BW Legal LBC-Relevant Land Opinion Please!!

FujiKat

Really sorry for repeating this post but thought maybe I hadn’t received any response because it was confusing so I have amended it: -

I received a PCN towards the end of 2018 from Premier Park ltd for a 40 minute overstay in a car park that charges £1 per hour. The car park is owned by a town council but managed by Premier. The car park is advertised on the council’s website where is states that they are the owner but cameras are operated by Premier who will issue PCNs.

I was not the driver and appealed to Premier and then to POPLA on various grounds but mainly stating I could not be held liable as the keeper because the car park was not relevant land as the definition of relevant land excludes a parking place provided by a traffic authority and the town council is a traffic authority as defined in paragraph 3(2)(f) of Schedule 4 POFA which includes a “parish or community council” .

The appeal was rejected in each case-POPLA did not even consider the law I quoted, just saying that there was a contract between the town council and Premier (which was supplied heavily redacted and out of date but included an extension clause!).

I didn’t pay and received a further demands from Premier followed by a demand from “PPLegal” and then from BW Legal and I again responded quoting the above legislation. I also wrote to the town council who responded by saying that Premier insist that they are operating within the law. I have now received a letter of claim from BWLegal.

The law appears pretty clear to me but I would be really grateful if any of you experienced people could give an opinion on whether my interpretation is correct. I am trying to decide whether to take this to court or to name the driver-I’d hate to give in like that but if my main argument is flawed. I may have to.

I'd be really grateful for any opinions received!.

MonkeyRum

It would probably fall under a highway maintained at public expense too which is another exclusion from keeper liability. Highway is any way that the public has the right to pass without hindrance.

Coupon-mad

The law appears pretty clear to me but I would be really grateful if any of you experienced people could give an opinion on whether my interpretation is correct. I am trying to decide whether to take this to court or to name the driver

I agree with your interpretation.

Have you seen the Kent Ombudsman case where the Council were ordered to STOP enforcement in a similar situation? You should put in a very quick FORMAL COMPLAINT to the Council, using the Kent Council Ombudsman decision as evidence that they cannot run their car parks like this and cannot allow their contractor to try to hold keepers liable.

Search the forum for the words Kent Ombudsman.

Be prepared to also take your case to the LA Ombudsman and cite the Kent case (never assume they will join up the dots and come to the same conclusion as they did before, always point an Ombudsman to a key case they've decided before).

It would make my day if PP were kicked out.

I am doing something similar to (hopefully) get District Enforcement kicked out in Lancing, West Sussex. Haven't written the complaint yet due to holidays but it's on my to-do list for August!

FujiKat

Thank you coupon-mad-especially for the Kent Omsbudsman case which coincides exactly with my reading of POFA. To me the legislation is clear and councils can't opt out of being a "traffic authority" if they are included in the POFA definition and any parking place they provide cannot be "relevant land".

nosferatu1001

POint out the to the council that you will hold them liable for *all* of yoru costs in dealing iwth this, as they are aware they are unable to operate in this manner and have been told so repeatedly.

The_Deep

POint out the to the council that you will hold them liable for *all* of yoru costs …

Would that include a QC?