Help please - have i made a mistake?

Edna_Basher

Earlier this year Shaleman was successful at POPLA using the not relevant land / council-owned argument - despite the car park in question not being specifically under the statutory control.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5770530

All that mattered was that as per Paragraph 3 (1) (b) of Schedule 4 of POFA, the parking place was provided by a "traffic authority" (whose definition under Paragraph 3 (2) of Schedule 4 of POFA included the council of a county, county borough, London borough or district and a parish or community council).

The matter of statutory control as per Paragraph 3 (1) (c) is considered separately and in my view, this means that Council-owned car parks are not relevant land regardless of whether a PPO is in place.

System

The matter of statutory control as per Paragraph 3 (1) (c) is considered separately and in my view, this means that Council-owned car parks are not relevant land regardless of whether a PPO is in place.

So we have what is apparently badly drafted legislation that makes it look like all LA land is "not relevant" if the judge has to take a literal interpretation of the statute. Contrast that to a) an OP that would have to put over the point persuasively and a letter from the SoS which appears to "clarify" the issue but makes a distinction between LA land with a PPO and land without. Why is there the distinction if all LA land is "not relevant".

Can see your argument being persuasive when a judge needs a nudge in a direction but with P&D defaults, a judge may not want to be persuaded.

Standupforyourself

How does this look for a rebuttal?

• Not relevant land – Council Owned. No Keeper Liability

PP claim this point is “irrelevant and have been disproven on previous occasions through the POPLA process and other external challenges.” Yet PP have provided no evidence whatsoever to support this claim.

The fact is this is absolutely relevant. Schedule 4 of POFA - Recovery of Unpaid Parking Charges is quite clear on this point. In this case the land is owned by Ilfracombe Town Council, the land is therefore subject to statutory control and there can be no keeper liability to pay parking charges (see Paragraph 3(c) of Schedule 4 of POFA).
As stated previously, Ilfracombe Council are also, by definition, a traffic authority. Any land which is provided by a traffic authority, as in the case of Ropery Road car park, is not relevant land (see Paragraph 3(b) of Schedule 4 of POFA). The legislation is unequivocal.

• The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

PP claim the following:
"Our signs outline the terms and conditions so a motorist is able to decide whether they wish to stay or remain and abide by the terms. By designing our signs in the way that we have we believe that we are fully compliant with the BPA Code of Practice"

There is no basis of fact here. I provided clear (and more recently taken) photos of the signage at Ropery Road Car Park, most importantly of the entrance to the car which does not comply with BPA guidelines which states that it "must tell drivers that you are using technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for".

The entrance sign at Ropery Road does not meet this criteria. Neither does it state that it is a Pay and Display car park which is a requirement in Appendix B of the BPA code of practice.

PP have supplied numerous photos which only further serve to highlight how inadequate and illegible the signs are. Some of the signs do not mention a £100 charge at all. There is no way a driver can be held to have 'agreed' to pay a penalty that is not displayed.

1) Use of ANPR technology – Operator is put to strict proof that use of ANPR complies with Information Commissioners Office (ICO) and British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice

PP has offered no evidence to demonstrate compliance at all.

DoaM

Don't use abbreviations without first declaring them:

Premier Park Ltd. (hereinafter referenced PP)

... for example.

Standupforyourself

thanks, will change

Standupforyourself

Today is the last day to submit so if there are any more thoughts from the parking gurus please let me know! thanks again

arainbow

Hi, where is the newbies thread please??
I’m desperate for a template to appeal a parking eye parking charge on the grounds of the plural grace period ( driver overstayed 17 minutes in a shopping retail park but the car park is a nightmare to get parked in AND to exit, often heavily congested and it was a Saturday afternoon! )
Any help greatly appreciated! Xx

arainbow

Hi, where is the newbies thread please??
I’m desperate for a template to appeal a parking eye parking charge on the grounds of the plural grace period ( driver overstayed 17 minutes in a shopping retail park but the car park is a nightmare to get parked in AND to exit, often heavily congested and it was a Saturday afternoon! )
Any help greatly appreciated! Xx

Edna_Basher

Standupforyourself wrote: »

The fact is this is absolutely relevant. Schedule 4 of POFA - Recovery of Unpaid Parking Charges is quite clear on this point. In this case the land is owned by Ilfracombe Town Council, the land is therefore subject to statutory control and there can be no keeper liability to pay parking charges (see Paragraph 3(c) of Schedule 4 of POFA).
at all.

Note - the correct paragraph numbers are 3 (1) (b) and 3 (1) (c) rather than 3 (b) and 3 (c).

In order to counter Premier's arguments about there being no PPO in place, I think you need to be clearer in in explaining that a parking space provided by a "traffic authority" (as defined under 3 (1) (b)) and land under statutory control (as per 3 (1) (c)) are mutually exclusive - i.e. even if it is not subject to the statutory control of a PPO, according to POFA's definitions Council-owned land is still not relevant land

Your statement that "the land is therefore subject to statutory control" may not necessarily be correct and could confuse the POPLA assessor. You are relying more on the definition under 3 (1) (b) rather than the one under 3 (1) (c) which I think the legislators intended to cover railway, port, airport byelaws etc.

Edna_Basher

IamEmanresu wrote: »

So we have what is apparently badly drafted legislation that makes it look like all LA land is "not relevant" if the judge has to take a literal interpretation of the statute. Contrast that to a) an OP that would have to put over the point persuasively and a letter from the SoS which appears to "clarify" the issue but makes a distinction between LA land with a PPO and land without. Why is there the distinction if all LA land is "not relevant".

Indeed, Schedule 4 of POFA was not particularly well-drafted (not just in this respect). I'm wondering if the "statutory control" referred to under paragraph 3 (1) (c) was intended to cover railway byelaws etc.