK? It came late, and ECP are withdrawing the attention to the form of the NTK, but my point is that it never been served on time.

nosferatu1001

Yes, you also include that even IF it was relevant land, the NtK was served too late to hold the Keeper liable.

Coupon-mad

MISSY_me wrote: »

Thank you, all! What about for the late served NTK? It came late, and ECP are withdrawing the attention to the form of the NTK, but my point is that it never been served on time.

Missy me, I know this was a year ago but look:

https://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/transport-and-highways/parking-and-other-penalties/17-004-169

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

The LA Ombudsman is dishing out compo for people wrongly told that Council owned land is 'relevant land' with keeper liability. KCC has stopped this sort of scam as a result!

Embarassing for POPLA and fantastic evidence for us with any defence or POPLA appeal for a keeper, where the land is Council owned in ANY capacity.

The LA Ombudsman knows the score.

It doesn't matter of the Council is actually acting in their capacity as a 'traffic authority' or not...LA Ombudsman says that's 'not relevant' and the POFA can never apply.

If anyone has paid (as keeper) a PCN to a private scammer where the land is COUNCIL OWNED land, complain to the LA Ombudsman, citing this case.

If anyone has had a wrong POPLA outcome about this, complain to POPLA and the LA Ombudsman too.

Edna_Basher

Duplicate post deleted

Edna_Basher

Excellent - the LA Ombudsman was quite correct. Do you think their report on Kent County Council's Country Parks is worthy of a link from the Newbies Sticky C-M?

I wonder if the mysterious Mr X who lodged the complaint about KCC with the LA Ombudsman is "shaleman" who had a thread here on MSE last year covering his exploits with Euro Car Parks at one of KCC's Country Parks.