Ok so we want to appeal this

KeithP

Evidence must be supplied on a 'durable medium'.

That means that it cannot be hosted on a website where you can change the video after having supplied a link to it.
So for example, not a link to a youtube video.

A memory stick, SDcard, CD or DVD are all examples of durable media. You may well be able to think of others.

useremoved

I have now put an outline pdf together for POPLA

I am told also that the view of one of the planning people is that with no planning in place they should not be operating the carpark irrespective of wether it can be obtained later as it is not a given that they will

has this aspect ever been tested in court it seems PE discontinue every case and don’t wish to try their luck 

I am suggesting even if this goes to court my biggest hit will be in the region of £300 to get this in front of a judge

our defence however rests on lack of and poor signage poor light levels and no signs whatsoever where our parties vehicles were positioned

Also other vehicles with the exception of one parked and were not even registered on the ANPR camera system leading me to question its reliability 

Fruitcake

PoPLA won't be interested in lack of planning/advertising consent, but put it in anyway as it is a breach of para 12 of the PoFA.
Use all the other standard points from the third post of the NEWBIES.
You have some excellent photos of the site, but be selective and make sure you only use the ones that help your case.

Pursue lack of planning/advertising consent as a separate issue with the council and your MP. See if local press are interested as well. Try as much info as you can in writing, especially comments from the planning department. Get as many people as possible to object to it and try to get the council to kick the PPC's signs and scameras removed, even if only temporarily, and object if the subsequently apply again for approval.
Note that planning approval is also needed for transformers and control/junction boxes as well as pole mounted scameras.

It might be worth setting up a local Fakebook fightback group to warn others about this issue if you are up for it.

A loss in court will should cost around £200 if properly defended, especially as ParkingEye don't add on fake debt collection/admin charges.
I do remember on PE case from years ago that was dropped when lack of advertising consent etcetera was brought up, but I have been unable to find it. 
Fingers crossed it never gets that far, but you will still have the lack of planning approval etcetera in your back pocket.

useremoved

Hi fruitcake the council have said they have nothing they have not even tried yet to apply for retrospective planning permission

one of the businesses has already run a story in the local paper Re them losing business and Im on the phone today to get them involved again pointing out the lack of planning permission to operate the MP is already been involved and might be interested further in showing his concern 

Fruitcake

If a PCN has been issued, and the driver has been identified, then the PoFA doesn't apply.

If however the driver has not been identified, then the certain parts of the PoFA do apply, and provide protection for the keeper.

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


The right for the creditor to claim unpaid parking charges from a keeper depends on the PPC complying with four conditions which are listed as you read through the PoFA.

At paragraph 12, the PoFA states: -

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.

My interpretation, and hopefully that of the "man on the Clapham omnibus" would be that,

12 (1) "Applicable requirements" (planning approval for pole mounted cameras and associated equipment/control boxes, and advertising consent for signs greater than 0.3m2) must be in place before a parking event occurs.

12 (2) "National authority" in this instance means the local council planning department, and "statutory instrument" means The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007, which refers to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Private parking signage is not listed under any exemption in the 2007 Regulations, so parking signs require advertising consent.


I have also found this where ParkingEye pulled out of two cases once lack of advertising consent was brought up, and it was pointed out that it was a criminal offence.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/parkingeye-discontinue-two-cases.html


Now add in what the supreme court judges stated in the infamous Beavis case on the importance of adhering to the BPA's Code of Practice.

"And, while the Code of Practice is not a contractual document, it is in practice binding on the operator since its existence and observance is a condition of his ability to obtain details of the registered keeper from the DVLA. In assessing the fairness of a term, it cannot be right to ignore the regulatory framework which determines how and in what circumstances it may be enforced."

Paragraph 2.4 of the BPA's Code of practice states
“All AOS members must be aware of their legal obligations and implement the relevant legislation and guidance when operating their businesses.”

Relevant legislation being planning permission and advertising consent.

Thanks go to RobinofLoxley for providing this information.

useremoved

does anyone see any problems with this?

Fruitcake

PoPLA won't be interested, but ParkingEye might chicken out if you include the points about not having advertising consent, and it being a criminal offence, so I say you should definitely include it in your appeal.

useremoved

Fruitcake said:

PoPLA won't be interested, but ParkingEye might chicken out if you include the points about not having advertising consent, and it being a criminal offence, so I say you should definitely include it in your appeal.

Sorry I attached the NTK front page the back page seems to be POFA compliant

useremoved

DO i just post my POPLA appeal doc here or is there somewhere private it goes?

Coupon-mad

useremoved said:

does anyone see any problems with this?

No idea without the back!