Stanmer Park Brighton, Private parking fine...

Bluefeather

www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/674115/response/1608530/attach/3/BHCC%2520OPS%252001.07.19%252030.09.19.pdf

Contract 

Bluefeather

points from contract 

only owner/drivers to be penalised
which shows BHCC POFA aware. 
no charge for Blue Badge and others 

1.10 important for verge users as these vehicles should be moved to a parking space and then a PCN issued. Arguably on verge they are an obstruction not parked without permit/payment 

1.7 rules on PCN issue. Grace period must be pictures before and after. 

1.6.9 has been drafted in a hurry !!!!!! illegally parked. Two wheels mentioned twice. Then only two wheel and criteria a to e  constitutes illegal parking. 
again illegal . what law is broken by parking since it was decriminalised?

nosferatu1001

Owner has nothing to do with POFA. Maybe read POFA before claiming otherwise
Obstruction is stil criminal and enforcement is down to the police. You read the TMA2004 yes? 

Bluefeather

nosferatu1001 said:

Owner has nothing to do with POFA. Maybe read POFA before claiming otherwise
Obstruction is stil criminal and enforcement is down to the police. You read the TMA2004 yes? 

 read the contract. stop jumping on my neck. they use the words obstruction. everything in the above post in context of the contract you were so curious about.
however your misunderstanding is obviously founded on not being able to read statutes 

TMA not relevant at Stanmer other than Stony Mere and in TRO consultation 2020. Obstruction is in Highways Act. 

Bluefeather

OP cannot rely on contract breaches directly see the agreement OPS BHCC.
Would a District Judge look into terms of the contract beyond the land not being under PPC control or relevant land.
Certainly in regards verge parking the contract is clumsy giving rights to PPC to charge owner/drivers for misuse of BHCC land in it's "two wheels or more" and criteria list. 

It's a claim for damages from breach of contract possibly. 

Some forum members may confuse contracts
the land use for parking terms (on signs) 
land use for car parking control terms duscussed here. 

nosferatu1001

So you agree owner isn't relevant to POFA? Simple yes or no.  

I'm sure you're the expert here with your...9 posts. 

I'm aware obstruction is in the highways act. Section 137. You didn't seem to be aware, as you referenced the TMA. You had claimed obstruction was decrim when it wasn't. 

Coupon-mad

OPS stopped issuing POFA NTKs at Stanmer Park, in the Autumn when the BPA told them to issue non-POFA ones.

The signage is utterly woeful.

Bluefeather

Is OPS in fact agent for BHCC given that they (BHCC) are stating terms and conditions to be applied in the car parks?

Bluefeather

nosferatu1001 said:

So you agree owner isn't relevant to POFA? Simple yes or no.  

I'm sure you're the expert here with your...9 posts. 

I'm aware obstruction is in the highways act. Section 137. You didn't seem to be aware, as you referenced the TMA. You had claimed obstruction was decrim when it wasn't. 

You are arguing with yourself in some vanity project to protect your ego. Read the contract I had to find for you despite it being under your fingertips. In that they mention obstructions and from that my post progressed. You then start waving statutes around in some cod inflation of your self esteeem. All in front of the readers here. On me pointing out you in fact have your underpants waving in the air has set you to claiming it's me that's exposed my flaws.

Sorry to disappoint it's only you bringing in the TMA as an issue and, absent an authority, yours and only your dirty pants are out in public. 

D_P_Dance

I like this chap Bluefeather he/she takes no prisoners.   However, a word of advice from one who knows, read my signature.