Parking eye

[Mrst1]

I have just received a parking eye ticket from uttoxeter Starbucks. Arrived when it was dark, no idea about a parking eye and have just received a ticket through the post. They state I was over the maximum 2 hours by 10 minutes. I have no idea even where yo look for this parking eye. You seem very informed, is there any advice you could offer?

[ericsbrother]

start your own post, this one is about a specific matter of planning consent and yours is not related to this site.

[Polyplastic]

I have just received a parking eye ticket from uttoxeter Starbucks. Arrived when it was dark, no idea about a parking eye and have just received a ticket through the post. They state I was over the maximum 2 hours by 10 minutes. I have no idea even where yo look for this parking eye. You seem very informed, is there any advice you could offer?

 

You need to start your own thread really. In the meantime, if you want to challenge the charge, get a photo of the signs and also write to the local planning authority to ask if they have advertisement consent for their sign and planning permission for the cameras. ParkingEye did not have advertisement consent for its signs at the Queens Hospital in Burton on Trent and the East Staffordshire Council threatened a prosecution. That is the same Council for the Uttoxeter area. I assume that this is the Starbucks off Derby Road Uttoxeter?

 

John Thompson is the man to contact at East Staffordshire Borough Council PO Box 8045 Burton on Trent DE14 9JG. 01283 508684

 

You need to get an appeal in to ParkingEye initially (their parking charge notice should say how and when to do that.) They will turn you down so you then need to appeal to POPLA

 

I would include in your appeal that ParkingEye is failing to comply with the BPA COP which requires it to comply with the law. It does not have advertisement consent for its signs or planning permission for its ANPR cameras according to the local Planning Authority Planning Portal. By virtue of Regulation 30 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements)(England) Regulations 2007 it is a criminal offence to display signs without such consent.

 

NOTE this depends on the size of the signs and whether they can be seen from outside of Starbucks site.

 

In the alternative pay the charge

[AndyOrch]

Own thread created Mrst1

 

Regards

 

Andy

[Polyplastic]

Andrea Smith at East Staffordshire Council (01283 508604) has, today, confirmed that there is no advertisement consent nor any planning permission for the ANPR cameras at this site. She has passed the issue to their Enforcement section to pursue. Use this email in any appeal. ParkingEye will ignore any appeal based on this line of argument but hopefully POPLA will agree

 

 

Andrea Smith

07:52 (3 hours ago)

 

to me

 

Dear Mr [ ]

 

I have checked our records and cannot locate any planning approvals for advertisement consent or for ANPR cameras.

 

I will forward this e-mail to the Enforcement teams that deal with these issues to look into.

 

Kind Regards

Andrea Smith

Planning Support Team Leader

Development Control

 

(01283) 508604

 

East Staffordshire Borough Council

P.O. Box 8045

Burton upon Trent

Staffordshire

DE14 9JG

 

I would go back to Starbucks (unless you live a long way off) and ask them to waive the charge as they are committing a crime by having signs there without advertisement consent. Further they are allowing their land to be used for the collection of personal data without lawful consent sin place. Mind you for a company so relaxed about paying taxes it probably won't be interested. May be best to speak very loudly in their cafe just so everyone knows.

 

In the alternative consider this in your appeal to PE and POPLA

 

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 Practice is not a contractual document, it is in practice binding on the operator since its existence and observance is a condition of his ability to obtain details of the registered keeper from the DVLA. In assessing the fairness of a term, it cannot be right to ignore the regulatory framework which determines how and in what circumstances it may be enforced.” Paragraph 2.4 of the Code of Practice, (applicable at the time of the parking event in this action), sets out how and in what circumstances a term may be enforced. It reads “All AOS members must be aware of their legal obligations and implement the relevant legislation and guidance when operating their businesses.” Broadly, the Code of Practice obliges the Claimant to comply with the law in creating and enforcing its contract with a motorist and in communicating the terms of that contract.

 

I have attached a copy of an email from the local Planning Authority which confirms that at the time the vehicle was parked the car park signs did not have advertisement consent nor planning permission for the ANPR cameras. By virtue of Regulation 30 of the Town and Country Planning Control of Advertisements)(England) Regulations 2007 it is a criminal offence to display the signs without advertisement consent. It is not legally possible to secure any backdated advertisement consent so it will always have been a crime when the car was parked.

 

This is clearly a breach of paragraph 2.4 of the Code of Practice. If there is any liability on the Appellant then, in considering paragraph 2.2 above, it is submitted that a term is not fair if the requirements of the Code of Practice are ignored and a crime has to be committed to create that term and/or the contract between motorist and the parking enforcement company.

 

 

By virtue of Regulation 3 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 a commercial practice is unfair if it contravenes two requirements. The first strand being the requirements of professional diligence and the second that a failure of professional diligence materially distorts or is likely to materially distort the economic behaviour of the average consumer with regard to a “product”. (For “product” see below). By virtue of Regulation 5 of the 2008 Regulations a breach of Regulation 3 is an offence. The Office of Fair Trading guidance on the 2008 Regulations at paragraph 10.1 indicates that “Regulations 3(1) and 3(3) of the 2008 Regulations set out the general prohibition on unfair business to consumer commercial practices, also known as the general duty not to trade unfairly. This prohibition allows enforcers to take action against unfair commercial practices, including those that do not fall into the more specific prohibitions of misleading and aggressive practices, or into the very specific banned practices. This means it acts as a safety net. It is designed to ‘future-proof’ the protections in the CPRs, by setting standards against which all existing and new practices can be judged”. Paragraph 10.4 of the OFT Guidance indicates that professional diligence should evidence “(a) honest market practice in the trader’s field of activity, or (b) the general principle of good faith in the trader’s field of activity”. The Appellant submits that the first strand of Regulation 3 applies as a result of the criminal conduct involved in parking enforcement. The second strand begs the question “Would a consumer be likely to make a different decision about payment of damages if he were told that a crime had to be committed to bring about the demand for that payment?” It is averred that a car park operator failing to secure, or that its client had secured, the relevant advertisement consent in accordance with the law, before managing the car park, and thus a crime was being committed, was acting in contravention of Regulation 3 of the 2008 Regulations. In doing so the Claimant fell below the standards of a reasonably competent professional, having regard to the standards normally expected in its profession with particular regard to the Code of Practice. Further that by failing to advise the Appellant of the criminal conduct in relation to its parking enforcement, when demanding damages for an alleged breach of contract, it is averred that the Defendant was also acting with a lack of professional diligence.

 

On the 1st October 2014, the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Regulations 2014 came into effect which extended the definition of “product” in the 2008 Regulations and which now includes the settlement, (rather than the demand) after the 1st October 2014, of actual or purported liabilities and which the Claimant is seeking to recover from the Appellant by way of alleged damages. (see Regulation 2(9) of the 2014 Regulations). So, taking a decision to settle damages falls within Regulation 3 of the 2008 Regulations. It is submitted that it is incumbent upon the Claimant to show that it is acting with professional diligence.

 

Regulation 5(3)(b) of the 2008 Regulations indicates that it is a misleading action where there is any failure by a trader to comply with a commitment contained in a code of conduct which the trader has undertaken to comply with. The Claimant had, in the Code, undertaken to comply with the law and clearly failed.

 

 

Before appealing you need to weigh in the balance that if you lose the appeal then ParkingEye will be chasing you for the full £100. Further that if POPLA chooses not to support your appeal ParkignEye will more than likely take you to court. They have more confidence having won Beavis. You will be fighting this for about a year.

 

Polyplastic

[armadillo71]

You need to start your own thread really. In the meantime, if you want to challenge the charge, get a photo of the signs and also write to the local planning authority to ask if they have advertisement consent for their sign and planning permission for the cameras. ParkingEye did not have advertisement consent for its signs at the Queens Hospital in Burton on Trent and the East Staffordshire Council threatened a prosecution. That is the same Council for the Uttoxeter area. I assume that this is the Starbucks off Derby Road Uttoxeter?

 

John Thompson is the man to contact at East Staffordshire Borough Council PO Box 8045 Burton on Trent DE14 9JG. 01283 508684

 

You need to get an appeal in to ParkingEye initially (their parking charge notice should say how and when to do that.) They will turn you down so you then need to appeal to POPLA

 

I would include in your appeal that ParkingEye is failing to comply with the BPA COP which requires it to comply with the law. It does not have advertisement consent for its signs or planning permission for its ANPR cameras according to the local Planning Authority Planning Portal. By virtue of Regulation 30 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements)(England) Regulations 2007 it is a criminal offence to display signs without such consent.

 

NOTE this depends on the size of the signs and whether they can be seen from outside of Starbucks site.

In the alternative pay the charge

 

No. You exhaust all other appeal options before advising to pay the charge.