UKCPM PCN Query - Do i even bother with appeal to them/IAS?

rainbird1

I have all the signage images compiled here: imgur dot com /a/ lbh4eQr

rainbird1

I am attaching all the signage here.



As per them the controlled land is the one with bordered red, which consists of a section of the road and the car park. However as highlighted above all the signage only talk about the "car park" so they do not notify the user about the road at all.

rainbird1

@Flem_Candango

After my appeal with IAS (at least I would like to think) they have moved the "Private Land" signage near the entrance of the Atlip Road so where by removing the confusion that "Atlip Road is a private road which appears as public road" 




May be you can use this argument to appeal IAS that their signage was inadequate and they have now made it inadequate, hence your PCN is invalid.

My arguments below:

1) Even at Point B, there was no contractual offer. According to your position, the "controlled land" begins at Point B. However, a reasonable driver does not typically understand the term "controlled land." Instead, a reasonable driver recognizes terms like "Car Park," "Road," or "Private Land." At Point B, your sign states "Private Land - Permit Holders Only" followed by "See car park for details." You emphasize only the "Private Land - Permit Holders Only" portion, but that is not how a driver reads or perceives it. A driver interprets "Private Land - Permit Holders Only" in conjunction with "See car park for details." Reading this board does no offer him any contract for being on the road. This creates no contractual offer for a driver who does not enter the car park. While your plans and documents may classify both the car park and road as "controlled land," this is not conveyed to the driver. A review of all your signage consistently refers to the "Car Park," and in the mind of a reasonable driver, this does not automatically include the "Road." The sole responsibility for installing signage that eliminates such confusion rests with the operator.

2) Since the driver was not notified that the road is "private" and is part of the "controlled land," they naturally assume they are on a "public road." Any signage that appears to relate to the car park, rather than the road, goes unnoticed by the driver. If they are assumed to be on public road they are not habituated to read a board which appears to be relating to the car park.

3) The argument regarding the yellow lines is not that the private land cannot use them. Rather, because the driver was not informed that the road is "private" or part of "controlled land," and in conjunction the pattern of "yellow lines on one side and no lines on the other" - generally seen on public roads, further reinforces the impression the road being a public road. If we accept your argument that "many private estates use similar markings to discourage parking," does this also imply that the unmarked other side of the road is an invitation to park? We cannot selectively interpret parts of the setup to suit our argument by applying the law in isolation. The entire setup must be considered as a whole.

Hope this helps.

Coupon-mad

Flem_Candango said

 private road... but how can this be deemed anything other than a borderline criminal activity?

This is the view of the street:

This would have at best, been my view turning into the street:

Absolutely no signs at the entrance to the street to warn you its private, once in the street the only sign is a tiny blue and white one that would be impossible to view. 

rainbird1 said:

I did get a similar ticket when I went to enjoy an ice-cream at a parlour on the Ealing road, on a hot evening 10 PM in the night.

Points:

1) The road always looked public to me and now I have got a PCN.

2) The Atlip Road is private road, which appears to be public road, no private road board and yellow lines on one side, no lines on other side pattern generally found on public road.

3) What they describe as "controlled land" consist a section of the road and the car park as shown in the attached image. The PCN is worded cunningly as "private land at Atlip Center Wembley".

4) The new owner-manager is www rivenhall.london they don't seem to be entertaining.

5) I am in the process of appealing at IAS stage and have been bouncing the argument with the operators.

6) My lines of arguments are:

  a. "private road which appears public" => confusion.
  b. "controlled land = road + car park" without clear delamination is violation of Clause 3.2 of Single Code of practice but apparently non binding since Jan 2022.
  c.  no contract at point B since, all the signage uses the work "car park" which does not automatically mean to include "the road" in any reasonable drivers mind.

rainbird1 said:

I am attaching all the signage here.



As per them the controlled land is the one with bordered red, which consists of a section of the road and the car park.

However as highlighted above all the signage only talk about the "car park" so they do not notify the user about the road at all.

HTH

I see why you were both caught.

Covert surveillance is illegal under the DPA 2018. Also in breach of the Surveillance Camera Code of Practice. There was no way you knew you were being filmed or could have seen that high up camera.

And those signs are clearly inadequate to form a contract, not least due to the faded sticker but also given the permit terms only relate to the car park.