ES Parking Enforcement NTK - Interesting Private Land Issue

dkl_uk

Please head to the bottom as the dispute failed and I have now received the LBA.



Please note due to the quality of the images of the PCN that was forwarded by the Lease firm, I originally believed the PCN to be issued on Liverpool St Manchester. I have updated the thread below with the proper details as I finally got to see where the PCN was issued when I went to dispute it online.

Please see post #5.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75835718#Comment_75835718

Coupon-mad

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/01/es-parking-v-ms-q.html

https://goo.gl/maps/A7TN9oy36RDnFXRf8

Have a look at the traffic order for Liverpool Road, should be on the Council website. Look at the bit that talks about the measurements and position of the DYL there.

Looks to me like the double yellows are Council ones, and the pseudo layby MIGHT be private (I doubt it) but as you say, it's unsigned so no contract can have been agreed, and PPCs can't rely on Council DYL to communicate something that they don't actually mean.

Also, Council DYL apply from property boundary to property boundary, so that would include that 'layby' bay which would be under COUNCIL control.

Is the person who told you that there is a 'small pocket of private land' sure? Pavement areas beside DYL remain Council enforced if the area is within a TRO:

http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php?topic=5705.0

''A council spokesman cited case law from a 2009 Court of Appeal case in support of the decision to fine the drivers.

He said: "As can be clearly seen, there are double yellow lines running along this side of the road; these lines denote no waiting at any time - which applies if a vehicle has to cross the double yellow lines to get to where it is parked.''

Here's the Appeal 'key case' that confirmed that DYL apply across the pavement too:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/i-ll-fight-on-vows-doctor-banned-from-parking-scooter-on-his-own-land-6802161.html

Is this another simple case of ignore > wait for official letter > contest in court?

No, don't ignore the PCN that will be sent to you, due to this fact:

It's a lease car.

dkl_uk

Thanks for bringing those links in for me. Shame you can't upload my Dropbox image of the PCN. The URI however is dropbox.com/s/hqi91q28ew7x7y9/2019-05-07%2013.34.36.jpg?dl=0

I did check on Google Maps (which I believe is from May 2018) which shows:
Yellow lines.
No "official" signage from the council or otherwise pertaining to restricted parking.
No "LOADING" text.
No yellow notches on the kerbside.

Upon checking Google Maps further, it looks like the restaurant have affixed two A4 pieces of paper in their windows. I can clearly make out the words "in front of this restaurant" but the rest of the 'signage' is too small to read. Of course, this is not official signage and I am not intent on reading every piece of paper in the window of a restaurant that I have made a takeaway order from.

I also took time when parking to check the lamp posts and the structure as I've been caught out before with a tiny little sign that was about three meters from the ground. There was nothing.

Clearly the restaurant have assigned a cowboy parking firm to ticket anyone who parks on this particular tiny square of land which as you say is a pseudo-layby. My worry here is, whilst I can prove I am legally entitled to park on double yellow lines as per the Blue Badge scheme, I cannot then suggest to any judge that I have a right to park half on the pavement. My official stance with this is that it reduces the risk to myself when exiting and entering my car, reduces risk to other vehicles when passing, and there was more than enough space for pedestrians.

I'm awaiting the PCN direct from this firm. At this point the lease company have handed responsibility to me which I believe is a good thing. I will then respond with a template I came across a couple of days ago and I suppose I'll go through the motions with them.

The council did say there's a small square of private land but didn't say exactly where it was. If you look at the yellow lines they appear to be 1/3rd the size of what I would assume are regulation yellow lines? They look like they've been added by someone who is not a council contractor.

Coupon-mad

https://www.dropbox.com/s/hqi91q28ew7x7y9/2019-05-07%2013.34.36.jpg?dl=0

We can see that. The first NTK to the owner/lease firm then.

No "official" signage from the council or otherwise pertaining to restricted parking.

You probably know this, but Council DYL do not need any signs, as they apply 24/7 and of course, BB holders can park there for 3 hours.

Check the TRO for the DYL measurements and ask the Council why they are wrongly telling people that the layby/pavement is private land, contrary to the Dawood Appeal case?

IMHO the Council are the only people who should be ticketing there and a parking firm can't rely on Council DYL and some A4 bits of paper in a window. I saw this too, when I looked on GSV:

I can clearly make out the words "in front of this restaurant" but the rest of the 'signage' is too small to read.

This looks like illegal enforcement of Council DYL and you really need to check that by complaining to the council after checking their TRO to make sure the DYL are the Council's, as I suspect.

I cannot then suggest to any judge that I have a right to park half on the pavement.

Yes you can, and you must take this up with the Council to push the fact that there cannot be a 'pocket of private land' within a TRO just because there is pavement there. The Dawood case established that the pavement - even if marked differently - is not private land at all.

If you look at the yellow lines they appear to be 1/3rd the size of what I would assume are regulation yellow lines? They look like they've been added by someone who is not a council contractor.

I looked at them and they look like Council DYL, old ones but they look like Council ones.

You must find out more - and not from a random clerk who answers the phone at the Council. Start with the TRO from the Council website or ask the Council for it (a TRO is a public document they must make available free to any interested party).

dkl_uk

I have more information regarding this and it completely changes the initial post.

When I finally went to dispute the PCN I was then given clear photographs of my car (as the letter I received was shocking in quality). It turns out the parking infraction wasn't outside of Akhbar's restaurant, it was outside my own workplace.

New College St in Manchester is a one-way road and on one side is my work's private parking entrance, on the other is an NCP entrance. To get into my work's parking, you must have a pass and normally there's security in the guard hut too.

What's happened is, I've left some fairly expensive footwear in the changing rooms in the parking area, gone home, realised what I'd done and then had to drive all the way back to work. Due to this my pass was now at home so I had no automatic access to the parking garage. With it being 18:45 the security hut was also empty (there's a bell you can press to get attention).

I remember clearly - my car was parked in a lay-by (interestingly the only part of the road that doesn't have double yellow lines) for no more than 2-3 minutes while I walked the literal 100 yards to pick up my footwear and return to the car. In this time their parking attendant who must have been stood over the road watching me park up had taken 5 pictures of my car and one of me, all in the space of 60 seconds.

I've found that there are signs here showing no parking allowed, but the sign does say loading is allowed. Considering I was loading personal effects into my car from my own workplace (and for no longer than 180 seconds) I would have though ES Parking Enforcement would cancel the ticket. No joy. Email received today says the appeal has been refused. I don't know why that surprised me.

Google maps of where I parked:
https://dropbox.com/s/qlvqaturyab25vb/parking1.png?dl=0

And "a" sign (not THE sign the parking attendant took a photo of)
https://dropbox.com/s/e15ppx19odnqd0k/parking2.png?dl=0

And the rejection letter:
https://dropbox.com/s/5ffj43q7feote0c/appeal.png?dl=0

Their photo of my car:
https://dropbox.com/s/yo27p4x2qq29lif/car1.jpg?dl=0

Their photo of "a" sign which is located on the other side of the road to where I parked:
https://dropbox.com/s/rxojm65h3wox6eh/car2.jpg?dl=0

The_Deep

Blue badge was visible in the front window but of course if this particular patch is private then we know it means nothing.

No it is not meaningless. It means that the landowner and his/her contractor is required by law, (The Equalities Act 2010), fo make "reasonable adjustments" to cater for the "protected characteristics" of a disabled person. If this were to get to court you would be able to counter claim for disabled discrimination.

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams so complain to your MP.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

dkl_uk

The_Deep wrote: »

Blue badge was visible in the front window but of course if this particular patch is private then we know it means nothing.

Thanks for your reply - the parking location and in fact the whole story is now different. Due to the quality of the images and not knowing I couldn't park outside of my own workplace I assumed the restaurant to be the place where the PCN was issued. The post of mine just above yours is actually where the incident occurred. I didn't see the proper images until I went to dispute the charge hence the original belief being wrong.

Coupon-mad

I remember clearly - my car was parked in a lay-by (interestingly the only part of the road that doesn't have double yellow lines) for no more than 2-3 minutes while I walked the literal 100 yards to pick up my footwear and return to the car. In this time their parking attendant who must have been stood over the road watching me park up had taken 5 pictures of my car and one of me, all in the space of 60 seconds.

I've found that there are signs here showing no parking allowed, but the sign does say loading is allowed. Considering I was loading personal effects into my car from my own workplace (and for no longer than 180 seconds) I would have thought ES Parking Enforcement would cancel the ticket.

Can you get a colleague to write a Witness Statement confirming you were loading footwear from the workplace, which took about two minutes and was purely loading?

I am just wondering about a (rare) IAS appeal for you, normally pointless but if the sign says loading is allowed, then you just need to prove loading.

The IAS will NOT accept your word for it. The IAS is wily known to be a kangaroo court, with anonymous 'Assessors' who clearly favour the scum industry - shown by the bizarre decisions when we tested it and realised what it really is.

But if you showed as evidence a close up of the signs saying loading is allowed, and a WS from a colleague (anyone...think about it...don't answer me with what I think you are going to say and I don't give two hoots if you were alone in the car, as you don't tell the IAS that!) then maybe it's worth a shot.

It also makes no sense to have a 'no stopping' sign that actually allows loading, so that creates uncertainty of terms, and under the doctrine of contra proferentem the interpretation (loading is allowed) that most favours a consumer MUST prevail, unless the IAS Assessor is living on another planet.

But you have to submit your evidence at the same time when submitting the appeal and can't add stuff later. And you have to register and decide whether you are going to say you were the driver, or 'prefer not to say' (maybe the former is better, since if this does go to a small claim, IMHO in this case of scammery and predatory ticketing, you'd be better defending honestly as the wronged driver, exposing he scam for all you are worth!).

If you want to try IAS appeal DO NOT COPY A POPLA STYLE APPEAL.

Just write what actually happened and stuff about the sign allowing loading, and the contra proferentem TRITE LAW interpretation, and the IPC CoP banning predatory ticketing, and uploading a close up of the signage terms that allows loading and a scan of your colleague's WS that names the date, time, place, car VRN, and everything in detail (in case the IAS Assessor says ''all very well but the WS doesn't actually mention the date of this footwear loading, which might have been another day/time, so I have disregarded it and prefer the evidence of ScammersRUs at this well-known scam site at Spinningfields and we don't care about the great unwashed British Public as long as our fee-paying motley crew of IPC members get their dirty hands on your money.'').

They are that twisted.

I would, in your case, try to out-twist the gits. But ONLY due to the term on the sign. Oh, you'd have to prove that sign was actually there (and not just a close up of a term on a sign from another site) too. Or you know what the IAS anonymous Assessor would say!

dkl_uk

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Can you get a colleague to write a Witness Statement confirming you were loading footwear from the workplace, which took about two minutes and was purely loading?

I'm afraid I can't do that; a consequence of having no security in the hut means literally nobody will have seen me enter the building. I'm not comfortable asking colleagues to lie for me, and they did take a picture of the front of the vehicle as I was driving away which shows only one person inside.

I did attempt to get Spinningfields Estates to rescind the ticket, however, it's after 21 days since the ticket was issued so they can't do anything. I believe they would have done as my employer wrote to them to ask them to help out - they were quite apologetic that they couldn't help.

I have admitted I am the driver and keeper. I am fully prepared to attend court for this matter.

The basis of my defence can either be very long or very short due to the fact (in short terms) the sign states "loading & unloading and drop off / pickup for a maximum of 15 minutes in lay-bys only". Already proven by the images captured by their predator attendant I was there for no more than two minutes.

In more detail, you'll be aware I have already stated I couldn't enter the parking area due to leaving my pass at home, I am a Blue Badge holder so I can't simply park up a mile away and walk about carrying things, I was photographed leaving the parking entrance carrying items, and I was literally pictured parked in the lay-by to which the sign allows up to 15 minutes.

Would it help if I were to take pictures of the many, many, many vehicles which are parked in the same location and receive no tickets? I have been told by our security that most of the people who park in this lay-by will "get away with it" because they are seen to be contractors and are therefore working. Quite why they decided to jump on me 10 seconds after I was out of eyesight (and 30 seconds after parking there) I do not know.

I'd like to do the IAS appeal within a day or two as I don't have much longer to appeal to them.

Umkomaas

You will lose at the IAS. There's no prospect of any success there.

Would it help if I were to take pictures of the many, many, many vehicles which are parked in the same location and receive no tickets?

Nope, because you don't know any of the circumstances under which they are parking. Even if you did, it would count for nothing.

More importantly, do you have a comprehensive range of photos of the signage there?

Just await a LBC and/or court papers, come back on this thread then and go from there.

dkl_uk

Umkomaas wrote: »

More importantly, do you have a comprehensive range of photos of the signage there?

I can get them. Their own photographs do show me:
In a lay-by.
Parked near the sign they evidenced as the 'contract' - but also the sign not facing the driver's eye view.

Here's what I'm considering sending to the IAS.

I work at RBS Spinningfields. The car was parked in a lay-by outside of my employers' parking garage because no security attendant was in the parking entrance when I arrived. The car was parked in the lay-by so items that were stored in the parking garage could be loaded into the car. The signage next to the parking entrance states: "loading & unloading and drop off / pickup for a maximum of 15 minutes in lay-bys only". ES Parking Enforcement have taken a photograph of me that shows I am carrying items back to the car. ES Parking Enforcement aren't following their own signage at this point and have ignored the fact the car is parked in a lay-by, being loaded.

I am also a Blue Badge user and I am unable to walk the distance required from the closest on-street parking which is several hundred metres away (which is council on-road disabled parking, and not guaranteed to be available as it is outside of a museum). I am simply not capable of walking any distance without significant pain. Due to the fact I am also a permitted user of the parking garage to which I was photographed outside of, parking here was not only allowed by the sign, but also an essential and reasonable adjustment in regards to my disability.

Based on the photographs submitted by the parking attendant (who has taken the first photograph no more than 30 seconds after I left the vehicle)
Time of arrival 18:45.
Time of departure 18:47.
As per the sign photographed by the parking attendant: "loading & unloading and drop off / pickup for a maximum of 15 minutes in lay-bys only". The items were stored 75 yards away from the parking entrance where the car was pictured. It is impossible that I could take 15 minutes to leave the car, obtain the items and return to the car. As a matter of fact I would offer that the car was parked for no more than three minutes in total.

I also note the failure to comply with International Parking Community code of practice. The IPC code of practice states:
a) That a grace period must be allowed in order that a driver might spot signage, go up to it, read it and then decide whether to accept the terms or not. A reasonable grace period would be from 5-15 minutes from the period of stopping. This grace period was not observed and therefore the operator is in breach of the industry code of practice. Additionally no contract can be in place by conduct until a reasonable period elapses.
b) You must not use predatory or misleading tactics to lure drivers into incurring parking charges. Such instances will be viewed as a serious instance of non-compliance and will be dealt with under the sanctions system as defined in schedule 2 to the Code. In this instance the ticketer has hidden out of eyesight and ticketed the car immediately, which is quite literally the 'predatory' practice banned by the IPC Code of Practice.

The fact the signage states in its largest font "NO STOPPING AT ALL ON ROADWAYS & PAVEMENTS" but then goes on to say a 15 minute period is allowed for loading (for which the vehicle must be "stopped") falls foul of contra proferentem; if there is doubt about the meaning of the contract, the words will be construed against the person who put them forward.

If this notice is attempting to make a contractual offer, then as they are forbidding they do not fulfill the basic requirement of a contract, which is that each party to the contract must offer valuable consideration to the other party, on clear terms capable of acceptance. In this case neither ES Parking Enforcement nor Spinningfields Estates is offering anything to motorists. The notices cannot, therefore, reasonably be construed as having created a contractual relationship between the Claimant and the Defendant.

Additionally, the IPC PoC states:
"The Notice to the Driver must; Either be affixed to the vehicle or given to a person who appears to the Operator to have control of that vehicle". The Notice to the Driver was neither affixed to the vehicle nor was it handed to me, even though I was photographed from across the street by the parking attendant.

Furthermore they also state:
"Signage must; Be clearly legible and placed in such a position (or positions) such that a driver of a vehicle is able to see them clearly upon entering the site or parking a vehicle within the site;". The signage as evidenced by ES Parking Enforcements' own photographs shows the sign to be facing away from the lay-by and towards the opposite direction of any driver's eye view.