Forbidding signs and pre existing rights

Trainerman

GeorgeFormby said:

Mouse007 said:

I am inclined to agree, the use of CCTV to capture images is regulated by the GDPR.

https://www.itgovernance.co.uk/blog/does-your-use-of-cctv-comply-with-the-gdpr

Slightly off topic from Trainerman (apologies) but if a PPC is using CCTV to capture images for the issuance of PCNs in a Private Road and/or Car Park must their signage state that fact? Or additional signage stating CCTV in force or similar?

TIA

Good question @GeorgeFormby . In this case, they have got a couple of small signs saying "CCTV in operation", plus some very small stickers adhering to some of the signs. This is being used though by a self ticketing landowner, who simply sends the details to the PPC to do the 'dirty work'

GeorgeFormby

Trainerman said:

GeorgeFormby said:

Mouse007 said:

I am inclined to agree, the use of CCTV to capture images is regulated by the GDPR.

https://www.itgovernance.co.uk/blog/does-your-use-of-cctv-comply-with-the-gdpr

Slightly off topic from Trainerman (apologies) but if a PPC is using CCTV to capture images for the issuance of PCNs in a Private Road and/or Car Park must their signage state that fact? Or additional signage stating CCTV in force or similar?

TIA

Good question @GeorgeFormby . In this case, they have got a couple of small signs saying "CCTV in operation", plus some very small stickers adhering to some of the signs. This is being used though by a self ticketing landowner, who simply sends the details to the PPC to do the 'dirty work'

I understand but I was cheekily hopping on your thread for an answer to my own PCN :-D

I'm 99% certain PCM used CCTV images to capture my vehicle but there are no references to CCTV capture on their signs or in the location that I can see.

2nd apologies for off-topic.

Brie

Even more off topic perhaps....is there really a right for people to continue to park if the land owner doesn't want them to?  What if they had permission to build a block of flats or something?  When constructed then I would expect only the people living in the flats to be able to park there, not everyone else in the neighbourhood.

Trainerman

Brie said:

Even more off topic perhaps....is there really a right for people to continue to park if the land owner doesn't want them to?  What if they had permission to build a block of flats or something?  When constructed then I would expect only the people living in the flats to be able to park there, not everyone else in the neighbourhood.

You are not actually much off topic. This is where it all started. The answer to " is there a right etc" Is Yes. It is enshrined in The Prescription Act of 1832, which says if you have done something for over twenty years, under certain conditions, you have rights. If you have done it for over forty years you have almost unassailable rights. I have 20+ years, some neighbours 40+

Fruitcake

With regards signage about the use of (covert) CCTV monitoring, yes the signage must state what the data will be used for, and it can't be used for anything else.

The ICO says that:

1. security camera footage can only be used for that single purpose

If the landowner wants to use it for something else, it must say so on the signs.

Mouse007

Brie said:

Even more off topic perhaps....is there really a right for people to continue to park if the land owner doesn't want them to?  What if they had permission to build a block of flats or something?  When constructed then I would expect only the people living in the flats to be able to park there, not everyone else in the neighbourhood.

The problem is the new owner probably didn’t check or understand what rights third parties had to access and use the land. The Caveat Emptor principle.

As a consequence they probably paid well over the odds for a fairly useless piece of land which had become tainted by the easements acquired by numerous people.

“and where such way or other matter as herein last before mentioned shall have been so enjoyed as aforesaid for the full period of forty years, the right thereto shall be deemed absolute and indefeasible, unless it shall appear that the same was enjoyed by some consent or agreement expressly given or made for that purpose by deed or writing.”

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Will4/2-3/71/section/2

Unless the new owner can produce the agreements (by deed or in writing) showing the parking was allowed by consent given I think they will be stuffed.

Trainerman

@Mouse007 said

Unless the new owner can produce the agreements (by deed or in writing) showing the parking was allowed by consent given I think they will be stuffed

That is our fond hope. They bought it with a house. In my belief, they knew what they were doing and even claimed that they had two lots of solicitors look at it.

Mouse007

Trainerman said:

... and even claimed that they had two lots of solicitors look at it.

In my experience most solicitors know very little about the law.

Brie said:

What if they had permission to build a block of flats or something?  When constructed ...

I think they would have a (legal) problem with the construction, that would immediately interfere with the easement rights for which they could be sued.

D could not build over C’s parking space even if C was offered an alternative space: Kettel v Bloomfold Ltd
[2012] EWHC 1422 (Ch)

Mouse007

@Trainerman

You may find this helpfull

"58. However, the interesting point arises from the fact that one of the arguments raised by the defendants was that, as a matter of law, the right to park could not be an easement at all. All of their Lordships held that it could. Lords Hope and Rodger held that it could be so under the law of Scotland (paragraphs 22, 24 and 75) whilst Lords Scott and Neuberger held that the same applied under English law (paragraphs 47, 102 and 136 to 140).

59. Lord Scott dealt at length with the ouster principle. He went so far as to suggest that the test set out in the LONDON & BLENHEIM case as applied in BATCHELOR V MARLOW was wrong. He doubted whether this test of ‘degree’ was appropriate, not only because of its uncertainty and difficulty in application but also because of its focus. He believed that it should be rejected, and replaced with a test which asks (paragraph 59): “whether the servient owner retains possession and, subject to the reasonable exercise of the right in question, control of the servient land”

In his view, sole use of a tract of land by a dominant owner to park a vehicle was not inconsistent with a servient owner’s retention of possession. Thus presumably, in his view, a right to park a single vehicle in a designated spot was capable of being an easement. Nor, he said, is there any difference between the characteristics of an easement acquired by express grant and those of one acquired by prescription.

https://kipdf.com/rights-of-way-and-rights-to-park-creation-and-extent-david-holland_5afb8daf8ead0edf1c8b45f0.html

Quite a long and very technical read, but I am under the impression you will be able to cope with that challenge.

Trainerman

Thanks very much @Mouse007 . Some very useful references in there. I have bookmarked that. It will be valuable in the battle ahead !

A very interesting passage, referring to the LPA is that the property conveyance transfers all the rights etc. I would argue that       ( having statements from 1974 and photos from 1983), the residents rights existed by 1994 and that every subsequent conveyance ( 3 of) carried our rights ( or their obligations) with it.

We are currently on track to lock horns at Tribunal