Relevant Land query

Fruitcake

nigelbb wrote: »

Is the swimming pool a council provided/operated facility or is it run by a private company? If the latter then the land is leased to them & it's the private company providing & controlling the parking places & thus it is relevant land with regard to POFA.

I would claim that it is not relevant land and make the scammers prove otherwise.

CoJones wrote: »

Thanks, Nigelbb.

It's unclear at the moment. The pool people say "
To be absolutely clear the whole site including car parks are still owned by ttttttt Council. There is an agreement between tttttt Council and xxxxxx Town Council for the running of the pool. xxxxxxx Town Council created us (yyyyyyy Pool C.I.C.) and we as VOLUNTEERS are responsible for running the whole site - the pool, all buildings (except kiosk), toilets, green, car parks, etc.

So is the "agreement" a lease? Does it need to be? I am still investigating.

I think this helps as it implies that the pool was set up by, and is run as a part of the council.

I would complain to the Office of the Regulator of Community Interest Companies stating that using an unregulated private parking company vilified by MPs in open parliament is completely contrary to the aims of setting up such a community project. Driving away (pun intended) customers of a facility set up to support the local community is exactly the opposite of what is intended.

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/office-of-the-regulator-of-community-interest-companies

The_Slithy_Tove

CoJones wrote: »

In this case, the car park is owned by the council, but allocated to swimming pool. The pool holds the contract with ParkingWithEase Ltd and I am told that the pool collects the fees and PWE collects the fines.

My question is: is the council car park "relevant land" wrt POFA?

My local leisure centre did similar. They brought in CEL to (mis-)manage the car park. I objected, as it was covered by a local authority Parking Places Order, and they ceased enforcement. Unfortunately only for as long as it took to remove the car park from the PPO, so CEL are now back in there.

You need to check the PPO with the local council. It's probably all online. In my case, the whole place was leased out to Places for People, which seems to allow them to treat "public" land as private for parking purposes. If the land is still covered by a PPO, it's both not relevant land AND the council are being very naughty.

But in other cases, councils have tried to outsource what is a normal council car park to private operators, and have been slapped down for doing so.

EDIT: Just seen your post #9. If it's covered by a PPO, then complain to the council, loudly and forcefully. In my case, I kicked off with this:

Please can you answer the following questions regarding the car park at XXXX Leisure Centre:

1. The Car Park is subject to a Parking Places Order (PPO) which details the parking terms and conditions and makes parking subject to control by the council and its CEOs. How is it possible, therefore, for a third party private company (Civil Enforcement Ltd) to seek to impose additional conditions and charges in what is a council-owned car park subject to a PPO?
2. Does Civil Enforcement Ltd have written permission from the council to do this?
3. has the council provided written consent for Civil Enforcement Ltd to display advertising material (which is what their signage is) as per section 7 of <Council>'s Off-Street parking places order 2016?

There is a clear conflict of interests where a private parking company is operating on land subject to a PPO, and I understand that private parking companies cannot operate on public land. I have asked these questions of the management of XXXX Leisure Centre, who said they were forwarding my questions to the council (you).

I had to get my councillor to give them a kick before getting them to respond.

CoJones

Johno100 wrote: »

Was this a ticket on your vehicle or was it picked up by ANPR with you getting a notice through the post?

The latter.

CoJones

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Absolutely categorically NOT.

Thanks, Coupon-mad.

I made a successful appeal to POPLA in 2014, so I was assuming that I should take the same route.

The stickies tell a different story: that I am unlikely to succeed. But what is the actual downside of an unsuccessful appeal to IAS? Is it that one is showing one's hand too early?

Fruitcake

CoJones wrote: »

Thanks, Coupon-mad.

I made a successful appeal to POPLA in 2014, so I was assuming that I should take the same route.

The stickies tell a different story: that I am unlikely to succeed. But what is the actual downside of an unsuccessful appeal to IAS? Is it that one is showing one's hand too early?

The IAS is a kangaroo court and we only ever see less than 20% of appeals succeeding.
A win at IAS for the scammers may embolden them to try harder, and may later convince a judge that the motorist is at fault because an "independent" appeal has "proved" this.

The_Slithy_Tove

Pursue the Town Council and PPO avenue. If you can get the council to admit it shouldn't be using a private company to operate on land where a PPO is in place (which they should not), then they could be forced/cajoled into getting the charge cancelled. They ought to insist all charges are cancelled and that all payments made to the PPC are refunded.

The local paper may be interested also, but would need a lot of education on the ins and outs of PPCs.

CoJones

I have found (eventually, it's not easy) the revocation notice for the car park in question.

So It's looking like a dead-end.

If it's likely that an IAS appeal would fail, then I'm not inclined to waste my time taking this through the County Court system.

Sometimes, as the song says, you've got to know when to hold them and know when to fold them.