'PCN NOW CANCELLED' data privacy & complaints NPC Group, DCB Legal, DVLA, IPC, ICO & MP

Thorndorise

@Fruitcake

So, I've also read that if they have permission (not sure if this is the case) for 10 or more years then they may not need further permissions.

13.  An advertisement displayed on a site that has been used continually for the preceding ten years for the display of advertisements without express consent.

This is in schedule 3

Conditions and Limitations

13.  —

(1) An advertisement does not fall within this description if, during the relevant 10-year period, there has been either a material increase in the extent to which the site has been used for the display of advertisements or a material alteration in the manner in which it has been so used.

(2) If any building or structure on which such an advertisement is displayed—

(a)is removed in compliance with a requirement of, or under, any enactment,

(b)is removed in any other circumstances, or

(c)is destroyed by any means,

the erection of any building or structure to continue the display is not permitted.

(3) Illumination is not permitted unless—

(a)the advertisement is displayed with illumination on 6th April 2007; or

(b)the advertisement is first displayed after that date, and the advertisement most recently displayed was illuminated.

(4) An advertisement that—

(a)comprises sequential displays; or

(b)otherwise includes moving parts or features; or

(c)features intermittent lighting in a manner designed to give the appearance of movement,

is not permitted unless—

(i)it is displayed on 6th April 2007 and falls within the description specified in any of sub-paragraphs (a) to (c); or

(ii)it is first displayed after that date, and the advertisement most recently displayed fell within any such description.

I don't know (but would have to seriously dig) if they've had consent prior to 10 years or for more general purposes..
Will keep digging...

Thorndorise

Fruitcake said:

This information was provided by poster Marktheshark: -

It is written CONSENT they need under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 section 222 + 2007 section 225 amendment for permission to erect advertising signs.
Consent can not be retrospectively given and conspiracy with the advertiser to do so is misconduct in public office.

Failure to obtain consent is a criminal offence and failure to enforce the criminal offence is also misconduct in public office.

If you are to complain, get it right and make sure you inform the officer dealing at the council you expect the legislation to be followed to the letter of the law.

Offering a parking service conveyed by signs is advertising a genuine offer.

Parking eye went to great lengths at the supreme court to insist they were making a genuine offer. UKSC 2015/0116

Both The landowner and advertiser are jointly and severely liable for the offence.


Where consent has not been granted, the following is also relevant concerning the public law principle going back well over 200 years that no man should profit from his crime

“The principle of public policy is this; ex dolo malo non oritur actio. No Court will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or an illegal act. If, from the plaintiff's own stating or otherwise, the cause of action appears to arise ex turpi causa, or the transgression of a positive law of this country, there the Court says he has no right to be assisted. It is upon that ground the Court goes; not for the sake of the defendant, but because they will not lend their aid to such a plaintiff.''


First, though, you need to determine if advertising consent was granted. 

Had a really deep dig, the answer is no,  it looks like although the site is private,  and the road that runs into it is also boot maintained by the council (ie it's private)... there had never been any application made for advertising on the site. 

Also,  I've now got a better look at the entry signs (bear in mind these are at the entrance to one of the car park sections,  which you don't drive into to get to the JW one... as such these are 45m from any driver driving to JW.

Looking at thus, these do not fulfil the criteria of an entrance sign (I think these are approx 60cm x 45cm so maybe .27m sqd), the largest text on here is 3cm tall,  which is 2 cm smaller than the smallest entry sign requirements (of 50mm), and that is for the private land wording which isn't in group 1 of the IPC CoP v9.

The first 'correct' wording is the authorised permit holders only, but again this is too small at 2cm!!!

Thorndorise

Call me pedantic, but as I've shown above these are the only signs up as 'entrance' signs (and not at the controlled zone entrance - but the business part - this is 45m from where someone would drive past to get to the gravel car park at the back for Jump Warehouse).

As I said, I'd be curious if these actually fulfil entrance criteria signage from IPC or BPA persepctives.

To add insult to this, and I think this was mentioned before, as a material change has been made to the T&Cs on site, the operator must put up signs, which they've failed to do here, surely this just null and voids any foolish PPC that wants to give out ticket....they haven't done their job properly (no surprises there)!

COP Section	BPA Approved Operator Scheme Version 9 - February 2024	IPC Code Ninth Edition Version 9 – January 2024
Wording	Where there is any material change to any pre-existing terms and conditions that would not be immediately apparent to a motorist entering controled land	Where there is any change to any pre-existing terms and conditions that would not be immediately apparent to a person visiting the Car Park
Requirement	“…you must place additional (temporary) notices at the site entrance…”	“…the Operator should place additional (temporary) notices at the entrance…”
Time Period	“…for a period of not less than 4 months from the date of the change…”	“Notices should be in addition to the signage ordinarily required and left in place for an appropriate period.”

Thorndorise

Small update, nothing on the actual charge front - just the usual DCBL threat letters (which I'm ignoring obviously).

I noted recently that on FB, the Jump Warehouse retail unit has made a big announcement (I can hear the tension building), they now have 3 terminals at which you can enter your car reg at the front desk - and they've really gone to town to make sure you don't miss them. Methinks they may have gotten a large number of requests for cancellations! I did speak with one commenter who had been given a ticket despite entering her car details, so it seems that the system was very much in it's infancy early doors.

Thorndorise

Interestingly they quote the window of 15mins, from arriving....I wonder if that's within the contract with the landowner?

Umkomaas

Small update, nothing on the actual charge front - just the usual DCBL threat letters (which I'm ignoring obviously).

Is that DCB Limited or DCB Legal?  Different entities under the same umbrella. One can be ignored, the other not!

Thorndorise

Umkomaas said:

Small update, nothing on the actual charge front - just the usual DCBL threat letters (which I'm ignoring obviously).

Is that DCB Limited or DCB Legal?  Different entities under the same umbrella. One can be ignored, the other not!

Hi Umkomaas - A very good point, and I was feeling highly confident in answering this until I looked - but there is one mention alone on the letters that states it's Debt Collection Bailiffs Ltd - everywhere else it just states DCBL, think I'm okay...

Umkomaas

Thorndorise said:

Umkomaas said:

Small update, nothing on the actual charge front - just the usual DCBL threat letters (which I'm ignoring obviously).

Is that DCB Limited or DCB Legal?  Different entities under the same umbrella. One can be ignored, the other not!

Hi Umkomaas - A very good point, and I was feeling highly confident in answering this until I looked - but there is one mention alone on the letters that states it's Debt Collection Bailiffs Ltd - everywhere else it just states DCBL, think I'm okay...

DCB Limited can be safely ignored, but do anticipate that DCB Legal will be writing soon, based on the standard pattern. Easily dealt with, but no longer by ignoring. 

Coupon-mad

Note no contractual warning AT ALL near those podiums to tell people that "if you don't do this you will be 'fined' £100". 

Quelle surprise...

Thorndorise

Coupon-mad said:

Note no contractual warning AT ALL near those podiums to tell people that "if you don't do this you will be 'fined' £100". 

Quelle surprise...

Very true, and to be honest, the change from having one small ipad on the desk to this demonstrates the issues they are facing, and I do feel for them a little - they have been forced into having this parking on site and it may well have been that they asked for more podiums to allow it not to be missed. But a point well made that they ultimately haven't said what the consequence is of not doing it - although I doubt they actually care given their lack of response to my numerous emails. It's a pity really, I suspect they are trying to make their life as easy as possible.

Of course, lest we forget, there is both inadequate signage and no temporary entrance signs to tell people about these changes, so people aren't really going to know what it's all about (and many are not on FB - this was sent to me, I've been blocked so not even sure how I'd know about it in the future lol).