Private Parking Charge

SalveForOldSores

KeithP said:

SalveForOldSores said:

KeithP said:

SalveForOldSores said:

So, to avoid the full-charge I paid the early payment on 15th June 2021

Having paid £36.00 to District Enforcement, it's all over.
Nothing more to be said.

As far as you're your approach is concerned. 

You are right.

My objective, and the objective of most others on this moneysaving forum, is to save money.

Why pay anything?

Sorry, I wasn't questioning you or other's raison d'etre.

Is there any obligation to follow "Advice" proferred on here ? 

Before departing on some highly technical legalistic route, at first blush, I'd rather find out for myself how the system is configured/works in standard format  by working through it - it may yield results without getting all legal and complicated.

On this occasion, it looks like the whole system is configured in such a way that the consideration of circumstantial issues is ignored/suppressed for the generation of incom and that possibly some Cheap Trick has been employed by the parking contractor and accepted by the owner in order to tilt the balance of credibility in their favour.

That said, I experienced other similar situations where reasonableness has prevailed without matters going to court on such a minor issue.

You're approach is the individual one, but lets face it, who, but a minority  have the time  available and the attention to detail to follow this advice to the letter in order to obtain the best solution personally, let alone are prepared to follow advice given by, with all due respect,  god knows who, with unknown profesional experience or indemnity, on this or any other website. You'd have to throw risk aversion to the wind. For all anybody knows, especially first timers to this experience, like me,  you could be stooges for the other side, siren-like enticing people in stuk further into their doom !

I'm not saying it is, but its a bit like the other slightly disingenous mantra " If you don't like the way x/y/z utility is priced or supplied Change your supplier" . . . on that one we know, from hard gained experience, it doesn't always work because it can be  card shuffle organised by marketing men in the midst of a pre-determined supply situation.

Like COVID, outcome stats or testamonials might be useful in relation to the individual pieces of advice offered here. 

There are other approaches.

One is problem avoidance -  to publicise what's occurring in the hope  that in short term others can be warned to avoid  the situation and  that long term, authorities won't be able to ignore the issue and possibly be compelled to tigthen the regulations - I understand that Parliament is  about to consider the issue of private parking.

SalveForOldSores

Coupon-mad said:

This is too late; you have paid,  It is over. 

No-one told you to pay.  DO NOT pay parking charges to take 'advantage' of the discount bribe.


The only comeback you might have is my suggested complaint that Councils are not allowed to run car parks as if they were private land, then take the same complaint to the LA Ombudsman.

Go-on, you're dying to say it . . . "Cease and desist" . . . else . . Thread gets pulled ?  I've got nothing further to say at the moment . . . but your attitude is beginning to sound like "Cancel culture".

KeithP

SalveForOldSores said:

KeithP said:

SalveForOldSores said:

KeithP said:

SalveForOldSores said:

So, to avoid the full-charge I paid the early payment on 15th June 2021

Having paid £36.00 to District Enforcement, it's all over.
Nothing more to be said.

As far as you're your approach is concerned. 

You are right.

My objective, and the objective of most others on this moneysaving forum, is to save money.

Why pay anything?

I understand that Parliament is  about to consider the issue of private parking.

Yes, parliament has already done that - the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 became law in March 2019.

Redx

Parliament considered it 2 or more years ago with the parking bill 2019 !!  So they have moved on

It's the Mhclg that are consulting on the new CoP which will be implemented next summer !

All we can do is tell it like it is with a decade of experience in our pockets , which we do daily

At the moment all we do is tread water whilst advising people like you

When the new CoP arrives next year , it will determine the new scenarios , until then we are stuck with the rubbish unregulated cowboy industry we have now !

Coupon-mad

Parliament has already considered it and we took part in the pubic consultation last Autumn and are actively engaged in making a difference.  There is a final Consultation coming out this Summer about the level of parking charges and then the new statutory regime is due to start in 2022.

But you don't pay to take advantage of a bribe not to appeal.  There was no need to pay and it's now over, except for the specific complaint already explained.

Even next year, when the statutory framework begins, you wouldn't  be advised here to pay, because that removes your right to appeal. 

Next year, we hope that the MHCLG deliver on the aims of the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 and appoint a properly independent appeals service with a robust Lead Adjudicator, leaving behind the failed 'self regulation' versions which have both proved hopeless for consumers.  Time will tell!

SalveForOldSores

Coupon-mad said:

The only comeback you might have is my suggested complaint that Councils are not allowed to run car parks as if they were private land, then take the same complaint to the LA Ombudsman.

But if the Council is administering car parking on behalf of a trust . . (That's why Burnham  Beeches is listed on the Woodlands Trust. website . . the clues in the name) then the Council are acting as either/or both an executor of the Trust and  commercial contractor who then engages District Enforcement as a contractor. You can't even FOI, both relationships, both the Trust and the commercial one are private and confidential.

You see what I mean about accepting "Advice" from unknowns.

I'd stand more chance in getting my PCN annulled writing to Baroness Young at the Woodlands Trust personally and asking her to do a favour for an old Parkside Health Authority work colleage <Cough>.

Redx

If the regulars here with thousands of posts and thank yous over a decade of attending this forum are unknowns , why ask ?

KeithP

OK, I'm willing to learn here.
What is the significance of the word Trust?
You tell us that Burnham Beeches is listed on the Woodland Trust website. What is the significance of that? The Woodlands Trust lists all sorts of woodlands on their website - council owned, privately owned, Forestry Commission owned, etc.

From your previous employment, you will of course be well aware that most NHS hospitals are also run by trusts. These too have parking problems.

Is there a trick we are all missing here?
Do 'trusts' deserve a special consideration with respect to parking?

I genuinely don't understand your point. Please enlighten me.

Umkomaas

I too am awaiting the enlightenment. 

SalveForOldSores

KeithP said:

Do 'trusts' deserve a special consideration with respect to parking?

Only in so far as most of them are private and that the bulk of public legislation makes no reference to them.
 
Whether a "Public" Trust, such as charities e.g. the Barristers' Benevolent Association or a private trusts, like the rich and infamous  families use to squirrel away funds to avoid tax, they're not part of the state. If they're not part of the state they must be private and therefore only subject those aspects of  the law that governs private matters.

 That said things like Planning and building control, Telegraphy acts,  energy, environment and control of Pollution, Firearms, agriculture,  all have their own pieces of  the legislation that effect private concerns.

 I wasn't aware that the Highways Act or the Road Traffic Acts, that deal with the majority of aspects of parking control on public roads applied to parking on private land, though aspects of that legislation may apply to things like unadopted roads i..e. roads used for  a limited number of cases of public access but  which are maintained at private expense - this may apply to the access road that connects the BB estate with the public road system. That notion seems to be supported by Google Earth Stret View, as only the access road is coloured blue, not the car parks.

I can't find any overarching entry  for BB or LC  or woodlands in my ancient copy of the charities digest (Public Trusts), so it must be  a private trust or trusts running the show.

Similarly,  as far as the land the BB car parks stand-on. The PCN I was issued with is, I understand a format  used  for private land and in the absence of am Abstract of title/Land Certificate plan, Google Earth Street View shows public access does not extend to the car parks.

Of course LC may have special legal status, upsetting the barrow, and they do have local Bye-Laws, but as far as I can see the BLs for BB do not cover parking control:-

https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/things-to-do/green-spaces/burnham-beeches-and-stoke-common/burnham-beeches-stoke-common-byelaws#:~:text=The Burnham Beeches byelaws help,them you can be prosecuted.

Possibly the legilsation affecting National Nature Reserves and sites of Scientific Interest (?) may have a bearing, albeit obliquely.

So many issues here, you could spend the next month in a library pulling the strands together.

Clearly, I have been talking in generalities rather the absolute minutae of specifics and, I doubt there are any on this forum, that could authoritatively comment on the specifics of BB's legalities ?

I will be glad to learn.