Help please - have i made a mistake?

Standupforyourself

or actually is it saying:

Look, this ain't relevant land, so regardless of whether youre the keeper or the driver, it doesn't matter, parking charges do not apply here.

KeithP

It is saying that if it is not relevant land then liability cannot be transferred to the keeper.

In other words, if they don't know who the driver is, and the parking place is not 'relevant land', then they have no-one to pursue for any money.

Standupforyourself

KeithP wrote: »

It is saying that if it is not relevant land then liability cannot be transferred to the keeper.

In other words, if they don't know who the driver is, and the parking place is not 'relevant land', then they have no-one to pursue for any money.

but surely even if they DID know who the driver was, it still isnt relevant land? If it isnt relevant then you can't apply charges?

KeithP

POFA, and the concept of 'relevant land' is immaterial if they know who the driver is.

It is the driver who agreed the contract to park, and it is the driver who is alleged to have agreed to pay £100 (or whatever figure) if they broke the rules.

POFA only comes into play if they want to transfer the driver's liability to the keeper.

Standupforyourself

i think i'm with you but why mention the driver at all in the schedule?

Ah man, I'm gonna crack on and will post my (hopefully) final draft.

KeithP

Paragraph 1) of POFA (which you quoted earlier) says:

(1)This Schedule applies where—
(a)the driver of a vehicle is required by virtue of a relevant obligation to pay parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on relevant land; and
(b)those charges have not been paid in full.

Which is pretty much the same as what I said in post #95:

POFA, and the concept of 'relevant land' is immaterial if they know who the driver is.

nosferatu1001

No, that is not what it says

POFA is about Keeper liabiltiy (or not) when parking on private land
It makes absolutely NO comment on whether a driver is or is not liable for parking charges. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

It is PURELY abou t whether a keeper can be held liable.

nosferatu1001

It mentions the driver because without doing so, the concept of "relevant land" could not be introduced.

Standupforyourself

Coupon-mad wrote: »

ANPR unreliability is not worth trying at POPLA without evidence. You need to concentrate on 'not relevant land' and cite the POFA on that issue, and embed into your word document, scans, maps, images/any proof that this is Council owned.

That should be enough if you are convincing with your 'not relevant land' argument.

Just on the subject of ANPR, in the interests of furthering my knowledge on Data Protection i was reading up on the ICO's report in to tackling unfair practices and it says:

13. Organisations that do wish to use technology to manage car parks
must do so in a proportionate and balanced manner that is
compliant with the DPA. This legislation includes a number of
legally enforceable requirements. These include clear signage that
explains to individuals parking cars what information is being
collected and processed in relation to them, who is processing that
information and what purposes that information is being processed
for. This should include the circumstances in which the
organisation will access the DVLA register of vehicles to identify
the keeper of a vehicle

The signs in the car park in question did not clearly state any such information and simply data will be used for "parking enforcement purposes"

Has this line of approach been tested?

nosferatu1001

POPLA will not give two figs about it. I absolutely g'tee it

This is an organisation that rejects appeals where the oeprator provides a pack for an entirely different car park.