Parking Ticket - First Point of Contact - Mention permission of the shop ?

Coupon-mad

No, because POPLA won't look at links or random quotes alone.

Quote and also upload the whole case transcript.   Make sure POPLA know it was on appeal and therefore not just another County Court level case.

I also challenge you to find Lord Neuberger's words from Moncrieff which is less easy to find and takes more Googling.

homi

Coupon-mad said:

No, because POPLA won't look at links or random quotes alone.

Quote and also upload the whole case transcript.   Make sure POPLA know it was on appeal and therefore not just another County Court level case.

I also challenge you to find Lord Neuberger's words from Moncrieff which is less easy to find and takes more Googling.

Thanks , will copy and insert the whole transcript . 
Re - Found this but not too sure if I fully understand it  .

Accordingly, it seems to me that, on the respondents' case, a right to park could only be prevented from being a servitude or an easement if it resulted in the servient owner either being effectively excluded from the whole of the land in question or being left without any reasonable use of that land. If the right to park a vehicle in an area that can hold twenty vehicles is capable of being a servitude or an easement, then it would logically follow that the same conclusion should apply to an area that can hold two vehicles. On that basis, it can be said to be somewhat contrary to common sense that the arrangement is debarred from being a servitude or an easement simply because the parties have chosen to identify a precise space in the area, over which the right is to be exercised, and the space is just big enough to hold the vehicle. Also, presumably on the respondents' case, such a right would indeed be capable of being a servitude or an easement if the servient owner had the right to change the location of the precise space within the area from time to time. At least as at present advised, I am not satisfied that a right is prevented from being a servitude or an easement simply because the right granted would involve the servient owner being effectively excluded from the property. In this connection, the Privy Council in Attorney-General of Southern Nigeria v John Holt & Company (Liverpool) Limited [1915] AC 599 at 617 appears to have held that a right to store materials on land could be an easement although it involved the dominant owner enjoying an 'exclusive' right to enjoy the property concerned. … Further, the Court of Appeal in Wright v Macadam [1949] 2 KB 744 held that an apparently exclusive right to store coal in a small shed was capable of being an easement.. Further, as Lord Rodger pointed out during argument in this case, a right of aqueduct (or water rights) or a right of drainage is often granted over a specific route, so that that route may often be the full extent of the servient tenement. In such a case, the servient owner is effectively excluded from the whole of his tenement, yet such a right has always been assumed to be capable of constituting a valid servitude or easement .. Accordingly, I see considerable force in the views expressed by Lord Scott in paras 57 and 59 of his opinion, to the effect that a right can be an easement notwithstanding that the dominant owner effectively enjoys exclusive occupation, on the basis that the essential requirement is that the servient owner retains possession and control. If that were the right test, then it seems likely that Batchelor v Marlow was wrongly decided. However, unless it is necessary to decide the point to dispose of this appeal, I consider that it would be dangerous to try and identify degree of ouster is required to disqualify a right from constituting a servitude or easement, given the very limited argument your Lordships have received on the topic."

 

homi

Found this  by searching the forum .

1. In the case of Moncrieff, Lord Neuberger defined parking as longer term/leaving of a vehicle for a period of time, and this definition was echoed more recently at a County Court Appeal case, regarding a very similar unfair/predatory parking charge, where HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) held that life at a block of flats would be 'unworkable' if people were penalised for brief stopping to unload close to a block of flats.

Coupon-mad

I prefer  to quote the 'parking is to leave for a longer term basis' words from 105 and 123 of Moncrieff:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5522820/claim-form-pcm-gladstones/p6

homi

Coupon-mad said:

I prefer  to quote the 'parking is to leave for a longer term basis' words from 105 and 123 of Moncrieff:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5522820/claim-form-pcm-gladstones/p6

Thanks again , how would I go about heading it . I qouted your from the thread  but not too sure if ould this work . 
---

Parking vs Loading . 

Case of Moncrieff V Jamieson 

Lord Neuberger discussed 'a right to park vehicles (i.e. to station them on a longer term basis)' as being different from unloading, which flows from an implied easement in a lease, as part of an implied right of way.

105. I have had the privilege of reading in draft the opinions of my noble and learned friends, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Scott of Foscote, both of whom have set the history of this unfortunate matter. I agree with them that this appeal should be dismissed substantially for the reasons they give. However, not least because my mind has changed, I would like to express in my own words the reasons for my conclusion on the central issue. That issue is whether the conveyance of Da Store together with ‘a right of access from the branch public road through Sandsound’ in the disposition of 3 September 1973 (“the Disposition”) carried with it the right in the purchasers to park (by which I mean to leave on a relatively long term basis) motor vehicles on the servient tenement, i.e. on the land retained by the vendors. 

123. Sixthly, effectively as a result of the first four factors I have mentioned, it has been rightly accepted throughout by the appellants that the servitude not only extends to the coming and going of motor vehicles along the way, but also includes the right to turn round such vehicles, and to station such vehicles for the purpose of loading and unloading (people and goods), and even for short term visits (e.g. reading the meters, carrying out work and the like). Because of the relatively narrow width of the way throughout, it would have been impractical to turn a vehicle without going onto the servient tenement beyond the way. Similarly, it might have been impractical (and indeed 54 unlawful, not least in the light of the fifth factor I have mentioned, to stop a vehicle on the way even for a relatively short period. Accordingly it must have been envisaged that vehicles visiting Da Store would turn, and from time to time be stationed, off the route of the way, on the servient tenement. That renders it much easier to conclude that it must also have been intended that there be a right to park vehicles (i.e. to station them on a longer term basis) near the end of the way, i.e. on the servient tenement.

Reference - 
https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldjudgmt/jd071017/jamie.pdf

Also See the Appeal case of Jopson V Homeguard 2016  B9GF0A9E Appeal 20 -  Neither party was able to direct the court to any authority on the meaning of the word “park”. However, the Shorter Oxford Dictionary has the following: “To leave a vehicle in a carpark or other reserved space” and “To leave in a suitable place until required.” The concept of parking, as opposed to stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it, and perhaps coping with some vicissitude of short duration, such as changing a wheel in the event of a puncture. Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it; otherwise traffic jams would consist of lines of parked cars. Delivery vans, whether for post, newspapers, groceries, or anything else, would not be accommodated on an interpretation which included vehicles stopping for a few moment for these purposes. Discussion in this area left the respondent in obvious difficulties, from which the attractive advocacy of Miss Fenwick was unable to rescue it. 21 Whether a car is parked, or simply stopped, or left for a moment while unloading, or (to take an example discussed in argument) accompanying a frail person inside, must be a question of fact or degree. I think in the end this was agreed. A milkman leaving his float to carry bottles to the flat would not be “parked”. Nor would a postman delivering letters, a wine merchant delivering a case of wine, and nor, I am satisfied, a retailer’s van, or indeed the appellant, unloading an awkward piece of furniture. Any other approach would leave life in the block of flats close to unworkable, a consideration 9 © Crown Copyright which those instructing Miss Fenwick seemed reluctant to accept. I am quite satisfied, and I find as a fact, that while the appellant’s car had been stationary for more than a minute and without its driver for the same period (whatever precisely it was), while she carried in her desk, it was not “parked”. Accordingly, for that reason too, the appellant was not liable to the charge stipulated in the respondent’s notice. REF - CM14P02455/CH13P02050 (wsimg.com)  

Coupon-mad

Yep, then add:

This was a decision by The House of Lords, which was the UK's highest court of appeal until 2009 and was then replaced by the Supreme Court.  The citations above are from Lord Neuberger.  I expect POPLA know his name because your service continues to labour under the misapprehension that the ParkingEye v Beavis case (where Lord Neuberger was President of the Supreme Court) is the only case from that level that deals with parking law.  It's not.  I trump your beloved Beavis case with the Moncrieff case and the latter has application in a case like mine where any stopping is brief and does not involve actually 'parking and leaving' the car, nor accepting and entering into a contract.  Kindly don't hit the button to quote Beavis at me.  This isn't a case that can be decided with POPLA's template 'computer says no' POPLA paragraph reliance on the only case your Sector Expert has told you about.  Moncrieff is the same level, please read the above definition of parking = 'leaving on a longer term basis').

homi

Coupon-mad said:

Yep, then add:

This was a decision by The House of Lords, which was the UK's highest court of appeal until 2009 and was then replaced by the Supreme Court.  The citations above are from Lord Neuberger.  I expect POPLA know his name because your service continues to labour under the misapprehension that the ParkingEye v Beavis case (where Lord Neuberger was President of the Supreme Court) is the only case from that level that deals with parking law.  It's not.  I trump your beloved Beavis case with the Moncrieff case and the latter has application in a case like mine where any stopping is brief and does not involve actually 'parking and leaving' the car, nor accepting and entering into a contract.  Kindly don't hit the button to quote Beavis at me.  This isn't a case that can be decided with POPLA's template 'computer says no' POPLA paragraph reliance on the only case your Sector Expert has told you about.  Moncrieff is the same level, please read the above definition of parking = 'leaving on a longer term basis').

Thanks its much appreciated , to be honest haven't got much experience writing formal letters so this has been quite a learning curve but trying my best  .

nosferatu1001

I would also use the Highway Code, which clearly shows that parking on double yellows is not permitted, whereas loading and unloading is. This shows there is a difference. 

homi

Just doing the final draft of the appeal and have noticed discrepancies in the dates from Park Watch .
I sent in the original Appeal on the 1st of December by email .
Park Watch sent me the  outcome on the 14th of December ( by email )but  the letter attached to the email  is dated at the 28th December 2020 . 

Is there any reason for this ?

nosferatu1001

No idea, any idea on your side?