Council flats & relevant land

parkingsfun

Hi there

The driver of a vehicle (which I am the registered keeper of) recently received a parking charge notice from Ace Security Services (Pace Recovery & Storage Ltd).

The car was parked on residential parking spaces in Lewisham without a valid permit. The flats are managed by Lewisham Homes (an ALMO arm length management organisation) but owned by Lewisham Council.

I’ve been doing some digging into all this and it seems that this is a very complicated area of law.  

I’ve got two main questions, first:

1. Is all council owned land ‘relevant land’ (as described in schedule 4, section 3 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012)?

If it’s not ‘relevant land’, does this mean Ace has no right to chase me as the registered keeper of the vehicle? I believe this is because the PoFA says private enforcers (IE Ace) can chase the keeper of the car only if it was parked on relevant land (section 4 PoFA).

The PoFA says that ‘relevant land’ excludes land provided or controlled by a traffic authority (3:1c PoFA). Lewisham Council is presumably a traffic authority according to 3:2e PoFA.

It seems to me that councils have been arguing that they do not need to ‘provide’ car parks as a traffic authority. If that’s true, then councils / Ace the parking spaces are ‘relevant land’ and they can claim charges from me as the keeper.

But I’ve found some evidence (which I’ve added below) that seems to say this argument is wrong and that councils can’t relinquish their role as a traffic authority. IE no land owned by the council can be considered ‘relevant land’ regardless of what the council itself argues. But as this is such a complicated area of law, I’m really not sure if I’m right. Maybe I’m barking up the wrong tree here…

A: Department of Transport said in 2014 that the PoFA 2012 consciously exempts local authorities from schedule 4 of the act and that local authorities should comply with both the legislation & DfT guidance.

committees[dot]westminster.gov.uk/documents/s31749/Appendix%20F%20-%20Letter%20from%20DfT.pdf

B: In a complaint against Kent Council by Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman. The council argued that it didn’t ‘provide the car park as a traffic authority’ (point 20) and therefore the land was relevant land. 

The complaint was upheld against the council and the Ombudsman concluded that this argument was irrelevant (point 23). This meant the private enforcers couldn’t charge the keeper (point 24). IE - the parking places were not on ‘relevant land’ and the council couldn’t exempt themselves from the PoFA.

lgo[dot]org.uk/decisions/transport-and-highways/parking-and-other-penalties/17-004-169

If I can use the two pieces of evidence above in my appeal, I think this potentially means I could appeal against Ace as the keeper of the vehicle on the basis that the parking place is not relevant land under the PoFA so the keeper can’t be held liable. Anyone know if I'm correct here?

Question 2 - I admit this question is a strange one…

1. Can Ace Security even legally access my details from the DVLA as it seems they haven’t been able to do this since 2016?

I’ve found internal documents by London Councils (including Lewisham Council) that all say the DVLA stopped providing keeper details to companies operating on behalf of Local Authorities under contract law in 2016. 

Lewisham Council (p4 4.7 bit[dot]ly/3b8kgL2) <- residential flats specifically mentioned

Greenwich Council (p2 2:2 bit[dot].ly/2ZrGJ3h) <- residential flats specifically mentioned

Haringey Council (p4 6.2 bit[dot].ly/3Bdqvrx) 

Tower Hamlets: (p4 1.6 bit[dot].ly/3pEeF7t)

Here’s the specific wording in the Lewisham document: 

Since 2016, the DVLA no longer provides registered keeper details of offending vehicles to enforcement companies operating on behalf of Local Authorities under contract law. In effect, this means that if the Council does not hold the vehicle owner’s details and continues enforcing under the current contract law approach, the Council has no means of locating the vehicle owner and enforcing the penalty charge.  [4.7]

This would seem to imply that I don’t even 'need' to appeal the charge (which was issued to the driver) as Ace would have no legal way of getting my details from the DVLA and contacting me the registered keeper. Basically, I could just throw the ticket into the bin... 

Of course, that’s where I start to think I must have made a mistake somewhere along the lines because that seems far too good to be true!    

Can anyone here offer any advice. I’m going mad from looking at different bits of legislation and trying to make sense of all this.

- can't post links as a new member so change [dot] to . 

Le_Kirk

https://committees.westminster.gov.uk/documents/s31749/Appendix%20F%20-%20Letter%20from%20DfT.pdf
https://lgo.org.uk/decisions/transport-and-highways/parking-and-other-penalties/17-004-169

These links made live and they work, the rest do not make sense (or at least I can make no sense of them!)

https://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/documents/s84669/Parking%20enforcement%20on%20Housing%20Estates.pdf

parkingsfun

Thanks! The other links are ridiculously long which is why I shortened them using bit ly. 

Here's the full link for the lewisham council quote: councilmeetings[dot]lewisham.gov.uk/documents/s84669/Parking%20enforcement%20on%20Housing%20Estates.pdf

You'll need to change [dot] to . again

Le_Kirk

Edited and added for you in above post.

Coupon-mad

This is darn interesting and has not been the case with BHCC who use OPS and are currently facing a challenge to the LGO.

We knew about the Kent Council devision on 2018 but not that the DVLA are supposedly not releasing data to PPCs acting on behalf of Traffic Authorities.

I suggest doing an FOI immediately to the DVLA and asking for all communications to any party about this decision, if it is the case that the DVLA either temporarily or permanently refused to release data to PPCs acting for local authorities on either housing or other LA owned land:

4.7. To encourage Local Authorities to comply, since 2016, the DVLA no longer provides registered keeper details of offending vehicles to enforcement companies operating on behalf of Local Authorities under contract law. In effect, this means that if the Council does not hold the vehicle owner’s details and continues enforcing under the current contract law approach, the Council has no means of locating the vehicle owner and enforcing the penalty charge.

4.8. As a result of this, the issuing of non-statutory parking notices under contract law has ceased to be an effective method of parking enforcement, and the Council can no longer recover the penalty charges successfully. This together with other enforcement issues relating to the status of land on estates, has affected and in some instances prevented the Council’s ability to effectively enforce and will continue to do so unless changes are made.

parkingsfun

Hi Coupon - thanks for getting back to me. I've made a request under FOI so we'll see what comes back. 

Do you or does anyone know if PPC have to make a keeper request through the DVLA or can they get details from somewhere else, the local council for example.  

In your quote of 4.7, it seems to imply that if the council has the registered vehicle owner's details then they can contact the keeper and enforce a penalty charge. Presumably, the council will have these details if the owner is a resident & has applied for a permit to park. 

In theory, could this mean that PPCs are currently only sending penalties to keepers if they are residents in council owned housing estates? This would seem pretty unfair to the residents if so, no? 

Coupon-mad said:

This is darn interesting and has not been the case with BHCC who use OPS and are currently facing a challenge to the LGO.

Have you got any more info on that, I'd love to take a look! 

Coupon-mad

The answer is no, a PPC cannot get data from another source and certainly not from the Council's list of residents.

The most a PPC can do is get DVLA data (only) and if that is old, they can use a Credit Ref Agency to do a cheap 'soft search' for any change of address.

Really interested in the DVLA's reply to your FOI.  What did you ask?

ihatetrump

This is really interesting and thanks to all the posters. A potential can of worms for many PPC's who operate Council Owned car parks.

I have my own case ongoing at present where Milton Keynes Council (through their MK Development Partnership, which they own 100%) have entered into a 'lease' with a PPC (Napier) and a 'Management Agreement' for the the same. The 'lease' was in my opinion bogus - both wrongly executed by unauthorised officers, not witnessed (although it claims to be a deed) and expired years ago and reverted to a month to month agreement. FOI request withheld 'commercially sensitive' information (what a crock of you know what) - I'm going to go back one more time on that one. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know the Council gets the standard parking fees and the PPC gets free run at all PCN's - a great incentive for the PPC then!.

Councils are clearly hiding behind underhand and bogus arrangements with the PPC's in a blatant attempt to circumvent the non-relevant land restrictions of the PoFA . Too much of a cosy relationship between naive and inept council officials and sneaky PPC's who appear to pulled a fast one to line their pockets further..

charliepark

This is certainly very interesting. 

There are probably numerous ALMOs acting on behalf of councils to manage residential housing estates (notably including the parking areas) who've brought in a ppc.
 
Many probably didn't consult with residents before bringing in the ppc, or vary the leases/tenancy agreements (which often include the right to park), or even properly execute the contract they drew up with the ppc. 

If councils also aren't exempt from PoFA as the evidence from @parkingsfun seems to suggest, and these council-estate parking areas aren't actually 'relevant land' anyway, that makes four key legal failings of councils (or the ALMOs acting on their behalf) even before the ppc starts to operate.

While a complaint to the LGO such as the Kent example might be one way to go in such cases, could a claim of causing a private nuisance feasibly be brought against the ALMO/council or ppc? (or both?).. I believe the incroachment or interferance element applies when the claimant has a right to enjoyment of the land in question, not necessarily ownership.