Parking News - JUDICIAL REVIEW - here we go again

Coupon-mad

Thanks to @ParkingMad accessed Parking Review for the article and this link to Parking Review:

https://edition.pagesuite.com/html5/reader/production/default.aspx?pubname=&edid=37ffd2b0-358b-42d6-a453-6086ddf60a7a&pnum=8

I am guessing they will come back and try again when the decision is finalised.  And there will be more delay. 

Meanwhile, it doesn't take a genius, but maybe a cynic, to guess that the BPA behind the scenes could well be actively lobbying all its LA members, to get evidence of congested parking areas in order to protest that £50/£25 is too low for Local Authority PCNs and needs reviewing...even though it doesn't and this is not an proportionate response or appropriate time to do it to the public.

This will always be the danger of basing private PCNs on LA levels, that the BPA hold both strings.

beamerguy

ParkingMad said:

A number of operators, led by ParkingEye, sought a Judicial Review of the plan. However, the High Court declined the request on the grounds that there has been no decision to judicially review.

Government needs to make a NO BRAINER decision .....

1: PROTECT MILLIONS OF VOTERS / MOTORISTS
2: LISTEN TO A NUMBER OF GREEDY PARKING COMPANNIES

No1knowsM3

Nuddmann said:

Coupon-mad said:

Thanks to friend who found there is a free link on Twitter, here is the direct link to the April edition of Parking Review:

Lots of stuff about the Code, lots of toys being thrown out of the pram. 

Who are they trying to kid, that the majority of the 'public' who sent in cut & paste replies to the MHCLG consultation wanting a 40% discount (that the example 3 tiers didn't even use!) were not parking firm directors, their employees and their relatives and friends?  They must think the MHCLG Ministers were born yesterday. 

They also perpetuate the myth that a deterrent is all about an ever higher & disproportionate penalty that will bring 'rogue parkers' into line. 

Hmmm...

There are also a few other interesting articles in that Parking Review edition, as an aside:

- APCOA have taken over the contract for a lot of railway car parks (noticed in the South by a friend, who saw that SABA were no longer on a sign and APCOA were).

- Epping Forest is introducing car parking charges despite 75% of people not wanting them.  And the City of London is using a private firm who are issuing £100/£60 parking charges (not proper LA process, then).  I wonder who the PPC is at Epping Forest and whether their NTKs are mentioning the POFA 2012 despite this not being relevant land.

I live in the EFDC area. The parking is managed by North Essex parking Partners, which is a council run body. They use LA enforcement officers, not a PPC, unless something has changed very recently. When I appealed a parking ticket, it was via the council system. 

if it has changed and a PPC is involved, I'll get this forum out onto my town's business FB page and cause EFDC a headache. 

The most recent chat re parking enforcement in the area all points away from a PPC being involved. 

The new car park charges are given by a PPC - I got one this weekend!

"Horizon Parking" - a BPA company and all around shady customer from what people say (no surprises there).

Coupon-mad is right: the PCN (note - "Parking" not "Penalty") is for £100, with a bribe down to £60 if you pay within 2 weeks. The charge is normally £1.50 per hour (or less the more hours you stay), so obviously a £100 charge is extortionate.

The signage is poor - no clear sign on the way in, just two small signs in the car park, one of which you only drive past on the way out. Image below is lifted from google maps. References to payments (not at the top where they should be but below paragraphs of tiny text) are underlined in red - not sure if it's clear from this picture but this sign and the font on it is too small to notice/read from a car.

Needless to say, I won't be paying without a fight. I will let you all know how it goes if there is interest.

If anyone has tried to challenge one of these before - let me know! It seems like the City of London Corporation owns the land and is in favour of these charges so I can't go down that route.

No1knowsM3

Coupon-mad said:

- Epping Forest is introducing car parking charges despite 75% of people not wanting them.  And the City of London is using a private firm who are issuing £100/£60 parking charges (not proper LA process, then).  I wonder who the PPC is at Epping Forest and whether their NTKs are mentioning the POFA 2012 despite this not being relevant land.

The PPC is "Horizon Parking". I will tell you what is in their NTKs if and when I get one.

Can you explain what you mean by "not relevant land"? And importantly, if they get this wrong, is it grounds for getting it thrown out if worst comes to worst and they take me to small claims?

Redx

The law named POFA has distinctions between private land ( relevant land ) compared to the following non relevant land ( no relevance under POFA in England and Wales ) where laws and bylaws apply

Non relevant land includes

Local authority land

Public roads
Highways agency roads

Airports
Ports
Railway land which is now Great British Railways ( was or is Network rail , previously Railtrack )

Nobody can predict the outcome in a Civil court , especially not small claims

Coupon-mad

This will be easy.

Horizon don't use POFA wording anyway in their postal PCNs, but it is also not 'relevant land' (POFA definition - Google it) due to it being under statutory control.

The Newbies thread tells the KEEPER what to do and what not to say.

No1knowsM3

Thank you RedX and Coupon-mad, much appreciated!

I have read the newbie thread and will be following the instructions.

MothballsWallet

beamerguy said:

ParkingMad said:

A number of operators, led by ParkingEye, sought a Judicial Review of the plan. However, the High Court declined the request on the grounds that there has been no decision to judicially review.

Government needs to make a NO BRAINER decision .....

1: PROTECT MILLIONS OF VOTERS / MOTORISTS
2: LISTEN TO A NUMBER OF GREEDY PARKING COMPANNIES

Aren't you assuming that the UK government actually has brains?

I mean, Boris is already promising to send our servicemen and women into Ukraine to die for Joe Biden....

No1knowsM3

Coupon-mad said:

This will be easy.

Horizon don't use POFA wording anyway in their postal PCNs, but it is also not 'relevant land' (POFA definition - Google it) due to it being under statutory control.

The Newbies thread tells the KEEPER what to do and what not to say.

Maybe a stupid question, but does "not relevant POFA land" mean they can't pursue either the driver (assuming that the driver has not been identified) or keeper? This would be my uneducated understanding.

Given this (and it may be worth adding the answer to this to the newbies thread): should I even bother appealing the PCN to Horizon or POPLA?

Also a quick note - it wasn't a postal PCN but rather a windscreen PCN.

Jenni_D

With all due respect - this isn't your thread. (And I'm surprised nobody picked you up on this previously). Please start your own new thread if you still require help after reading the NEWBIES FAQ.