Help please - have i made a mistake?

Le_Kirk

arainbow wrote: »

Hi, where is the newbies thread please??

Click back to where you found and hi-jacked this thread and you will see, third post down, one marked **NEWBIES!! PRIVATE PARKING TICKET? OLD OR NEW? **READ THESE FAQS FIRST!** Thankyou!

That's the one! When you have read the FAQ's and, if you still cannot find the answer you want, start your own thread.

Standupforyourself

thanks guys.

Should i be saying anything about the heavily redacted contract they have supplied?

It is literally a few scanned pages with signatures blurred out and whole rafts of info missing. The fact that i have written to Ifracombe Town council FIVE times and been refused a copy of the contract suggests there is stuff in there that they dont want to share!

Standupforyourself

Edna_Basher wrote: »

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.

are there test cases in law?

Edna_Basher

Yes, I think you should highlight the poor quality of the copy of the landholder contract.

Earlier this year, POPLA's "Sector Experts" issued new guidance to its assessors covering "appeals" by limited companies being submitted by someone on behalf of those companies. POPLA now require evidence that the person making the submission has the authority of the company to do so - to the degree that they require written confirmation of authority signed by someone who is listed with Companies House as an officer of the company.

In order to be fair and impartial, POPLA must surely require the same level of certainty when assessing the validity of a landholder contract and / or witness statement that has been signed on behalf of a company (or in this case Ilfracombe Town Council).

It would be a clear case of double-standards were POPLA to accept an illegible signature of an unnamed person as evidence of the existence of a valid contract between Premier and the Council.

Umkomaas

The fact that i have written to Ifracombe Town council FIVE times and been refused a copy of the contract suggests there is stuff in there that they dont want to share!

I've not ploughed back through the entire thread, but have you sent them a formal Freedom of Information request via 'Whatdotheyknow'? They will have to expose their reasons why they refuse to produce what you're asking for.

Be very careful how you word your request as 'woolly' or overly complex questions can provide them wriggle room to sidestep.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com

Standupforyourself

Umkomaas wrote: »

I've not ploughed back through the entire thread, but have you sent them a formal Freedom of Information request via 'Whatdotheyknow'? They will have to expose their reasons why they refuse to produce what you're asking for.

Be very careful how you word your request as 'woolly' or overly complex questions can provide them wriggle room to sidestep.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com

yes, did this and was informed the information is too commercially sensitive to reveal.

Have pushed back on this but that was as far as i got before the wall of silence

Umkomaas

Standupforyourself wrote: »

yes, did this and was informed the information is too commercially sensitive to reveal.

Have pushed back on this but that was as far as i got before the wall of silence

Have you asked for an internal review of their decision. Thereafter you can involve the ICO. If you feel they're hiding anything, you need to pursue this to the max. Don't be fobbed off at the first resistance.

Standupforyourself

Umkomaas wrote: »

Have you asked for an internal review of their decision. Thereafter you can involve the ICO. If you feel they're hiding anything, you need to pursue this to the max. Don't be fobbed off at the first resistance.

as chance would have it i have just had a reply and they are looking in to it...

will keep you all informed

Standupforyourself

Changes made. How do i get this down to 2000 characters!! Currently it is 2500.

Not relevant land

Premier Park (hereinafter referenced PP) claim this point is “irrelevant and have been disproven on previous occasions through the POPLA process and other external challenges.” Yet Premier Park 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.
Ilfracombe Council is, 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 (1) (b) of Schedule 4 of POFA).
Ropery Road is owned by Ilfracombe Town Council, the land is subject to statutory control and there can be no keeper liability to pay parking charges (see Paragraph 3 (1) (c)) of Schedule 4 of POFA). Even if the land was not subject to statutory control (which Premier Park have offered no evidence to disprove), Paragraph 3 (1) (b) would still apply.

Signage


PP claim the following:
…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, most importantly of the entrance to the car park which does not comply with BPA guidelines which states that it must tell drivers that you are using this (ANPR) 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 as required in Appendix B of the BPA code of practice.
PP have supplied numerous photos which only further serve to highlight how 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 not displayed.

ANPR – 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.

Contract
PP have submitted a heavily redacted contract with the signatures removed. In order to be fair and impartial, POPLA must surely require a level of certainty when assessing the validity of a landholder contract and / or witness statement that has been signed on behalf of Ilfracombe Town Council. How can POPLA accept an illegible signature of an unnamed person as evidence of the existence of a valid contract between PP and the Council.

Coupon-mad

Standupforyourself wrote: »

Not relevant land

Premier Park ([STRIKE]hereinafter referenced [/STRIKE]'PP') claim this point is “irrelevant and... [STRIKE]have been[/STRIKE] disproven on previous occasions through the POPLA process and other external challenges.” Yet [STRIKE]Premier Park[/STRIKE] PP have provided no evidence [STRIKE]whatsoever[/STRIKE] of this. [STRIKE]to support this claim[/STRIKE].
The fact is, [STRIKE]this is absolutely relevant Schedule 4 of[/STRIKE] the POFA - Recovery of Unpaid Parking Charges is quite clear on this point.
Ilfracombe Council is, 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 (1) (b) of [STRIKE]Schedule[/STRIKE] Sch4 of POFA).
Ropery Road is owned by Ilfracombe Town Council [STRIKE]the land is subject to statutory control[/STRIKE] and there can be no keeper liability. [STRIKE]to pay parking charges (see Paragraph 3 (1) (c)) of Schedule 4 of POFA)[/STRIKE] Even if the land was not subject to statutory control (which [STRIKE]Premier Park[/STRIKE] PP have offered no evidence to disprove), Paragraph 3 (1) (b) [STRIKE]would[/STRIKE] still [STRIKE]apply.[/STRIKE] applies.

Signage

PP [STRIKE]claim the following:[/STRIKE] say:
[STRIKE]…we believe that[/STRIKE] ''we are fully compliant with the BPA Code of Practice'' ('the CoP').
There is no basis of fact here. I provided clear (and more recently taken) photos of the signage, [STRIKE]at Ropery Road[/STRIKE] most importantly of the entrance to the car park which does not comply with the CoP [STRIKE]BPA guidelines which states that it must tell drivers that you are using this (ANPR) technology and what you will use[/STRIKE] as it omits information as to how the data captured by ANPR cameras will be used. [STRIKE]for.[/STRIKE] [STRIKE]The entrance sign at Ropery Road does not meet this criteria.[/STRIKE] Neither does it state that it is a Pay and Display car park as required in Appendix B of the CoP. [STRIKE]BPA code of practice[/STRIKE].

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

[STRIKE]ANPR – 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.[/STRIKE]

Contract
PP have submitted a heavily redacted contract with the signatures removed. In order to be fair and impartial, POPLA must surely require a level of certainty when assessing the validity of a landholder contract and / or witness statement [STRIKE]that has been[/STRIKE] signed on behalf of Ilfracombe Town Council. How can POPLA accept an illegible anonymous signature [STRIKE]of an unnamed person[/STRIKE] as evidence of the existence of a valid contract between PP and the Council.

Try the above, might have got it under 2000 characters one all the strikes are removed. The ANPR point I removed completely as POPLA do not consider ANPR faulty unless the appellant proves fault.