Email sent. fingers crossed.

Reply received. The first two comments are internal emails, the last one is the reply to me.

1)"HI

Could you look at this I can see the app for a car park but am not sure regarding the signage mentioned.

Thanks"

2)"Needs to be a specific sign, don’t know which sign he is concerned about…."

[Does it?? I don't think so...

My question was:

"Please could you advise whether or not planning consent has been sought/granted/refused under Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 s.4(1) for the display of advertisement signage relating to car park management by Civil Enforcement Ltd on behalf of Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust at this site."

Not:

"Please could you advise whether or not planning consent has been sought/granted/refused under Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 s.4(1) for the display of one particular sign relating to car park management by Civil Enforcement Ltd on behalf of Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust at this site."]

Then:

3)"Hello

For us to be able to check this for you we need more specific information regarding the signage, where it I situated in the car park and the location of the carpark.

Kind regards

Planning Admin"

In other words, can I do their job for them, please? Because they can't be arsed.

well tell them where the car park is and ;point out that there are also ANPR cameras that need planning permissin as well dont give up.

well tell them where the car park is and ;point out that there are also ANPR cameras that need planning permissin as well dont give up.

oh I won't give up. but do they expect me to draw them a flippin' site plan?!

oh I won't give up. but do they expect me to draw them a flippin' site plan?!

Might actually be a good idea, especially if it helps highlight any other discrepancies with the signage.

you have to remember, this is a flea on the backside of a camel to the planning dept so they usually try and get you to go away rather than have to spend time doing something.

You must bite them harder and hopefully irritate them so much they at least send a letter to CEL to make them apply for PP.

Once you know that they definitely dont have it you go after the hospital trust for having CRIMINALS running their car park ( it is a criminal offence after all).

There was apiece in one of the papers at the weekend saying that the vicious tory cuts to the NHS budget is forcing up parking charges. GARBAGE, all the money goes to these bandits,

none is spent on front line NHS stuff because the law doesnt allow it amongst other things.

More lies pumped out by the trustees to justify their position and decisions to engage these charlatans and then avoid admission that it has all gone wrong

Totally agree! I know how the revenue generated by PCN's on that site is distributed, too.

My point - with regard to the planners - is that my day job isn't enforcing planning law, theirs is. I've alerted them to a probable breach, and therefore a criminal offence. And the answer to the question I asked them is a simple yes/no irrespective of the size/location/number of each and every pigging sign on the site. (They've even inadvertently answered it - "I can see the app for a car park but am not sure regarding the signage").

Trying to draft a response to them now.

You need to cajole them into making a decision that agrees with the law.

They may well decide that you are right,

no PP has been gievn but they arent going to enforce the law and there is nothing you can do about that so there la la la.

Try again by giving the full address and even a full grid refence taken from Google earth if you wish, point out that there are a number of bits of "street furniture"

( try and find proper name for cameras on poles in planning law if you can)

and these signs that are advertisement for things that have nothing to do with the hospital; so not deemed consent.

Whay you want is an admisison that the council are now aware of the illegal signage so you can hit the hospital trust with a stick that says CRIMINALS all over it.

Get on to the local press and try and embarrass them into taking action to get CEL to cancel.

The people who signed the contracts to let CEL loose will hate having their name circuated amongst other potential NHS employers as being an incompetent as a result of ther bad publicity for the trust being dumped on their lap.

they want a nice shiny CV so they can climb the greasy pole and make decisions that kill patients rather than just manage car parks badly.

You should ask for a copy of the application they are on about so you know if it is the same.

Wont be, the parking co's ignore the law because someone might decide that they then run a business on the land and will have to pay business rates)

The trouble with Councils is they don't look upon the lack of pp for car park signage as being serious.

But what they overlook is the fact that the lack of pp means that there is no contract between the motorist and the car parking companies.

This means that many people have paid charges when had it been known that the signage was illegal, would not have been liable to pay those claims.

It is interesting to ponder whether those affected could reclaim their money from the parking companies using the following Act-

The reclaim would be on misleading actions and/or misleading omissions.

The motorists were misled into paying because the fact that the signage was illegal and therefore the parking charge need not have been paid.

Misleading and aggressive commercial practices_ new private rights for consumers, guidance on th.pdf

theroetically yes but the real bugbear is that although no contract exists some judges will still look at the matter on the basis of performance and that ignores illegality as in the famous selling you London Bridge theroetical case usually used as an example.

S62 of the Consumer rights Act says you can enter into a dodgy consumer contract IF YOU WISH TO,

however it certainly doesnt force you to nor allow the bandit offering the dodgy deal to have a say

Email to council:

"Thankyou for your reply.

This advertising signage is not related to the primary business at this site, does not fall within deemed consent and thus requires express consent under Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 s.4(1).

My question was whether or not planning consent has been sought, granted or refused for ANY advertising signage AT ALL erected on the Royal Oldham Hospital site for or on behalf of a company called Civil Enforcement Ltd (or Creative Parking Solutions PLC). There appears to be nothing on planning portal relating to this signage so I would tend to assume no consent has been sought (and therefore the signage does not have consent). I prefer to deal with facts rather than assumptions however, so perhaps you could confirm that this is indeed the case.

If you genuinely require me to provide a site plan of the entire hospital estate, with annotations cross-referenced to photographs of each individual item of private parking company signage and street furniture complete with all dimensions I am prepared to do so, but in view of the scale of the undertaking I would be obliged to invoice the council for my services at my standard rate of £50 per hour (+VAT)"

theroetically yes but the real bugbear is that although no contract exists some judges will still look at the matter on the basis of performance and that ignores illegality as in the famous selling you London Bridge theroetical case usually used as an example.

These regulations work differently from the norm inasmuch as one complains to Trading Standards not the Courts.

It is therefore much cheaper to initiate and one assumes, much quicker to get to the result.

On the other hand while the first person who applies and wins inevitably means that the parking companies will then apply for PP from the Councils.

Thus stopping everyone else being able to use the lack of permission as a means not only to have their charge quashed but use the illegality of these rogues to demonstrate just what a bunch of crooks they are.

But it would be interesting...........................

There is an example where the defence against PE was the lack of planning permission making the contract void and PE applied for retrospective PP, got it about a day before the hearing and the poor chap lost.

now, if it was offer and consideration and the defendant knew that there was no lawful offer at the time how can a contract be retrospective?

Draft letter to Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust:

"Thank you for your letter dated 20th September 2017. I use the words “thank you” in their loosest possible sense. In fact on reflection, any sort of expression of gratitude is inappropriate. I therefore acknowledge receipt of your letter.

My mother’s name was ********* ********. A complaint was made by the daughter of another patient on the same ward who witnessed first-hand a cowardly and humiliating act of mentally and physically abusive and aggressive cruelty.

You have the temerity, gall, effrontery and impudence to defend CE Ltd’s “compassionate approach” and the Trust’s aim to be “compassionate”. Perhaps you could help me to understand how allowing a private firm to profit from unconscionable charges totalling £618 against someone who has recently lost his mother can be considered in any sense “compassionate”, particularly when the quality of care afforded to my mother was so questionable.

This is of course aside from the fact that:

1)The parking signage at this site is advertising requiring express consent which has neither been granted nor even sought and is thus illegal, i.e. a criminal offence, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning Act 2007.

2)Parking charges are issued without complying with PoFA paragraph 4. This renders them void as no keeper liability can be established.

3)A PCN which is void due to non-compliance with PoFA schedule 4 means there is no basis whatsoever to write to a registered keeper, except for the single purpose allowed under the DVLA KADOE rules, namely to 'enquire who was driving'. As the registered keeper, it is my right to choose not to name the driver, yet still not be lawfully held liable if an operator is not using or complying with Schedule 4. The data is prohibited from any other use whatsoever, and certainly not to pursue a registered keeper as if the alleged 'debt' was their liability in law. The manner in which it has been used by CE Ltd is thus a breach of the Data Protection Act, which is another criminal offence. Why are you employing criminals to run a publicly owned facility paid for by the taxpayer solely for their own profit, rather than for the public good?

4)You mention “Penalty Charge Notices”. A private parking company cannot issue “Penalty Charges”.

5)You state that there is no 30 minute grace period at the site. However your parking policy document EDE017 states “You can park in patient and visitor parking spaces, drop off/ pick up areas and some staff parking areas for up to 30 minutes for free”.

6)The driver withheld the PCN’s from me in the belief that my mother’s illness – and subsequent death – was more than enough for me to cope with. The PCN’s only came to light on 18th August 2017 when I received an email from ZZPS on behalf of CE Ltd, by which time of course the opportunity to appeal to CE Ltd had expired, although I’m bound to say such an “opportunity” amounts to little more than an exercise in pure futility, but with a POPLA code attached. In any event, I would not have appealed to CE Ltd as they haven’t followed the protocols of the POFA to create a liability in this matter. They have breached the DPA in obtaining my keeper details and that means an appeal is unnecessary. In the interim I never received a Notice to Keeper by post, nor indeed any photographs, or evidence of the driver, nor even the 'contract' (in this case presumably a sign).

I expect Civil Enforcement to now cancel these 'parking charges' and admit its mistake in attempting to misuse my data, and in trying to mislead me by suggesting that a registered keeper is liable for a non-POFA parking charge 'debt', and that I could be liable for escalated costs/legal fees.

I expect to hear from you within 14 days to confirm that the charges are cancelled. Since there is no cause of action against me as registered keeper, should these PCN’s fail to be cancelled and/or should CE Ltd pursue a baseless claim, you may consider this adequate notice of my intention to sue Civil Enforcement Ltd, for not less than £500 in compensation for the significant distress your actions have caused to a vulnerable family by unwarranted demands arising from misuse of the data obtained from the DVLA for one purpose, yet now being used for another purpose not covered by the KADOE regulations.

I reserve the right to include Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust in any claim made, since that party remains jointly and severally liable for the conduct of its agents on their land.

All letters exchanged will be used in evidence in court.

Yours faithfully,

Mr Me

Cc:Ann Coffey MP, Stockport

Manchester Evening News

BBC Watchdog"

Reply from Oldham Council:

"Following a quick search on our system, it appears advertisement consents were granted in 1993 for “post mounted sign giving details of pay & display car parking”. [i have now found this on planning portal but there is literally no further information available than that[/color]

Unfortunately we would be unable to investigate the matter further without knowing which sign(s) on which car park you are concerned with. As you may be aware advertisement can benefit from deemed consent or not require deemed or express consent for their erection. It may be the case that the alleged signs are well established, and therefore benefit from deemed consent. In addition, they may also benefit from Schedule 3, Part 1, Class 2 of the advertisement regulations.

In my opinion, the alleged “parking” signs do relate to the premises on which they are displayed as the parking enforcement company appear to be acting on behalf of the hospital. Similarly, you will find that many large car parks are monitored by parking enforcement companies who are acting on behalf of the business/premises on which they are displayed.

Furthermore, if you have received a parking fine and it is not a penalty charge notice (PCN) issued by the local council, this would be a private matter between yourself and the parking enforcement company.

In light of the above, and without further information, no further action can be taken."

Look, they just cant be bothered to do their job because even if the signs are there illegally (most likely) the penalty for doing so is absolutely zilch other than being told to take them down. They have more important things to do such as play golf with people who want to build an entire housing estate unlawfully and need to know that building regs are optional.

I'm aware of the inherent tendencies of local planning departments (I design buildings, for my sins).

Unfortunately for this particular enforcement officer I am going to be more bloody mindedly persistent in getting the information I need out of him than he is in trying to avoid handing it over.

Really the only info you need is do they ahve PP or not. If the answer is no then all of their mutterings about deemed consent and the size of signs etc is noise, they parking co dont have it and enforcemetn is nothing to do with your battle

I know...

"Thankyou for your reply. Unfortunately, planning portal contains no further information regarding the "sign" than your email - i.e. what sign, whose sign and where? Where may I find detailed information on this application?

Again, my question was whether or not advertising consent has been sought, granted or refused for ANY advertising signage erected on the Royal Oldham Hospital site for or on behalf of a company called Civil Enforcement Ltd (or Creative Parking Solutions PLC). As the company in question was awarded its contract in or around December 2014 I am not sure of the relevance of consent granted to another party in 1993 for a "post mounted sign".

Regardless of the above, and of the number, size, and locations of the signs in question, please can you confirm whether or not Civil Enforcement Ltd (or Creative Parking Solutions PLC) have sought, or been granted or refused advertising consent for advertising signage erected on the Royal Oldham Hospital Site."

...so now I've asked them for a third time...

Forgot to mention CE Ltd/ZZPS have now passed this to their solicitors, QDR, who want £618 off me.

Are you able to scan up their letter please, minus any information that could identify you?

HB

Sorry, it was a text message not a letter.

Summary: I called the number given in the text (because I don't want a backdoor CCJ - it would literally destroy my life), they said they wanted £618 and would I be paying today? I said no and I would deal with it in writing only.

they cant only CEL can.

silly move.

dx

Hi dx100uk, could you elaborate on that please? Bit enigmatic for my worn out brain

only the OWNER of a supposed 'debt' can file a claim

not some powerless DCA or their fake/tame solicitors...