i-Park NFU Mutual Penrith

Fruitcake

No, planning permission and advertising consent are completely different things and need separate applications and approval.
Planning permission is needed for poles with scameras, advertising consent is needed for signs greater than 0.3m2 (except things like entrance exit signs, building names etcetera) whether they be on the scamera poles, walls, or stand alone. The total number of signs and their position must be part of the consent.

Planning permission can be granted retrospectively, but advertising consent cannot.

Castle

Here's the relevant act for advertising on signs:-
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/783/contents/made

Fruitcake

I don't think enough is made of the PoFA paragraph 12 with regard to lack of advertising consent for signs.

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.

I would suggest that the Town and Country Planning Act and advertising consent approval from local Government/Councils constitute national authority and statutory instruments.

vivaespana

Fruitcake said:

I don't think enough is made of the PoFA paragraph 12 with regard to lack of advertising consent for signs.

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.

I would suggest that the Town and Country Planning Act and advertising consent approval from local Government/Councils constitute national authority and statutory instruments.

Thanks Fruitcake, very interesting!
I have asked the local Councillor if he can follow up on the advertising consent angle, but not yet heard back. I will chase it up using the info you have provided. 
Thanks again. 

vivaespana

Hello all, update on the ongoing sagas at Penrith .........
Today I received the expected rejection for my appeal to i-park.
This was my appeal.......

I dispute your “parking charge”, as the keeper of the vehicle. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner and the MP Dr Neil Hudson.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. Since your PCN is a vague template, I require a full explanation of the allegation and your evidence. You must include a close up actual photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the material date as well as your images of the vehicle.

If the allegation involves an alleged overstay of minutes, your evidence must include the actual grace period agreed by the landowner.

The area is wrongly marked if you are claiming that it is a no-stopping zone. There is not a clear boundary edge let alone double red lines.

There is no keeper liability for “stopping” because the POFA rights only flow from contractually agreed parking events.

(Please note that none of your options for “reason for appeal” were appropriate, but as I was forced to select one, I did.)
And this was their impressively lengthy but still confusing reply: (attached file hopefully).
They seem to have included a photograph of every sign but of course not all of them (if any) are visible from the location of the vehicle in question.  
Somebody from the facebook group set up for just this location posted a very useful video of driving into the location and the visibility of the signs:
https://1drv.ms/v/s!Ao9VjAl2vjQJn4Mdt2DlzJHH25qjbw?e=EWcK8x
A couple of things that still stand out in my mind:
The location is just listed as Cromwell Road which I believe is a public road.  Yet i-Park refer to a private road in their reply and on the signs, should they therefore be more specific as to the exact location?
Also, the PCN was issued for stopping in a no stopping zone, yet in their reply they say there is not stopping, waiting or parking but then go on to say "if you stop you are contractually agreeing to pay a parking charge (£100?), so is there parking or is there not??? In any case, the larger signs only refer to stopping. 
Perhaps these are issues that would be argued later in court?
Furthermore, I still have read mixed messages about appealing to the IAS. I do believe it is probably a waste of my time, but some have said that it would ultimately show the court that you attempted to resolve the matter.
I must note that apparently McDonald's has now put up much clearer signs to warn of the PCNs.
Lastly, the local councillor for the area, Jonathan Davies, posted this on the FB group...

Something i have come across and am looking into now with the Information Commissioners Office.

I Park Services ltd are registered with the information commissioner yet the address registered with the ICO is not linked to the details on the website in anyway neither is the name of the data controller for the business.

This has led me to look in detail at the payment system for fines on the website in details.

When you press the link on iparkservices.co.uk you are with no notice directed to an external payment firm branded up as ipark on a different domain https://ipsl.ec6pay.com. this payment site branded as ipark contains no GDPR or privacy information and also the options to appeal tickets on the page does nothing.

As a result i believe but needs legal confirmation that the penalty payments site used for I Park Services Ltd is not GDPR compliant and thus operating in a way that goes against regulations in the UK.

"If they have the front door water tight always check the back door for a cat flap to get them is my theory "

So once I know whether or not to follow the IAS route, the only other thing it seems is to write to the MP whilst awaiting the process to get to court????
Thanks everyone in advance. 

Umkomaas

Others might wish to comment too, but if the local MP is taking such keen interest, a fail at the IAS, where all their PPC-centric excuses for dismissing your appeal become apparent, then it might fire him up even more. 

It's not the direct result you might be seeking, but sometimes it's the losing little battles that are necessary attrition in winning wars!

Coupon-mad

That's a really good video, can someone save it in case it gets taken down from FB? That can be used in defending court cases.

Umkomaas

Somebody from the facebook group set up for just this location posted a very useful video of driving into the location and the visibility of the signs:
https://1drv.ms/v/s!Ao9VjAl2vjQJn4Mdt2DlzJHH25qjbw?e=EWcK8x

Video well worth watching. A glowing example of how sites are set up for consumer failure.

Coupon-mad

That giant bin is perfectly positioned!

vivaespana

The chap who produced the video has a copy that he is willing to make available to anybody that needs it.