Ticketed less than 2 mins for unloading (Won at IAS Stage!)

Coupon-mad

KXL88 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Is no-one objecting?

 Further, you disagree with surveillance 24/7 which breaches your privacy rights.

Regarding that.... no one yet. Will await our next RA meeting. I will be the annoying one that talks the most! 

However we got a letter in the post (now I'm guessing this might be just BS) from the new parking firm, but the letter stated that their CCTVs would 'black out' everything that was not monitoring cars and parking. 

I know.  Privacy is not just about filming of you as an individual.

Surveillance of your cars (for reasons unrelated to security) 24/7 was the exact invasion of privacy I meant.

Unacceptably intrusive and constant 24/7 surveillance has been called out by the ICO before as excessive even when done by the Police:
https://www.britishparking.co.uk/News/excessive-use-of-anpr-cameras-for-enforcement

"ICO’s investigation into Hertfordshire Constabulary’s extensive use of ANPR cameras surrounding the town of Royston. The use of these cameras has effectively made it impossible for anyone to drive their car in and out of Royston without a record being kept of the journey. The scheme is regularly referred to as ‘the ring of steel’.

Following a joint complaint about the scheme from the privacy groups Big Brother Watch, Privacy International and No CCTV, the ICO began an investigation to see whether the use of the cameras was justifiable and complied with the Data Protection Act. The ICO found that the constabulary failed to carry out any effective impact assessments before introducing the system of cameras. As a result it has not been able to give a satisfactory explanation to justify their use."

Go on, ask the HA and NPE to justify the 24/7 'ring of steel' CCTV surveillance... tell them you want to see the Impact Assessment carried out* and you specifically object and forbid the CCTV from filming your vehicle at all until this is resolved.  Tell them you are ready to report the HA and NPE to the Information Commissioner.

Put a stop to it NOW before it starts.  You will regret it if you allow this to begin.

*there will not have been any Impact Assessment.  Then you can report NPE to the ICO, and the HA (separately) if they fail to respond satisfactorily by a reasonable deadline you set in your complaint, which I suggest should be the FIRST week in January.

  

diystarter7

KeithP said:

@diystarter7, what is the relevance of the price of your car and how much road tax you pay?

This thread is about @KXL88's predicament. Nothing else.

Read the post I was responding to on this thread and please tell them not to ask me those questions about me parking on the roads, legally of course.

Thanks

KeithP

diystarter7 said:

KeithP said:

@diystarter7, what is the relevance of the price of your car and how much road tax you pay?

This thread is about @KXL88's predicament. Nothing else.

Read the post I was responding to on this thread and please tell them not to ask me those questions about me parking on the roads, legally of course.

Thanks

I didn't notice that anyone asked you the price of your car.
Who asked how much road tax you pay?

Thanks.


You have now dragged this thread far enough off topic. Thanks.

Umkomaas

diystarter7 said:

Umkomaas said:

NPE are not there to help residents, or the MA for that matter. They are there to make money for themselves. Go figure, as they say!

Please stop. Are you saying that on estates residents are not requesting these people to come - incredible.
The people are saw applauded parking enforcement on their estates and had visitor permits and visitor bays and when I parked, I always parked within a visitors bay and if they were full as often the case but masses of residents specaes were free, yep, that's right, I went and parked in a road close by.

Are you OK there old pal?  That makes absolutely no sense to me. Can any other regular decipher it?

Mouse007

All I can say is how relieved I am not to live in a place like this. To the rest of you Please

I refer you to post 6 on page 1

KXL88

I got a response from IAS that prima facie case received. Email mentions if I would like to include any additional info. Have till 9th Jan to do so. Generally is it worthwhile to do so? I’ve already included the 3 main points of lack of signage, the no parking at anytime is forbidding and of course stopping to unload is not parking elaborating on each point of course already at this appeals stage.

The only info I might not have explicitly mention is that i own my property and as a leaseholder the lease enables me the right to unload closer to my main door and that the lease takes precedence over any private parking restriction in place and that I am not a visitor. At least I did not spell it out in those terms, but just mentioned previously residents can unload closer to door confirmed by HA it’s 5 mins.

Should I also set a tone that I have no problem letting a judge in court let Link parking reps know this fact? Seeing that in any case IAS and Link will argue that the wall is painted blue when it’s clearly red? Hence the 20% success rate at this stage?

Coupon-mad

Yes you could respond that you are happy to defend this in court if Link don't bail out or if the IAS (true to form) roll out their template rubbish and condemn this appeal to the consistent '95% refused' pile/bin.

Then add this and a copy of your lease if you are still able to add evidence:

The only info I might not have explicitly mention is that i own my property and as a leaseholder the lease enables me the right to unload closer to my main door and that the lease takes precedence over any private parking restriction in place and that I am not a visitor. 

Umkomaas

of course stopping to unload is not parking elaborating on each point of course already at this appeals stage.

If you haven't already done so, send a copy of the Jopson v Homeguard appeal judgment to support this. 

https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/JOPSON-V-HOMEGUARD-2906J-Approved.pdf

KXL88

Thanks both, Yes, number 5, which is almost word for word in Jopson v Homeguard one. 

KXL88

Wanted to just 'update' that IAS has not responded to my appeal at this stage and it's been over a month. Been checking email/junk mail and post (unless due to postal strikes it has gone AWOL). Guess I will wait a bit longer, else will expect one of those 'Solcititors' threat letters which I will ignore until LBC one. Or maybe they decided to discontinue but haven't notified me? Guess as Arnold said it best, when the LBC comes, 'I'll be back!'