NTK from Private Road unloading - POPLA decisions now in.

D_P_Dance

Some people like to concentrate on a single point, others to include the kitchen sink.

Fruitcake

It is quite normal for a victim to return to the scene of the scam at a later date and take a closer look at the site and signage.
What that revealed would in all likelihood to be significantly different when viewed from close up in good light compared to the view from a car's driving seat whilst the vehicle was in motion.

ParkerstNick

Fruitcake said:

It is quite normal for a victim to return to the scene of the scam at a later date and take a closer look at the site and signage.
What that revealed would in all likelihood to be significantly different when viewed from close up in good light compared to the view from a car's driving seat whilst the vehicle was in motion.

True. It seemed in the twilight to be a public road with DYL on one side and parking prohibited on the 6 foot or so of private frontage of each units. The 'private land' sign was only spotted on a subsequent visit when looking out for any such thing.

SayNoToPCN

A sign can be both forbidding and have elements you can't read. 

ParkerstNick

It's just dawned on me from looking at the title plans, that the freeholders alone own the road in front of each unit. The leasehold titles only cover the buildings. So only the freeholders can have given authority to the PPC. 

The 9 units are located on 5 contiguous freehold parcels, and the freeholds are owned by 2 separate landowners (one party owns 2, another party owns 3).

All the 5 freehold parcels of land are monitored by one entrance ANPR. This means that the PPC do not know which specific freehold anyone parks on. Maybe this is too much of a fine legal point, but do you think that make it impossible for the PPC to 'specify the relevant land' as required by POFA? Where the NTK simply says the location is XXX Road, that could refer to any one of 5 different freehold locations.

Also, one of the freehold parcels has no signage at all. Could it be that restrictions are therefore not enforceable on this one parcel? Which in turn means that as the PPC cannot show on which parcel any parking event took place they cannot prove that it was one where there was adequare signage?

Umkomaas

Anything that makes life difficult for a PPC in court is fair game. But I do think you need some documentary evidence to back up your position - like statements from the freeholders (or at least one if you can't get two). 

ParkerstNick

Umkomaas said:

Anything that makes life difficult for a PPC in court is fair game. But I do think you need some documentary evidence to back up your position - like statements from the freeholders (or at least one if you can't get two). 

I have copies of title plans that show the various separate ownerships. But isn't the onus on the PPC to evidence all written landowner authority?

Fruitcake

Rather than ask the questions you posed in your post above, turn them into statements then put the scammers to proof that the contrary is true. Include any proof in your WS that you can come up with.

Umkomaas

ParkerstNick said:

Umkomaas said:

Anything that makes life difficult for a PPC in court is fair game. But I do think you need some documentary evidence to back up your position - like statements from the freeholders (or at least one if you can't get two). 

I have copies of title plans that show the various separate ownerships. But isn't the onus on the PPC to evidence all written landowner authority?

It is, but if you don't think they are producing all written authority, you will need to be able to back up your position, otherwise you could make up impossible scenarios for the claimant to prove, with you winning if they can't. 

ParkerstNick

Fruitcake said:

Rather than ask the questions you posed in your post above, turn them into statements then put the scammers to proof that the contrary is true. Include any proof in your WS that you can come up with.

Yes. I'm only really asking the questions here to get an opinion on whether they are worth running with.