Council sublet leisure carpark

Tazman1969

3 OF 3

you complained about, not from the date of stage 3 formal review response letter. The

Ombudsman will normally only consider complaints made within that time but can decide to look at

older complaints if there is a good reason to do so.

The Ombudsman looks at individual complaints about councils, all adult social care providers

(including care homes and home care agencies) and some other organisations providing local

public services. It investigates matters fairly and impartially and is free to use.

There are some matters the Ombudsman cannot or will not investigate. In these cases, it will

clearly explain the reason for its decision.

The Ombudsman’s contact details are below.

You will need to provide it with a copy of this formal review response, and our earlier responses to

you, so it can consider your complaint.

Website: www.lgo.org.uk. Telephone: 0300 061 0614 Opening hours: Monday to Friday - 10am to

4pm (except public holidays).

Yours sincerely,

Interim Head of Legal Services

Cherwell District Council

fisherjim

So as I read it buried in all that word sandwich; at the time of the incident the land was subject to a Traffic Order, whether the council were enforcing it or not it was still in force as they are now admitting "from an administrative perspective" they are going to revoke it.

Therefore it was not relevant land at that time.

Tazman1969

That's how I see it, but still doesn't remove the fact that they still own the land even if the order is revoked, and only sub let it.
They pay the company to run it on their behalf so it's our council tax that pays for it.

So what about all them people that have got invoices for parking & continue too, paid them etc whilst that parking order is in still in force?

Gr1pr

I would not have thought that the council are paying anyone to run it, certainly not paying council tax money 

Its leased out to a third party who have contracted with Smart parking, there are plenty of examples of this around the country , councils make money from the lease contract ( they receive, not pay. ) I suppose that you could liken it to an ALMO 

I still believe that because the council remain the freeholder, that its not relevant land under POFA legislation, meaning no keeper liability in law

Clearly they failed to revoke the order, so that aspect was still in force, their administrative error 

Smart parking issued parking charge notices, invoices, which are either enforceable or unenforceable in a court of law 

Those Keepers who received these non POFA invoices in the post had no liability, same as any other Smart parking cases in the UK 

The_Slithy_Tove

I haven't read this whole thread, but a similar thing happened where I live. The council-owned leisure centre turned its car park from a council-managed one to CEL with ANPR etc. overnight. The land was still subject to a Parking Places Order.

I told them this wasn't allowed, and they turned the system off pretty much straight away. It was a bit of a hollow victory, though. They amended the PPO to remove that car park, and so the private parking regime was resumed. As the whole leisure centre (and its car park) were leased out to a 3rd party who operate it, they were kind-of justified in doing so.

Tazman1969

Thanks for your replies, I am now wondering if & how to take this forward 🤔. 
The journalist who is involved is interested in running another story especially if people have been issued invoices whilst the parking order is in place.
They want to meet up with me to get a better understanding on how to take this further....they really don't like private parking operators... 
Any advice would be welcome to discuss this with them on what to say. 
I have replied to the Council asking them to suspended Smart Parking operating until the order is revoked (is this actually legal for them to not do so?).

I still believe that this so wrong, but I can only stick to facts and what is allowed & not allowed to do. 

Thanks 

Coupon-mad

You could report this to the DVLA and suggest Smart Parking should be suspended.

The DVLA will knock you back and tell you it's now the remit of the DLUHC.  The DLUHC are likely on your side in this; their legal advice (they published it in an FOI reply on WhatDoTheyKnow) tells them that Councils can't pretend PPOs don't exist, or revoke them in order to operate "as if it was private land".

LDast

The contract between Smart and the leisure centre will be interesting. Does Smart have the landowners permission to issue PCNs and to prosecute them in its own name. Surely the contract must flow from the landowner, through the leisure centre to Smart?

Tazman1969

I have contacted the Council as did The_Slithy_Trove but the have refused to accept that hey have nothing to do with the land & carpark insisting that regardless of the PPO still in force they will mot instruct their agents to suspended operating Smart parking. 
I have contacted the DULHC with details and have had a automated reply from them, but in the meantime Smart parking still continues to impose misery to people. 

I have taken this on and will not let go, but even though I have a basic idea on how this works from this site it is like banging my head (one person against the Council etc) and feel that should let it go...my partner not too happy me upsetting the Council, Leisure centre etc.

The reporter is still very interested and has ask to meet again (my partner not happy with this as well) and definitely debating what best to do.

Is this just a fruitless battle, with the outcome that Smart parking will continue to operate, Council will revoke the PPO, and continue to fob me off believing they can do what they want and nothing I say or do will change their mind. 

Sorry for the long message, just looking for assistance and a little motivation to keep it up from the experts on this site.

Many thanks.....

Gr1pr

Tazman1969 said:

Is this just a fruitless battle, with the outcome that Smart parking will continue to operate, Council will revoke the PPO, and continue to fob me off believing they can do what they want and nothing I say or do will change their mind. 

Whilst I agree with you that you may have a valid point, I think that your statement summary above is the likely outcome , similar to what I mentioned with an ALMO , or the Excel saga at Chorlton Square shopping centre, owned by a local council but leased to a third party