parking signage - listed building consent

hullensien

Hi all
I've started a new thread because I think this is may be different to any other thread that I've looked at - but apologies if this is a repeat. This is not a single ticket issue, but hundreds (potentially thousands) of tickets have been unlawfully issued by 2 parking operators.
I am resident in a complex which comprises of some listed buildings. For at least the last 8 years to my knowledge the car park has been patrolled by at least 2 different operators. I have just been made aware that instruction has been issued by the local council planning team for the signage to be removed because Listed Building consent was not sought to erect the signage. Without the signage the operator can't operate!! 
Does this means that every ticket issued has been done so erroneously? If so is there any recourse for people who have paid to claim their money and costs back?
I am aware that Parking Eye withdrew 2 cases where planning permission was not sought. The defence centred on the illegal act to erect the signage, and that no man shall profit from his crime. Parking Eye decided not to test the defence.
Any thoughts please?

Fruitcake

You are right. This is one of the odd occasions where your case really is different, so thanks for starting this thread.

It is a criminal offence not to have Advertising Consent for signs greater than 0.3m2, but only the council can pursue it.

I am not familiar with Listed Building consent, but I would imagine similar requirements and laws apply.

I think the only way for anyone to get their money back would be to make a claim themselves. Whether this would be better as individuals or as a class action I don't know.
There are a couple of legally qualified posters who might be able to explain the law better, but nobody here is permitted to give legal advice.
Don't bother with CAB. They are good at some things but are clueless about unregulated parking scammers.
You would probably need to find a legal company familiar with contract law (but not one of the ones the parking scammers regularly use).

Complaints to the parking scammers, their ATAs (BPA and/or IPC), the DVLA, the DVLA KADOE team, the landowners, the ICO (for DPA/GDPR data breach) and MPs should be made, but don't hold your breath.
Local and national media might be interested, especially the Daily Mail. They love this sort of thing.

For a parking scammer to obtain keeper details they must be a member of an ATA, and must abide by the requirements of their KADOE contract with the DVLA.
In addition, the PoFA requires parking scammers to abide by signage permitted by statutory instrument. Advertising consent and Listed Building consent in accordance with the Town and Country Planning Act is definitely a statutory instrument. An Act of Parliament is the law.
I'm not sure what Act covers Listed Buildings, but I expect there is one somewhere.

I'll post info about the DVLA KADOE contract and the PoFA in a moment.

Fruitcake

DVLA KADOE agreement. All parking scammers must abide by this. I'll have a deeper look later, but there or several sections that I think will have been breached. The problem is that the DVLA are very reluctant to react to complaints (they never replied to mine from last year) in case it cuts off their revenue stream.

CONTRACT (publishing.service.gov.uk)

The PoFA 2012. 

Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (legislation.gov.uk)

Paragraph 12 sub paragraphs (2) and (3) including (3) (c). (My highlighting).

12 (1)The fourth condition is that any applicable requirements prescribed under this paragraph were met at the beginning of the period of parking to which the unpaid parking charges relate.

(2)The appropriate national authority may by regulations made by statutory instrument prescribe requirements as to the display of notices on relevant land where parking charges may be incurred in respect of the parking of vehicles on the land.

(3)The provision made under sub-paragraph (2) may, in particular, include provision—

(a)requiring notices of more than one kind to be displayed on any relevant land;

(b)as to the content or form of any notices required to be displayed; and

(c)as to the location of any notices required to be displayed.

(4)Regulations under this paragraph may—

(a)include incidental, supplementary, transitional, transitory or saving provision;

(b)make different provision for different areas or purposes.

Complaints should be done individually. Twenty separate complaints has more effect than one complaint with twenty signature. Complaints should be bespoke, but covering the same issues.

Email addresses for the DVLA and DVLA KADOE complaints can be found here.

ccrt@dvla.gov.uk and KADOEservice.support@dvla.gov.uk

MP complaints can be sent using this website.

WriteToThem - Email your Councillor, MP, MSP, MS, MLA or London Assembly Member for free

D_P_Dance

I do not know the answer to your question, but having owned a flat in a listed building I a surprised that a PPC even contemplated putting up their signs on a listed building. It would not surprised me if they face heavy fines.,.

Mickey666

Has the signage ACTUALLY been removed?  Wouldn't it be simpler for Parking Eye to just apply for retrospective Listed Building Consent?  Just because a building is listed doesn't mean that signs CAN'T be erected, only that consent should be sought.  There are plenty of listed National Trust properties all over the country with a wide variety of signage for visitors so it's highly likely they would get consent.  The intention of listing is to ensure that any such things are done appropriately to the building and its surroundings, not to impose a blanket ban.

hullensien

i have had a communication from the council's Planning Enforcement officer that letters have been sent to "those with an interest in the property" asking for the signs to be removed within 28 days OR an application for Listed Building Consent to be made.
However I have also been told this is unlikely to be granted due to the number of signs installed.  Secondly, this begs the question that if they have to apply for consent they do not have it therefore the signs shouldn't be there and all tickets issued over the last 8+ years are done so unlawfully?
It's not Parking Eye - I just quoted them as they declined to defend when 2 people non-permissable signage as a defence
The site was managed by AUTOSEC until recently and is now managed by Baysentry Solutions who have erected additional signage, including at least 3 more on the listed building. 
As an aside I hear that Peter del Grosso (Mr AUTOSEC) has sold his business(?)

D_P_Dance

Just because a building is listed doesn't mean that signs CAN'T be erected, 

Surely, if a building is listed, a PPC's signs SHOULD NOT be permitted.  

Fruitcake

I don't know about Listed Building consent, but Advertising Consent cannot be granted retrospectively.

I suggest all resident contact the council individually and remind the planning department of this, as well as any restrictions on retrospective applications for Listed Building consent.

BaySentrySolutions Limited are BPA members, so complaints should go to them as well as all the other entities I suggested earlier.

Mickey666

hullensien said:

i have had a communication from the council's Planning Enforcement officer that letters have been sent to "those with an interest in the property" asking for the signs to be removed within 28 days OR an application for Listed Building Consent to be made.
However I have also been told this is unlikely to be granted due to the number of signs installed.  Secondly, this begs the question that if they have to apply for consent they do not have it therefore the signs shouldn't be there and all tickets issued over the last 8+ years are done so unlawfully?
It's not Parking Eye - I just quoted them as they declined to defend when 2 people non-permissable signage as a defence
The site was managed by AUTOSEC until recently and is now managed by Baysentry Solutions who have erected additional signage, including at least 3 more on the listed building. 
As an aside I hear that Peter del Grosso (Mr AUTOSEC) has sold his business(?)

The process of listed building consent typically involves the applicant and the local council Historic Buildings Officer discussing the objectives and coming up with an acceptable solution.  This may or may not be possible,depending on what is being sought and how flexible they are to alternatives.

Listed buildings and their curtilege are all unique and what is acceptable for one setting may not be acceptable for another, so there is little hard law about what is and is not permitted, though there is lots of guidance (info here if anyone is interested: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/conserving-and-enhancing-the-historic-environment#decision-making-historic-environment) to help HBOs decide and justify their decisions for granting or refusing LBC.

I'd expect any PPC would be quite flexible when it came to an HBO suggesting alternatives to their existing signage if it meant they could remain in business.  Or perhaps they simply don't care if the signs are disallowed because a high proportion of people simply pay the 'charge' within 14 days to avoid all the hassle of fighting the these tickets . . . assuming they even know they can be fought.

Snakes_Belly

The car park where my trangression took place was in the grounds of a listed building. There are issues but I would think that each case would need to be looked at individually.  In my case the signage was poor and there were cobbled areas which caused problems.  

The signage may be inadequate which can be a defence point. 

Snakes_Belly

Issues with this car park in Stone. Smart Parking wanted to put up a lot of signs.

https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/news/stoke-on-trent-news/absolutely-no--plans-twenty-2779521

These car parks that are close to the high street are used by the most vulnerable.

https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/news/stoke-on-trent-news/parking-fines-damaging-reputation-town-3002068