Private Parking Charge

KeithP

If you are looking for an authoritative comment on this forum then you may be out of luck.

Now you have mentioned byelaws I will comment on that - purely as a layman of course.

Paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 defines what land is considered 'relevant land' when considering parking charges.

You will see that sub-paras (3) and (4) effectively mean that that the liability for any parking event cannot be transferred from the driver to the keeper.

That means that as long as they don't know who the driver was then no-one needed to pay anything.

That's all a bit academic now though.

Coupon-mad

Lullingstone Country Park in Kent, is also on the Woodland Trust website, is owned by the Council and thus, it can't be 'private land' either:


https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/visiting-woods/woods/lullingstone-country-park/


But this happened, a person got £100 compensation for a PCN from that Park that they paid to a private firm, having been misled that they were liable as registered keeper.  This is what I was saying can be done because this is not 'private land':

https://www.kentonline.co.uk/kent/news/council-issued-motorist-illegal-parking-ticket-197975/

Full report

https://www.lgo.org.uk/assets/attach/4521/REPORT%2017004169%20KENT%20CC.pdf

SalveForOldSores

Coupon-mad said:

But this happened, a person got £100 compensation for a PCN from that Park that they paid to a private firm, having been misled that they were liable as registered keeper.  This is what I was saying can be done because this is not 'private land':

https://www.kentonline.co.uk/kent/news/council-issued-motorist-illegal-parking-ticket-197975/

Thanks for that, I'll know next time. 

But this is a process for the really "Switched-on", or for solicitor assistance.

The average bod could come a right cropper at any stage of the proceedings.

I mean to say, even though the appeal went to Local Government Ombudsman, I take it that they have minimum evidentary standards and that the appellant just saying at his appearance  that the land is Council owned won't be sufficient proof. He would have to provide documentary proof, that is unless the Ombudsman had legal authority  to presume that the land was Council owned and that it was for the council to prove the case if this wasn't so.

So,  for the ordinary bod, by the time you've obtained that documentary evidence to support your argument, paid the land register search fees and costed your own or solicitors time . . . its cheaper to pay the ticket., particularly at the earlybird price. There's certainly no consumer choice in that.  Its a bit misleading to advance the above as a mass adoption solution to the ordinary bods problems. What employer is going to let you off work and pay you whilst you attend these proceedings ? Does the appellant/Complainant get awarded costs on an Ombudsman decision ? If not, you could be substantially out-of-pocket.

Obviously, this "Sailing-close-to-the-legal-wind" approach adopted by landowners as far as parking control is concerned, seems to be spreading, with ill-effect,  to the country Districts. It isn't doing the owners of these facilities any favours long-term, although there may be a short term financial gain. The whole Exercise is "End-game" desperation Capitalism. Tail wagging the dog. Effectively, shooting your customers in the foot and then expecting them to return to you. But they do of course because many of these landowners are effective monopoly suppliers in their area. Its just bad marketing and typical bean counter behaviour.

The "Ticket on entry" rising road or raising barrier systems were fairer because people knew what to expect - they were buying a service on entry, and that service was to provide car parking at a cost. There were no ifs or buts.
The current round of car park control measures are so under-engineered in building, engineering and operation that they envitably lead to the type of situations which you are now advising-on.

In fact,  the relatively low-cost of entry  encourages any "Fly-by-night" "Entreprenneur" (That's the polite term) to get in on the act. In consequence you see all sorts of near criminal activity being undertaken by the operators on an unprecedented scale - just look at the RAC web site forum for the littany of cases.

For instance on the RAC site you see examples of overstaying by less than 10 minutes being ticketed. Operators possibly manipulating ticket issuing machines to issue void tickets and then issuing PCNs for unpaid for stays. Operators blocking disabled bays to blue badge so as to force disabled vehicle occupants to use paid-for parking slots.  And apparently the POPLA appeal court, which is parking industry paid for, has the same return postal address as one of the parking companies. Do you think decision-making there may be impaired by the overbearing presence of the people that pay the "Judicial" wages. Its judge "Roy Bean" territory. Its totally  fluffing "Wild-West".

Its beyond personal resolution by the methods you recommend, it requires proper legislative control . . . that's part of a national Transport Policy. 

In some quarters, the increase in national expenditure is considered to be a positive addition to the economy i.e. Economic Growth. In reality, its just another political con. These charges  are transfer payments which add to households and firms on-costs without producing an equivalent increase in National Output. In fact it "Turns-off" customers - hence "End-Stage Capitalism".

Just imagine, if you will, an unsuspecting family has decided for a day-out at one of these facilities, especially the National Nature Reserves, and has their day out ruined by getting one of these tickets. That's going to put a long-standing sour note in their thinking with regard to further "Days-out".

But you never know, this may be all part of the "Lockdown-to-put-a-dink-in-Global warming", its certainly not "Eat-out-to-help-out"

Redx

All what you say is fully documented in Hansard regarding all the parliamentary sessions that led to Sir Greg Knight s parking bill 2019 passing royal assent in march 2019 , currently in the latter stages of the consultations for the new CoP , in the charge of the Mhclg and Robert Jenrick M P and previously on the desk of Rishi Sunak MP when he was there before becoming chancellor under Boris

The latest consultation is imminent and implementation is summer 2022 , some 5 years or more after Sir Greg Knight proposed regulation by a government department , in which time it was passed from the Department of Transport to the now Mhclg when Eric Pickles kicked the can down the road 6 years ago

SalveForOldSores

If these parking control firms were playing the "Shell-game" to passing punters on Oxford Street they'd be arrested, charged and fined. But that's what effectively they are doing. No body can be assured, when they enter one of their car parks,  even if they observe the regulations to the best of their knowledge/ability, they can't be assured that they won't emerge with a stunning PCN. The law doesn't protect them and leaves them to the mercy of the spivs.
Lesser things have triggered revolutions.

Coupon-mad

We can all agree on that analogy. Spot on.

But complaining to the Ombudsman is free and needs no special evidence, only proof that you complained first to the LA and exhausted their complaints procedure.

That avenue is open to you and I gave you the words to use in the complaint.  You could also link to that Kent decision and ask why this park is being operated as if it were private land, when the LGO has already made a decision against a LA trying to operate the same way.

Are they using ANPR and issuing PCNs by post as well? That was banned in the Deregulation Act 2015 for Local Authorities.

SalveForOldSores

My experience at Burnham Beeches car park is a classic example of a mild version of this "Wild-West" approach.

There's no entry barrier and nothing to indicate, such as lines across the road, where car park charging begins. Just a sign board showing the park closing time, in  large text (Readable from a slow-moving car - 10mph limit on the access road) and the "Parking Conditions Apply" sign in very small text that can't be read from a slow moving vehicle (Hence my suggestion for  the provision of a Portland Spy Ring micro-dot reader).

There's no relief lane to allow motorist users of the facility who weren't content with paying a parking charge to filter back out on to the public road system without paying. If you enter the access road and go beyond a certain point (Unknown because its not marked) you get captured, by the ANPR camera, on the way in and on the way out  and presumably incur a PCN if you don't pay.

There's no signage to indicate the capacity of the car parks or active signage to indicate the state of fill of the car parks. So you could enter, find that there's no spare a capacity and be forced to immediately leave without paying (Because you can't stop to pay at a ticket machine or on your phone,  without impeding other circulating vehicles.

Also there's no signage to indicate that ANPR is in operation anywhere in the Car Park and the ANPR camera is so positioned that its partially hidden behind the entry board, where the arriving motorists eyes are drawn to the large text of the Park Closing time rather than looking skywards to spot the camera.

Similarly there's no signage, either on entry or anywhere in the park, to indicate that charging arrangements have undergone change, so that weekday parking,  which before the last lockdown, which was free/ voluntary contribution, is now subject to a daily charge. Nothing to warn long-term users of the facility that the Ts & Cs of usage have changed

Similarly, at the entrances and within each car park, there is no prominent signage that would be readable to  motorists manoeuvering at low-speed at the entrance to each car park or within  each car park, that  weekday parking is now a compulsorily chargeable feast. There is no sign in the car parks showing the hourly rates. Only small and badly positioned signs (Lowly positioned and in obscured locations)  stating that Parking Conditions apply with an indication that a £70 charge will apply for non-compliance.

Further, there's no board showing the Parking Conditions in readable form.

You only find some of these details hidden away on the website and, without a text from them to give a heads-up of impending changes, who amongst long-standing users, other those already in the know i.e. locals, park account holders and the friends and  tennis partners of Park or LC officials are going to know ?

There are no delineated parking bays in any of the car parks (That would be a laugh if that omission was deliberately adopted to avoid Local Authority Rates charges  or the installation cost of an active "Car Park remaining capacity" sign at the entrance)

The whole system is heavily and unfairly weighted, by design, to the disadvantage of the customer, such that the likelihood of PCNs being issued is envitably increased. If that isn't devious criminal intent at work, then its managerial and administrative incompetence on a scale beyond acceptable limits and heads should roll.

Using the Navy venacular, "Split-!!!!!!" organisation is a polite description.

I'm sure that LC wouldn't be happy having their image associated with such amateurish and underhand activity, it might give people the wrong impression.

Coupon-mad

We agree with all of that.  Seen that sort of thing loads of times. We agree with you. 

 But that’s not what the LGO would look into and you’ve paid the PCN so points about the signage are dead in the water now (they were good points for appeal but you can’t now appeal). 

You can get your money back - and more - by complaint, if the LGO agrees like they did in the Kent case, that the LA has acted outside its scope.

The complaint you are making should now move onto the twin issues of a LA operating a park car parking area as if it were private land and using ANPR which the 2015 Act prohibited.

SalveForOldSores

Coupon-mad said:

We can all agree on that analogy. Spot on.

But complaining to the Ombudsman is free and needs no special evidence, only proof that you complained first to the LA and exhausted their complaints procedure.

That avenue is open to you and I gave you the words to use in the complaint.  You could also link to that Kent decision and ask why this park is being operated as if it were private land, when the LGO has already made a decision against a LA trying to operate the same way.

Are they using ANPR and issuing PCNs by post as well? That was banned in the Deregulation Act 2015 for Local Authorities.

Yes they are using ANPR and issuing PCNS by post. And its not recorded delivery. There's no date of sending or franking imposition showing same. The postage is  a "Printed-on" license (C910017 Royal Mail Delivery group), probably done for them by a  contract mass-mailer as the return address on the back of the envelope is PO Box 61278, Garman Road, London N17 1DS. Crikey every-body gets rich except the ordinary bod wishing for a trouble free, enjoyable day-out in the open air.

The chargeable incident occurred on 26/05/2021, the PCN I received was dated 2/06/2021 and I didn't receive it till the 8/06/2021. But no date of posting on the enevelope - aren't they supposed to send the notice by post within 14 days of the charegable incident. This one's right on the limit, giving you less than a week to decide whether to appeal or pay the early-bird charge.

In the words of the prophet, and he is very wise on these matters, insufficient time and it looks like the parking operator is playing the system to reduce to a minimum the "Decision" time of the consumer . . . consumer, Huh !

As said before, the ordinary bod hasn't got the time or expertise to delve effectively into these matters to obtain even a just solution. The whole thing is run like a protection racket. A nice little exercise in redistribution of wealth and income from the ordinary lone consumer to the top of a one -to many funds collecting pyriamid

Redx

POFA is not mandatory and only applies if the land is private , not council owned , plus not where bylaws apply , so only relevant land !! I believe that it should be mandatory , as in your example above , but it's not. The letter is deemed to be delivered 2 days after the date of issue , other than Saturday , Sunday and bank holidays , so better for them to post it before Thursdays

Otherwise , where POFA is not or cannot be used , the parking company has 6 months to obtain keeper details and one month to get the PCN to that person ,CSO possibly in this case , if POFA is not applicable , like on council owned land , airports , railway stations and ports etc

Of course they are playing the system , and have done so for over a decade