One Parking Solution - Notice to Keeper / PCN

Coupon-mad

It won't be when I remove them...

oscard

Hi All,
Re the contravention location: Plough Lane, London SW19 8GT - it doesn't exist in the post office / royal mail postcode finder. I've marked on the map with an X where the contravention was said to have taken place.  
And Plough Lane is the next road down (see arrow)
The postcodes for some of the buildings in the complex (around the X)  are below:
Bassett House, 1 Durnsford Road, LONDON, SW19 8EA
Lawrie House, 3 Durnsford Road, LONDON, SW19 8FP
Cork House, 5 Durnsford Road, LONDON, SW19 8GR
Reed House, 21 Durnsford Road, LONDON, SW19 8GU/ 8GW/ 8GY

I was wondering if anyone knew how to confirm the location and if an avenue worth pursuing as to having the wrong details on the NTK?

Thanks all

Coupon-mad

It's worth mentioning at POPLA because a NTK must state the 'relevant land'.  

Fruitcake

If you are going to include point 9, you need to confirm with the council planning department that planning permission and advertising consent do not exist. If that is the case you should then make a formal complaint, which can often be done on the planning department website.

If the above definitely do not exist, then state that this is a breach of para 12 (2) of the PoFA.

"12   (1)The fourth condition is that any applicable requirements prescribed under this paragraph were met at the beginning of the period of parking to which the unpaid parking charges relate.

      (2)The appropriate national authority may by regulations made by statutory instrument prescribe requirements as to the display of notices on relevant land where parking charges may be incurred in respect of the parking of vehicles on the land."

Point out that the Town and Country Planning Act, an Act of Parliament, constitutes a national authority, and advertising consent constitutes a statutory instrument. Not having it is therefore not only a breach of this Act but also a breach of the PoFA 2012.

oscard

Hi All, I'm at the POPLA Stage,

One Parking Solution Ltd - has now uploaded its evidence to your appeal. This will be available for you to view by clicking 'here'. You have seven days from the date of this correspondence to provide comments on the evidence uploaded by One Parking Solution Ltd. These comments must relate to the grounds of appeal you submitted when first lodging your appeal with POPLA, we do not accept new grounds of appeal at this stage.

Any information provided in the defence of this parking charge is provided only for the Appellant and Assessor to view. The information is strictly confidential and commercially sensitive. No file, in part or whole submitted by One Parking Solution Ltd may be copied or shared with any other individuals in paper or electronic form.   The appellant entered into a contractual agreement upon parking on site. The terms are laid out on the signage on site including at the entrance and state that parking is permitted for vehicles displaying a valid permit and/or pre-authorised vehicles parked wholly within their allocated parking space.   By parking or remaining on site otherwise than in accordance with the above the driver agrees to pay a parking charge. The driver made use of the facilities and went about their business.   At the time of the contravention the appellant was not displaying a valid permit, and nor did they have pre-authorisation to park their vehicle in the car park as they were not on the exemption list and therefore agreed to pay a parking charge.   The Appellant states the charge has been issued at the wrong location. The site is an extremely large housing development that has been built on what used to be a football ground called Plough Lane. The location on the parking charge refers to the name of the site and not the address. The road in question is a small private road within the development that provides two loading bays for residents and access to the underground resident’s car park as can be seen in the site photos. One of the developer's plans is inluced confirming the site is called Plough Lane.   The Appellant states the driver was not given a grace period. As per the BPA code of practice 13.6 “Neither a consideration period or a grace period are periods of free parking…”, the contravention photos show the driver did not review the terms and conditions, the drive left the vehicle parked on site to go to the Co-op.   The Appellant states the signs do not meet the requirement of the ICO Code of Practice, the signs provide information on data rights as can be seen in site photo 2. The Appellant refers to an ANPR system, the site is managed through CCTV, this is advised on the signs displayed on site: CCTV/ANPR and/or mobile patrol parking The Appellant states there is no planning permission for the camera to be pole mounted, the camera is attached to the wall. The Appellant states there is no advertising consent for the signs, the signs are not required to have advertising consent. The Appellant states the signs are difficult to read whilst driving, the driver is not expected to read the signs whilst driving. If having parked the driver reviewed the terms and conditions and decided to leave, they may have done so without charge. The driver made not attempt to review the terms and conditions prior to leaving the vehicle parked on site. It is the driver’s responsibility to ensure they are parked in accordance with the terms. If they are unable to do so they should either, make alternative parking arrangements or otherwise agree to pay a parking charge. If the driver is unsure, our number is on the boards and the signs are BPA approved. As the driver has not been named, One Parking Solution Ltd are seeking keeper liability.

Any hope????

oscard

Unfortunately the spacing doesn't work once the message is posted.

KeithP

oscard said:

Unfortunately the spacing doesn't work once the message is posted.

Then edit your post so that others can read it.

Help others to help you.

Coupon-mad

Any hope?

Doubt it because this is one of the rare OPS sites where, personally, I think the signs are clearer than most (albeit in small writing on a tiny 45cm square board, that the new PAS232 should kill off).    I have no idea why anyone would park in a residential car park next to some flats to go to the Co-op; yes I know it's next door but it's not the Co-op car park. 

But you have only shown the case summary, not the evidence, not the landowner contract.

Were_Doomed

Signs on page 1 are forbidding, yes? (20 minutes loading, no return for 2 hours, for residents only). Therefore the doctrine of impossibility applies - one cannot contract to do that which is forbidden.

oscard

Hi All, I'm at the POPLA Stage,

One Parking Solution Ltd - has now uploaded its evidence to your appeal. This will be available for you to view by clicking 'here'. You have seven days from the date of this correspondence to provide comments on the evidence uploaded by One Parking Solution Ltd. These comments must relate to the grounds of appeal you submitted when first lodging your appeal with POPLA, we do not accept new grounds of appeal at this stage.

 

The appellant entered into a contractual agreement upon parking on site. The terms are laid out on the signage on site including at the entrance and state that parking is permitted for vehicles displaying a valid permit and/or pre-authorised vehicles parked wholly within their allocated parking space.  By parking or remaining on site otherwise than in accordance with the above the driver agrees to pay a parking charge.

 

The driver made use of the facilities and went about their business.   At the time of the contravention the appellant was not displaying a valid permit, and nor did they have pre-authorisation to park their vehicle in the car park as they were not on the exemption list and therefore agreed to pay a parking charge.  

 

The Appellant states the charge has been issued at the wrong location. The site is an extremely large housing development that has been built on what used to be a football ground called Plough Lane. The location on the parking charge refers to the name of the site and not the address. The road in question is a small private road within the development that provides two loading bays for residents and access to the underground resident’s car park as can be seen in the site photos. One of the developer's plans is inluced confirming the site is called Plough Lane.  

 

The Appellant states the driver was not given a grace period. As per the BPA code of practice 13.6 “Neither a consideration period or a grace period are periods of free parking…”, the contravention photos show the driver did not review the terms and conditions, the drive left the vehicle parked on site to go to the Co-op.  

 

The Appellant states the signs do not meet the requirement of the ICO Code of Practice, the signs provide information on data rights as can be seen in site photo 2.

 

The Appellant refers to an ANPR system, the site is managed through CCTV, this is advised on the signs displayed on site: CCTV/ANPR and/or mobile patrol parking

 

The Appellant states there is no planning permission for the camera to be pole mounted, the camera is attached to the wall. The Appellant states there is no advertising consent for the signs, the signs are not required to have advertising consent.

 

The Appellant states the signs are difficult to read whilst driving, the driver is not expected to read the signs whilst driving. If having parked the driver reviewed the terms and conditions and decided to leave, they may have done so without charge. The driver made not attempt to review the terms and conditions prior to leaving the vehicle parked on site. It is the driver’s responsibility to ensure they are parked in accordance with the terms. If they are unable to do so they should either, make alternative parking arrangements or otherwise agree to pay a parking charge. If the driver is unsure, our number is on the boards and the signs are BPA approved. As the driver has not been named, One Parking Solution Ltd are seeking keeper liability.

Hopefully this posts with paragraphs.

Any help most welcome. I'll post the other information as well.