Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Polyplastic

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Burton Hospital.pdf Just a couple more examples of Planning Authorities telling ParkingEye that a crime is being committed by displaying signs without advertisement consent. The grant of any subsequent consent does not legalise this crime. Any consent only applies going forward and cannot be backdated. So in Mansfield the existence of their signs, before advertisement consent is granted, will always be a crime. Remember that if they chase you for a parking charge. ParkingEye like to deny that advertisement consent is required or that a failure to have consent is a crime or they run
  2. Interesting article in the CHAD http://www.chad.co.uk/news/local/parking-company-using-unauthorised-cameras-at-retail-park-1-7774133 ParkingEye claim that they don't need any consents. The comment with the article may or may not prompt the landowner to continue to do the honorable thing as it did when folk were stuck in traffic. We shall see Polyplastic
  3. Planning Department. Where is this car park? Polyplastic
  4. Blimey good guys exist!!!! Still worth asking the planners if PakingEye has consent for its signs. Probably don't so it will put them to some trouble and expense getting advertising consent Polyplastic
  5. 1. It's not a speculative invoice. Please stop quoting 2012 advice. Most people have realised that the ParkingEye's of this world don't do speculative they take you to court 2. They do not have to rely on PoFA. That legislation only applies if they wish to sue the registered keeper. As they will be making a claim in contract they have up to 6 years to send out a demand and sue you. That is the limitation period for suing in contract. If they can't sue the RK under PoFA they can sue the RK and claim that the RK was the driver. Then let the RK go to court and try and claim that he was not t
  6. You have to get your appeal into ParkingEye within the time limit set in their Parking Charge notice. Fail to do so and you can't appeal to POPLA. Fail to do so and in court the Judge will not look too favourably on your not having followed that process. The Planners would firstly need to satisfy themselves that advertisement consent and planning permission is required. If the car park signs are on enclosed land and cannot be seen from the Highway they may not need advertisement consent. If the ANPR are on freestanding poles they should need planning permission. If they are attached to a
  7. At a Holiday Inn in Stoke ParkingEye did not have advertisement consent for its signs nor planning permission for its cameras. ParkingEye does not bother to secure such consents elsewhere in the country so perhaps it has not done so at your Holiday Inn. Check with the local planning authority. If there are no consent then in your appeal to ParkignEye which will be rejected, at POPLA include this The case of Cavendish Square Holdings BV v Talal El Makdessi; Parking Limited v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, at paragraph 96, draws our attention to the Code of Practice of the British Parking Associat
  8. Objections to ParkingEyes applications can can now be submitted to [email protected] Thie applications are here http://www.mansfield.gov.uk/Fastweb/results.asp Polyplastic
  9. Mansfield District Council has now received applications for advertisement consent and for planning permission for the ANPR cameras. The application are presently being validated and once that has been completed they will be on the Council's planning applications portal. The public will then be able to express their views on the the applications. There are limited grounds on which any objection may be made and this tends to be limited to visual amenity or safety grounds. Very little scope there in this location unless it can be shown that signs near the entrance could create traffic conges
  10. That was their commercial contract - what is important from the judgement are the principles the Judge laid down as to the situation where contracts can be void. The PE v Somerfield contract just did not fit into the categories the judge set out. However a contract between a motorist and ParkingEye, where a crime underpins its existence, can fit within the categories the Judge described. I mentioned earlier that anyone wishing to fight such claims needs to understand how the court works. Simply going to court and saying "the contract is repugnant" is not enough....it has to be justified w
  11. The owners of the St Peters Retail park have been asked if they will cease the criminal aspect of parking enforcement at the site pending their obtaining the necessary mandatory consents. They have declined to confirm that they will cover their signs/cameras. Mansfield District Council has the powers to cover over the signs but they do not seem interested in exercising those powers. So ParkingEye/The British Land Company will continue to enforce even though a crime is being committed everyday that their signs remain in view. Meanwhile shoppers at the park, who shop lift will continu
  12. Yes but then you have to develop the arguments and produce your evidence to support that submission. Something along the lines of Any contract between the parties, based on unlawful signs, would be illegal at its formation as it was incapable of creation without an illegal act. Where a contract is illegal when formed, neither party will acquire rights under that contract, regardless of whether there was any intention to break the law. The contract will be void and treated as if it was never entered into. As such the contract cannot be enforced. It is a matter of Public Law Poli
  13. At Post 15 above is evidence from Mansfield Council of the crime involved in this parking enforcement operation - You may wish to include the following in your appeal to POPLA - you may need to send with your appeal a copy of the Beavis Judgment the case you need is Cavendish Square Holding BV (Appellant) v Talal El Makdessi (Respondent) ....ParkingEye Limited (Respondent) v Beavis (Appellant) The Beavis case at paragraph 96 draws our attention to the Code of Practice of the British Parking Association Limited. In Beavis para 111 the Judge helpfully comments that “while the Code of P
  • Create New...