Is land owned by a Council Council under statutory control?

emcwill

Hi there, Parking Control Management are attempting to transfer liability to keeper for a charge at Holme Pierrepoint National Watersports Centre. The Centre is owned by Nottinghamshire County Council (administered by Serco). If owned by a County Council, does this mean it is under statutory control and therefore not 'relevant land'? They do cite PoFA as giving them means to do this.

Gr1pr

Read the comments in the following thread  ( epping forest and London council   )

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6625259/horizon-parking-and-epping-forest/p2

Or Stanmer Park , Sussex

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6251664/county-court-judgement-claim-form-received-one-parking-solution-stanmer-park/p2

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79010939#Comment_79010939?utm_source=community-search&utm_medium=organic-search&utm_term=Stanmer+park

Or London Aquatics Centre 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6581503/parkingeye-pcn-at-london-aquatics-centre-appeal-rejected?utm_source=community-search&utm_medium=organic-search&utm_term=London+aquatic+centre+bylaws

And study the explanations in this thread below 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/80790024#Comment_80790024?utm_source=community-search&utm_medium=organic-search&utm_term=not+relevant+land+statutory+control

And

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75763219#Comment_75763219?utm_source=community-search&utm_medium=organic-search&utm_term=not+relevant+land+statutory+control

Just because a private parking company says that the moon is made of cheese,  doesn't mean that it is

emcwill

So sorry, another question: I have just realised that PCM deals with the IAS and not PoPLA. I have already appealed to the operator (and been rejected). I presume the same argument around statutory control holds true for appealing through IAS as it does PoPLA?

Gr1pr

You can try it, the arguments are no different,  but bear in mind that the IAS tend to side with the parking company 

emcwill

OK so I've revisited the newbies thread and it seems the advice is don't bother with IAS and wait for Court letter. Appreciate it's annoying when people make posts that can be answered in that thread! Thanks for your assistance!

Coupon-mad

emcwill said:

Hi there, Parking Control Management are attempting to transfer liability to keeper for a charge at Holme Pierrepoint National Watersports Centre.

The Centre is owned by Nottinghamshire County Council (administered by Serco). If owned by a County Council, does this mean it is under statutory control and therefore not 'relevant land'? They do cite PoFA as giving them means to do this.

If the land is under statutory control they're lying about the POFA.

You can try an IAS appeal but you need to know it is considered bent. A kangaroo court and it's owned by Will Hurley Ltd, as is the parking trade body the IPC. And Will Hurley has registered INDEPENDENT APPEALS SERVICE LIMITED under his own name as sole director. Currently showing as dormant.

Did you also know that PCM were outed on Watchdog as rogue traders? You don't have to pay these time-wasting ex-clampers:

 http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2015/05/is-it-pcm-uk-who-make-up-stuff-all-time.html?m=1

And please please please do this on or before 5th September (end of next week): the government's Public Consultation.

See this thread: -

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/p1

We need every poster to come back & complete this vital Consultation before the deadline.

We understand that you may need some pointers. It looks laborious and detailed, we get that. But no other knowledge is needed

As a harassed and angry motorist who will probably lose at the IAS and will then have no dispute resolution and must endure and ignore umpteen £170 threatograms, you can and should call out this scam industry.

Little preparation is needed because of the linked thread helping you understand every question, and you'll protect millions of motorists and help change the law.

I've written some guidance on that thread to focus on certain questions that are important, such as banning the added £70 that the DRA and PPC share, when duped people pay.

The IAS is considered a non-impartial (bent, kangaroo court) 'service' that only allows 5% of adjudicated cases in favour of consumers. FIVE PER CENT!

The IAS MUST GO as it is neither independent nor fit for purpose. Most people give it a swerve nowadays as we have no confidence in it.

Ordinary people like you are falling victim to this scam 15 million times per annum. Motorists need to respond: please add your voice.

emcwill

Coupon-mad said:

emcwill said:

Hi there, Parking Control Management are attempting to transfer liability to keeper for a charge at Holme Pierrepoint National Watersports Centre.

The Centre is owned by Nottinghamshire County Council (administered by Serco). If owned by a County Council, does this mean it is under statutory control and therefore not 'relevant land'? They do cite PoFA as giving them means to do this.

If the land is under statutory control they're lying about the POFA.

You can try an IAS appeal but you need to know it is considered bent. A kangaroo court and it's owned by Will Hurley Ltd, as is the parking trade body the IPC. And Will Hurley has registered INDEPENDENT APPEALS SERVICE LIMITED under his own name as sole director. Currently showing as dormant.

Did you also know that PCM were outed on Watchdog as rogue traders? You don't have to pay these time-wasting ex-clampers:

 http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2015/05/is-it-pcm-uk-who-make-up-stuff-all-time.html?m=1

And please please please do this on or before 5th September (end of next week): the government's Public Consultation.

See this thread: -

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-8-weeks-from-11th-july-2025/p1

We need every poster to come back & complete this vital Consultation before the deadline.

We understand that you may need some pointers. It looks laborious and detailed, we get that. But no other knowledge is needed

As a harassed and angry motorist who will probably lose at the IAS and will then have no dispute resolution and must endure and ignore umpteen £170 threatograms, you can and should call out this scam industry.

Little preparation is needed because of the linked thread helping you understand every question, and you'll protect millions of motorists and help change the law.

I've written some guidance on that thread to focus on certain questions that are important, such as banning the added £70 that the DRA and PPC share, when duped people pay.

The IAS is considered a non-impartial (bent, kangaroo court) appeals service that MUST GO as it isn't independent it fit for purpose.

Ordinary people like you are falling victim to this scam 15 million times per annum. Motorists need to respond: please add your voice.

Already filled it out! I used words used as 'extortion' and 'mafia protection racket'! The thing that disgusted me the most was discovering that even if they accept mitigating circs, they are still entitled to charge you £20! I made the point that any expense on their part issuing charges is nothing more than a business expense of their profit-making operating model: what other businesses are protected like this??!!

Coupon-mad

I made the point that any expense on their part issuing charges is nothing more than a business expense of their profit-making operating model.

Good point well made.

I forgot about that! There is case law* against holding people liable for your back office operation. e.g. if a person steals a trolley of items from a shop, they aren't liable for the shoe leather or wages of the security guard who follows them.

I am so pleased that so many posters have cracked on and done it.

Add to that, the MSE Money Tips email went out last week with the Public Consultation linked. That communication goes to almost ten million recipients, I think. Even if a small percentage of those people respond, the MHCLG will have their work cut out!

*  A Retailer v Ms B and Ms K 09.05.12

HHJ Harris at Oxford Court:

"The claimant in the instant case has not established either that the staff in question were “significantly diverted from their usual activities” or that there was “any significant disruption to its business” which, in this type of case, may amount to the same thing. Nor was there any loss of revenue generation. The two security people, far from being diverted from their usual activities, were in fact actively engaged in them."