NTK from Private Road unloading - POPLA decisions now in.

Le_Kirk · 7 April 2021 at 5:31PM

ParkerstNick said:

This is clear from several cases. In PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], residents were parking on access roads. The signage forbade parking and so no contract was in place. A trespass had occurred, but that meant only the landowner could claim, not the parking company.

The proper Latin term is et al and NOT et all. Also, I think you could change: -

only the landowner could claim, not the parking company.

to: -

only the landowner could sue claim, not the parking company.

ParkerstNick · 7 April 2021 at 5:38PM

Le_Kirk said:

ParkerstNick said:

This is clear from several cases. In PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], residents were parking on access roads. The signage forbade parking and so no contract was in place. A trespass had occurred, but that meant only the landowner could claim, not the parking company.

The proper Latin term is et al and NOT et all. Also, I think you could change: -

only the landowner could claim, not the parking company.
to: -
only the landowner could sue claim, not the parking company.

Not my text. Sorry, have now added attribution.

Question still is, is this a valid argument?

ParkerstNick · 7 April 2021 at 5:53PM

This argument seems to have been used succesfully in this case:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=125996&st=0

which also refers to the Masterson case.

ParkerstNick · 8 April 2021 at 8:37AM

OK, so I appealed against the NTK on the ECP website on 5/4/21 using just the standard paragraphs from the template, and this has been acknowledged.

Haven't given up on Plan A, but seems a bit fruitless at the moment.

Here's a copy of the NTK (no window ticket) which seems to be OK:

Image: https://us-noi.v-cdn.net/6031891/uploads/editor/5e/pu0rjq7itvnr.jpg

Umkomaas · 8 April 2021 at 8:41AM

That is a PoFA-compliant NtK.

Coupon-mad · 8 April 2021 at 10:06AM

Interesting that it only shows the car there for the twelve minutes when unloaded something at night. So forget the first visit, don't mention it to POPLA.

A good winning point would be a POPLA appeal with lots of pohotos in pitch black (NOT just early evening light please) and a video of how the road looks at night, walk along it carrying your phone and show that the signs are invisible in the dark.

That's another reason why not to mention the daytime visit.

ParkerstNick · 8 April 2021 at 10:30AM

Coupon-mad said:

Interesting that it only shows the car there for the twelve minutes when unloaded something at night. So forget the first visit, don't mention it to POPLA.

A good winning point would be a POPLA appeal with lots of pohotos in pitch black (NOT just early evening light please) and a video of how the road looks at night, walk along it carrying your phone and show that the signs are invisible in the dark.

That's another reason why not to mention the daytime visit.

I wonder whether they don't bother having the camera on during the day and just switch it on when they leave at night. There will be customers and goods deliveries to the units during the day and it might just be too much hassle to keep authorising different vehicles from 9 different units to the PPC every day.

The timing is bang on the end of what is called 'Civil Twilight' and so I can return at that corresponding time on any date and take photos in pretty much exactly the same conditions. The signs don't appeat to be illuminated and there is no street lighting. Anyway, more to come on signage.

ParkerstNick · 8 April 2021 at 11:12AM

OK. On to signage.

The layout is slightly convoluted so here's an annotated plan.

I actually started with a title plan of Unit 4 from the Land Registry so it shows their title in red. Interestingly, from this it seems that each of the 9 individual units own the bit of road in front of them. I haven't yet been able to find out whether they operate in concert through a management company to instruct the PPC.

Our flat development is shown in green. Most allocated parking spaces are in a covered area in the middle, and there are a few down the side of the front block. Interestingly, access to all of these is over the first part of the adjoining private road, though this is probably not germain to our matter. We don't have an allocated space and parking on this development is controlled by PCM but this is not relevant to our PCN which is with ECP, except that there may be some potential for confusion between the 2 companies' signage. PCM signage is notated as 1-7 on the plan.

The private road (confirmed with Council), a cul-de-sac at left, is shown in orange with the light industrial units beyond. ECP signage is notated as A-J and H on the plan. ANPR is on pole on front of Unit 2.

I will post photos separately but here are my initial observations:

1) DYL down the left of the private road are not accompanied by any yellow plates and there are no kerbside blips.
2) ECP signage is positioned only on the right hand side of the private road, and only starts part way down it. No road markings down right hand side.

3) There is ECP signage on the front of units 1-5 and 9, but not 6,7,8. Maybe these don't participate in the PPC arrangement? Some of them look decidedly empty, but I am searching to see if I can find any extant businesses operating from these.

Many thanks to all.