Stanmer Park, One Parking Solution Ltd

MikeJE

Since OPSL issued a PCN on 3 Jan, matters have progressed through their debt collectors and more recently solicitors. We have consistently refused to "play their game" by lodging any appeals whatsoever. 
Throughout this time, several FOI queries to B&HCC have repeated the same question - Is the road in Stanmer Park a "highway maintainable at public expense"?
Two B&HCC solicitors have failed to answer this simple question, but made irrelevant statements that the road is a "bridleway" - which incidentally is contrary to Ordnance Survey maps.
"The National Street Gazetteer"  is  "used by local authorities, statutory undertakers, contractors and anyone who needs to work with official street information in England and Wales" .  Stanmer Park is USRN 4405041 (User Street Reference Number) .  It seems that the information (updated by highway authorities on a monthly basis) is deliberately obscure. It is apparent that Stanmer Park was a public highway - then B&HCC conveniently appointed OPSL to manage "private" parking - before the  recent TRO  was made by B&HCC - as the highway authority.
We have finally received one crucial FOI response confirming the road is a "highway maintainable at public expense".  In that case I assert that B&HCC acted unlawfully (or ultra vires)  in engaging OPSL  Incidentally, I have no doubt that where the Council has properly appointed OPSL to manage parking on legitimately  "private land" then their  "parking charge notices" ("invoices") are likely to be enforceable. However there are cases where appeals appear to have been successful (inadequate signage etc) 
The matter is now complicated because the latest TRO took effect on 19 Feb - at which time B&HCC say their contract with OPSL contract was terminated. 
The Council website includes an exhaustive list of its contracts with its suppliers. This includes an outdated contract for £21 million  for parking enforcement in the city. OPSL is not shown anywhere on the list.  The Council's auditors might wish to investigate why the Council has not received any of its 0% payable by OPSL
I have suggested to the Council that all PCN invoices issued by OPSL, and actually paid by innocent visitors, should now be refunded. I am in touch with The Argus and a B&HCC councillor to press for this.

Umkomaas

I'm sure @Coupon-mad will be very interested in this. 

Coupon-mad

The matter is now complicated because the latest TRO took effect on 19 Feb - at which time B&HCC say their contract with OPSL contract was terminated. 

No it wasn't.  Stanmer Park itself was crossed off the Housing Contract, but...

The History:
Stanmer Park (Stony Mere Way, the road) was arbitrarily added a few years ago to the BHCC Housing Contract despite it not being housing.

Astonishingly, BHCC continue to contract with OPS at all their Council housing - loads of sites - and OPS were continuing to issue NTKs at all these places saying that the registered keeper was liable.  Not true of course.  I seem to recall your PCN was in the Winter and after OPS were told by the BPA to stop using POFA NTKs at Stanmer Park so this didn't happen to you, they were not alleging keeper liability in your case.

The new twist:
In its infinite wisdom, BHCC has decided to let OPS loose in Stanmer Village now (the area at the top of Stanmer Park) a site not previously subject to permits, and the residents are up in arms about their rights and easements being removed.  The journalist may want to speak to those victims now because this is not over.

The Local Authorities Ombudsman:
I assume you have enough info to present to the Local Authorities Ombudsman once BHCC tell you that you have exhausted their complaints procedure.  I have another person who has grounds to join you in the complaint and she was misled by a POFA NTK in 2019 and she wasn't driving (never liable in law).  So her case is massive.

MikeJE

26 May 21
Brief correction to CouponMad. Stony Mere Way isn't the Stanmer Park access road. It is the E-W highway at the south end of the access road (linking the A27 with the university).
Despite an undertaking, from an apparently senior individual in the B&HCC FOI section, to investigate our many outstanding FOI requests, there has been no response to date. Following numerous emailed Covid excuses, several responses are now due in early June.
FOI problems (ie failure to respond etc)  are a matter for the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) .
The "Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman" (LGSCO) deals with maladministration "causing injustice"  We haven't paid any "invoices" and so, in theory, haven't suffered injustice.  My intention, to campaign on behalf of others who have paid the unlawful OPSL "invoices" may not be admissible? 
 
  

Coupon-mad

Stony Mere Way is the road that runs right through the park and up to the church, the plant nursery, Stanmer House and Stanmer Village at the top:

https://goo.gl/maps/H6ZKPgMQnL5wySWW8

Maybe we mean the same thing but it's that road that OPS were ticketing cars on and is now subject to a Traffic Order.  The E-W road is University Way.

  We haven't paid any "invoices" and so, in theory, haven't suffered injustice.  

You will be sued though. That's pretty unjust.  As is harassment.

ParkingMad

The BHCC Highways map shows Stony Mere Way marked as bridleway BW B51:

https://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/content/highway-search-information-map

However there is vehicular access for residents and businesses in Stanmer Village, for visitor access to the new Patchway car park and for the B&H no 78 bus service. Stony Mere Way is also subject to a Traffic Regulation Order. 

https://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2020-12/TRO-2-2020%20Stanmer%20Park%20Order.pdf

Coupon-mad

Not a bridleway then.

In various replies to MPs and complaints, BHCC have referred to Stanmer Park as 'housing land' (nope), 'environmental land' (not with a Traffic Order now re-issued) and 'private land owned by the Council' (no such thing when the public are invited) among other explanations to try to make the complainants think there is nothing to see here.

The poor folk who live in Stanmer Village at the top, now have OPS signs up for the first time at a place where they always had rights or easements to park.  The village cottages are really old, so I'd suggest they had an easement by prescription due to usage for vehicular access, rights of way and parking for more than 20 years. 

Bluefeather

The tarmac is in part is a loop. On approach only the right side is bridleway. This is not all. The village section of loop with bus stop and most of the right route have lampposts and highway signs. In the last year or so some highway signs removed as cases lost due to confusion caused by the mixed signage. 
Unfortunately BHCC have not classified the roads correctly and I'd begun a request for it to be changed as it's this that the courts will look to. 
Had ticket cancelled before I got as far as filling out the request.
Byway Open to All Traffic is how it should be on the official record and this would be automatically assigned for most of it when BOAT was set out in statute.
Unless have strong case otherwise to have road correctly classified is a citizens right and it goes to a sitting committee to be decided.

BHCC will argue until a court rules otherwise that Stanmer is a private estate and so maintaining the roads is not at public expense.

My response to this was rather than risk losing this in court better have this decided by having the road classified correctly

The highway running through Stanmer Park is classified as a bridleway in the Council’s Definitive Map & Statement of Public Rights of Way in Brighton & Hove. Under section 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 it is an offence to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle on a bridleway without lawful authority. Lawful authority includes permission from the landowner.

The Council as the owner of Stanmer Park allows residents of Stanmer Village, staff and visitors to drive on the bridleway.

If reclassification of the bridleway to a BOAT were to be considered which in 2006 was automatic if therr was a history of vehicle use so the provisions of section 67 of the Natural Environment & Rural Communities Act 2006 would apply. 

Request an application for a definitive map modification order as that will the place to have this rattled through in the first instance. 

MikeJE

Hi all
Apologies, I don't review MSE posts very often.
Our situation today is as follows:

• QDR Solicitors have notified us that they have returned their file to debt collectors ZZPS.
• ZZPS have also stated that their file has been returned to OPSL
• OPSL have, rather unsurprisingly said nothing. 

Our complaint to the LG&SC Ombudsman (26 July) has been accepted and is progressing.(ref 21 006 185)
NB :  Our complaint is not against OPSL. It is against B&HCC for maladministration......

Finally, I have asked the Ombudsman to rule that historic unlawful "fines" (invoices) should be returned to those unable or unwilling to fight : (90% by OPSL and 10% by B&HCC - retrospective contractual payments from OPSL) 
BUT this might not be within their powers ?

Incidentally, of the two B&HCC solicitors involved, one has left and the other appears to be on long term leave of absence.

Rose has departed The Argus and  they now appear to be disinterested ? 

Unfortunately, Coupon-mad and ParkingMad above have both misinterpreted the B&HCC map. It is just possible to see "Stony Mere Way"  on the yellow road running SW-NE. (I have a more legible copy). However, the various classifications of the highway now appear to be largely irrelevant. A bridleway is still a public highway !

ParkingMad

The point I was making was that the road running through Stanmer Park, from the entrance to Stanmer Village, was referred to as Stony Mere Way on the contract between BHCC and OPS, and was the roadway that OPS were contracted to enforce. I have no idea whether that is the name of the road, or whether it is actually BW B51, as shown the BHCC map. 

patient_dream

MikeJE said:

Hi all
Apologies, I don't review MSE posts very often.
Our situation today is as follows:

• QDR Solicitors have notified us that they have returned their file to debt collectors ZZPS.
• ZZPS have also stated that their file has been returned to OPSL
• OPSL have, rather unsurprisingly said nothing. 

Why would QDR return the files to ZZPS ?
ZZPS could not have instructed QDR as it's not their debt and never will be

But the fun part starts here ... ZZPS have also returned the file to OPSL.   ?

If it continues, will OPSL attempt to claim the fake £60 that ZZPS likes to add on ?

And which other legal will chance their luck with this

ZZPS ARE COMPLETE HISTORY in this unfolding saga, they were never part of it anyway, sad, they thought they were