ParkingEye PCN at London Aquatics Centre -- Appeal Rejected

hexh123

Gr1pr said:

I think that it depends if bylaws apply or not 

There used to be an excellent thread with a map and explanation of how 4 boroughs decided to agree the Olympic Park between them, I believe that only one borough of the 4 retained bylaws,  which we think includes the Aquatics Centre 

If you appeal it as keeper,  you are trying to rely on no keeper liability because it's not relevant land under pofa,  if they successfully prove otherwise,  the NTK PCN letter holds you to be liable 

If bylaws apply,  then you have no keeper liability,  regardless  ( clearly the driver does, if named or inferred  )

I dont see a win on anything else 

It's a shame that the resource pepipoo has been lost,  so unless the wayback machine has copies, we wont find the information.  It may have been troublemaker ( noseyparker  ) who posted this topic and map there 

That's very well explained thank you very much. I will try to dig into this and see if I can find anything more about the byelaws. Will keep this thread updated. 

LDast

Byelaws apply. It is not relevant land. It matters not one iota whether they complied with al the requirements of PoFA in their NtK. If the land is not relevant, the Keeper cannot be liable. They don't know the drivers identity unless you blab it to them. Why would you do that?

Just in case you're still thinking about wasting £60 because you think a £40 "mugs discount" is worth it just because some ex-clamper sent you a speculative invoice for £100, then you will be classed as low hanging-fruit on the gullible tree.

Here are the applicable bylaws that prove that the location is under statutory control and therefore, not relevant land for the purposes of PoFA:

https://live-qeop.pantheonsite.io/sites/default/files/attachments/QEOP%20Byelaws%20Pack%20Complete%20Version.pdf

hexh123

LDast said:

Byelaws apply. It is not relevant land. It matters not one iota whether they complied with al the requirements of PoFA in their NtK. If the land is not relevant, the Keeper cannot be liable. They don't know the drivers identity unless you blab it to them. Why would you do that?

Just in case you're still thinking about wasting £60 because you think a £40 "mugs discount" is worth it just because some ex-clamper sent you a speculative invoice for £100, then you will be classed as low hanging-fruit on the gullible tree.

Here are the applicable bylaws that prove that the location is under statutory control and therefore, not relevant land for the purposes of PoFA:

https://live-qeop.pantheonsite.io/sites/default/files/attachments/QEOP%20Byelaws%20Pack%20Complete%20Version.pdf

Makes sense and I totally agree that we should avoid being milked by those companies. I will definitely not pay them unless I have to. But as I was doing my research this morning I found BPA's CoP got updated and changed drastically compared to the last version (9) on their website, which was in use until October 2024. 

Here is how relevant land is defined according to the latest CoP, if I didn't go for the wrong document: 



The new wording is very general and less restrictive compared with version 9, and there seems to be an added NOTE enlarging the scope of relevant land. Although there hasn't been any change to PoFA, I wondered if this updated CoP will allow the operator to charge any land where parking is subject to terms and conditions. I might be wrong about this but I'm just getting worried about how this will result in not only my appeal but also other appeals with similar grounds in the future. 

Coupon-mad

Nothing has changed.

That wording has been around for 3 years. It comes from the temporarily withdrawn Feb 2022 Government Code of Practice.

hexh123

Coupon-mad said:

Nothing has changed.

That wording has been around for 3 years. It comes from the temporarily withdrawn Feb 2022 Government Code of Practice.

Thank you for the information. It just seems that I will need to alter the citations in the templates and samples found online to match the current version in my appeal (or will I not need to?)

LDast

Who cares what the ex-clampers Code of Practice says about "relevant land". It is not their decision on what is and isn't relevant land. It is simply the fact that ANY land under statutory control cannot be relevant land for the purposes of PoFA.

Stop overthinking this and getting yourself in a tizzy.

hexh123

LDast said:

Who cares what the ex-clampers Code of Practice says about "relevant land". It is not their decision on what is and isn't relevant land. It is simply the fact that ANY land under statutory control cannot be relevant land for the purposes of PoFA.

Stop overthinking this and getting yourself in a tizzy.

Roger. Will stick to what the law says 100%