Local Council Refusing to Intervene in PCN

daveyjp

FujiKat wrote: »

"Kent County Council and a Town Council are completely different things"

I agree. Town Councils are third tier local government-and don't have the power to make Off Street Parking Orders-and because of this Ilfracombe Town Council has now asked North Devon District to take over enforcement at the Ropery and it has been included in North Devon's recent amendment order.

But, the definition of "traffic authority" in POFA includes "Parish or Community Council". so I believe that Ilfracombe Town Council is a traffic authority under POFA so any parking place they provide or control is excluded in the definition of "relevant land" and so POFA cannot be used to invoke keeper liability.

It therefore appears to fall in a similar fashion to land where Byelaws apply.

SotonCar

KeithP wrote: »

If they know who the driver is, then they do not need to use the Protection of Freedoms Act to transfer the driver's liability to the keeper.

POFA becomes irrelevant.

Would they not just use CCTV to establish who got out of the drivers door (if they wanted to go that heavy)?

KeithP

SotonCar wrote: »

Would they not just use CCTV to establish who got out of the drivers door (if they wanted to go that heavy)?

What on earth are they going to do with a picture of the driver - if they even have one?

There is no database that matches names to pictures of people.

You are approaching the realms of science fiction.

DoaM

What CCTV? It was ANPR cameras.

Redx

The security services are being investigated for using facial recognition in london, I wouldn't start thinking that they can use CCTV if it existed to do a McGee from NCIS and match up with the d and v licence pictures, if they existed, which they don't on my pink licence

Fantasyland, pure fiction, not allowed or possible

Redx

SotonCar wrote: »

I don't understand - surely legislation is legislation.

POFA is not mandatory, plus does not cover drivers, only keepers, and does not cover bylaws land or public roads either

SotonCar

Redx wrote: »

The security services are being investigated for using facial recognition in london, I wouldn't start thinking that they can use CCTV if it existed to do a McGee from NCIS and match up with the d and v licence pictures, if they existed, which they don't on my pink licence

Fantasyland, pure fiction, not allowed or possible

I was more suggesting it if there was a court appearance as I would physically be there as the keeper!

In my appeal to PP I have stated that I was physically present at the car park - is that basically game over for me with this?

SotonCar

Redx wrote: »

POFA is not mandatory, plus does not cover drivers, only keepers, and does not cover bylaws land or public roads either

But the notice I received has been given under the POFA (according to the letter I got) so are those not the only rules both parties should be working under and referring to?

KeithP

SotonCar wrote: »

In my appeal to PP I have stated that I was physically present at the car park - is that basically game over for me with this?

Of course not - unless there is only one seat in your car.

KeithP

SotonCar wrote: »

But the notice I received has been given under the POFA (according to the letter I got) so are those not the only rules both parties should be working under and referring to?

Yes...

And if they have failed to transfer the driver's liability to the keeper, which they have because it is not relevant land, then the keeper cannot be liable for the driver's alleged infraction.


Or no, they are not the only rules...

If they cannot transfer the driver's liability to the keeper, they can of course seek to identify the driver. That has nothing at all to do with POFA.
This why in your situation, if you want to rely on the POFA's 'not relevant land' argument, it is extremely important that the driver's identity is not revealed.