Lcp anpr pcn - didnt park! just stopped Harlesden Plaza, London

[jackospades]

What is the consensus on the grace periods the BPA have in their CoP ?

 

The latest BPA CoP from january 2018 says this -

 

13.1 If a driver is parking without your permission, or at locations where parking is not normally permitted they must have the chance to read the terms and conditions before they enter into the ‘parking contract’ with you. If, having had that opportunity, they decide not to park but choose to leave the car park, you must provide them with a reasonable grace period to leave, as they will not be bound by your parking contract.

 

13.2 If the parking location is one where parking is normally permitted, you must allow the driver a reasonable grace period in addition to the parking event before enforcement action is taken. In such instances the grace period must be a minimum of 10 minutes.

 

13.2.a Vehicles are not permitted to park under the grace period in spaces designated to specific users for example Blue Badge holders. At all times vehicles must have appropriate and valid permit e.g Blue Badge on display for enforcement officer to inspect.

 

13.3 You must tell us the specific grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is.

 

13.4 You should allow the driver a reasonable period to leave the private car park after the parking contract has ended, before you take enforcement action. If the location is one where parking is normally permitted, the Grace Period at the end of the parking period should be a minimum of 10 minutes.

 

Item 13.1 allows for entry through the ANPR and time to park, get out and walk over to the T&Cs signs and read them..and then leave without paying if that's what they want to do having not entered into a contract. But it is ambiguous as to whether having read the signs etc, there is an additional grace period allowed to walk back to the car, get in and drive out and through the ANPR cameras. It says later on 10 minutes minimum under other circumstances...but surely that 10 minutes must apply to 13.1 too ?

 

Item 13.2 is total nonsense and I don't know what it means ..it seems to imply that only 10 mins grace is allowed in total ?

 

Item 13.4 now seems to contradict 13.2 as that states 10 mins 'to leave' the car park..but what about entry..and reading the signs ?

 

Anyone who can decipher this tosh ?

[dx100uk]

are you just pulling this apart

or you've had a ticket and think this applies or doesn't?

[jackospades]

are you just pulling this apart

or you've had a ticket and think this applies or doesn't?

 

Both really....What do you think of it ?

[sgtbush]

You have 10 mins to decide if you accept the terms but you cannotpark in a marked bay in that 10 mins.

[jackospades]

You have 10 mins to decide if you accept the terms but you cannotpark in a marked bay in that 10 mins.

 

13.1 states time must be allowed for a driver to read the signs before any contract is formed...(however long it takes to read the relevant sign/s..?)

13.4 says you must be allowed a minimum 10 minutes to leave the car park after parking.

 

I cannot see how being allowed time to read the signs is part of the same 10 minutes allowed to leave the car park after parking, surely it must be both are allowed ?

[sgtbush]

Nope.

Stop look read accept or leave.

It says minimum 10 mins, that coul be an hour technically but in reality its 10 mins max.

That's plenty of time to decide

[ericsbrother]

cannot park in a marked bay? nonsense.

You have to look at the decisions made in courts before the grace period was introduced as a CoP by the BPA.

 

This CoP is a MINIMUM standard that the BPA needs reporting back to them

otherwise any parking co will lose any POPLA appeal for either parking without a ticket etc or overstaying.

 

One court said that 15 minutes is quite reasonable but no doubt the cowboys recoiled in horror at that and thus the 10 minute period was settled upon so they could show that they werent really a bunch of chiselling bandits.

 

The idea of 13.2 is that you have a blue badge so will be entitled to be there regardless of the grace period

but as you havent accepted the contract until you have read it then it cant apply

it is also nonsense to say you cant park there.

This is just the bPA writing a load of bull to placate their more greedy members.

 

What does the law say you are empowered to do when someone is trespassing on your land?

Ask them to leave via the nearest egress to the public highway.

It is only when someone refuses to go that other powers may be called upon.

 

People attempting burglary often try and use this as a get out when there is little other evidence against them,

you must have seen these police bodycam type programmes where a burglar caught red handed claimed that he thought it was Daves house so let himself in with a handy ladder and screwdriver.

 

so, grace priod applies to entry and leaving as the vehicle will not be parked for all of the time that is recorded on ANPR cameras.

If your reason for asking is that you got a demand for overstaying for x minutes then yes, the grace period applies as your maneouvering to get out of the car park is not part of the time allowed for parking.

 

Many companies will still issue and argue the toss because they want your money and will claim that the COP is the will of god rather than a compromise that allows them to try and claim if they are good.

Edited February 15, 2018 by honeybee13
Paras

[dx100uk]

fill this out please

then we can properly advise you:

 

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?462118-Have-you-received-a-Parking-Ticket-(1-Viewing)-nbsp

[jackospades]

cannot park in a marked bay? nonsense. You have to look at the decisions made in courts before the grace period was introduced as a CoP by the BPA.

 

This CoP is a MINIMUM standard that the BPA needs reporting bck to them otherwise any parking co will lose any POPLA appeal for either parking without a ticket etc or overstaying. One court said that 15 minutes is quite reasonable but no doubt the cowboys recoiled in horror at that and thus the 10 minute period was settled upon so they could show that they werent really a bunch of chiselling bandits.

 

The idea of 13.2 is that you have a blue badge so will be entitled to be there regardless of the grace period but as you havent accepted the contract until you have read it then it cant apply so it is also a nonsense to say you cant park there. This is just the bPA writing a load of bull to placate their more greedy members.

 

What does the law say you are empowered to do when someone is trespassing on your land? Ask them to leave via the nearest egress to the public highway. It is only when someone refuses to go that other powers may be called upon. People attempting burglary often try and use this as a get out when there is little other evidence against them, you must have seen these police bodycam type programmes where a burglar caught red handed claimed that he thought it was Daves house so let himself in with a handy ladder and screwdriver.

 

so, grace priod applies to entry and leaving as the vehicle will not be parked for all of the time that is recordedon ANPR cameras. If your reason for asking is that you got a demand for overstaying for x minutes then yes, the grace period applies as your maneouvering to get out of the car park is not part of the time allowed for parking. Many companies will still issue and argue the toss because they wanmt your money and will claim that the COP is the will of god rather than a compromise that allows them to try and claim if they are good.

 

I'm pleased to see someone talking sense..

 

It's total nonsense for BPA to suggest that the time taken from you make entry thru' ANPR, to the time you actually drive around, find a space, get out, go and read 1,000 word T&C's, read the camera sign and then go to the machine and see how much it would cost...whether you then pay, or not... does not form part of a grace period.

It must apply to everyone who enters the car park.

 

No contract acceptance has been made until you pay, because you can't read the signs unless you park up (unless you drive slowly backwards and forwards)... so actually parking is not acceptance. How much that grace period is depends on the size/nature of the car park,but it has to be there..

 

In addition to that, the BPA can not suggest either that the '10 minutes to leave at the end of a parking contract' is exclusive to people who pay...it takes exactly the same length of time to leave whether you have paid or whether you have read the price list and decided to go elsewhere...why wouldn't it ? It's like the BPA are saying you can only 'buy' the 10 minutes by paying for parking.

 

All it does at the moment, is cause drivers to lose paid parking time because if the cameras might clock you in/out at 1hr 15 minutes, and you've paid for an hour but taken 15minutes to park up and leave after. if they only allow the 10 minutes your 5 minutes over stay and get a PCN.

 

has anyone used this argument to win in Court , because POPLA are just the same set of bandits as BPA and car park operators. No wonder there is a new process being formulated thro parliament...which hopefully will see BPA and POLA abolished...

[jackospades]

1 Date of the infringement - 8 june 2017

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] - 16 June 2017 and 20 July 2017

3 Date received 3 August 2017 (on holiday)

 

4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [y/n?] - Yes

 

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? -Yes

 

6 Have you appealed? {y/n?] post up your appeal] yes to POPLA

Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up Yes

 

7 Who is the parking company? LCP Parking Services Ltd

 

8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Harlesden Plaza,London

 

For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. - BPA

 

There are two official bodies, the BPA and the IAS. If you are unsure,

please check HERE

 

If you have received any other correspondence, please mention it here

 

originally wrote to LCP 3 Aug 2017 querying legitimacy but they replied my 'appeal' was refused.

POPLA code given, appealed..refused.

 

Dozens of letters etc since...too many to post up

[dx100uk]

threads merged.please keep to one thread

[jackospades]

Since received letters from DCA and Solicitors,adding costs which are above the BPA guidelines

 

last day to pay up was 11 Feb 2018 ...not heard anything yet, but...

 

Driver entered car park,

dropped off friend

then went to read the signs about parking

- took over 8 minutes.

..then friend returned.

..driver and friend faffed about as they were heading straight to Portsmouth for ferry,

so luggage to sort out first after shop .

..then got in car and eventually left.

 

Time clocked on ANPR 16 minutes in total.

 

Subsequent info - Signs have no advertising consent, brent BC pursuing.

4 ANPR cameras no planning approval

 

BPA not interested in the various breaches of their CoP..

.wrote several times

- also gave me a load of waffle about grace periods (see other post...)

 

POPLA not interested..

 

LCP not listening

 

As I have not received a LBA yet (and hopefully won't) I'm not panicking.

.but need to know if breaches of the CoP is enough to contest succesfully?

[jackospades]

threads merged.please keep to one thread

 

you should have said, just followed the link - thanks

[DragonFly1967]

This is a bit of a non starter for LCP I reckon.

 

Assuming that, as is usual, the ANPR cameras are focused on the entrance & exit of the car park.

 

Therefore, whist their clock might start as the ANPR camera "reads" the number plate on entry, they then have to give the driver time to find a parking space, park, find, read & consider the signage, then walk back to the car, and exit the car park after deciding not to stay.

 

The BPA in their CoP for AOS members say that the PPC must offer you a "reasonable amount of time" to do all of the above, although it doesn't state what it considers "reasonable", but in a busy car park, I'd say that 16 minutes to do all of the above would not be unreasonable.

[jackospades]

In the NTK LCP 'deducted' 11 minutes grace period even though no payment was made.

 

the claim was for a 5 minute overstay, and even that only allowed 1 minute for 'entry' and reading signs etc..

to me it looks an absolute no win for them,but you never know.

 

LCP have quoted many other appeals for 15/16 minute overstays which were dismissed by POPLA, no surprise there...

LCP are claiming breach of contract, but as far as I am concerned the procedures needed for acceptance of the contract were not met, so it's likely trespass , if that makes any difference in the scheme of things..

[DragonFly1967]

I agree, and it most certainly does make a difference.

 

Only the landowner (not the PPC and/or the Managing agent) can take action against you for trespass.

[jackospades]

I'm no expert on land owners,

but the PPC has a lease so effectively owns the land for the duration of the lease

- at the end of the lease the land reverts back to the original owner.

 

LCP describe themselves as owner/occupier/operator and told me their was no 'contract' with the landowner because of this - they say they have Locus Standi.

[DragonFly1967]

LCP will tell you anything that gets you to part with your money! I could tell you that I own the car park and you now owe me the money instead. Doesn't make it true.

 

They're, no doubt the "operator" but I'd be very VERY surprised if they have any kind of 'lease'.

 

Besides which, if they don't have planning permission for their signs and ANPR cameras, they've committed a criminal offence. And a contract can't be formed as a result of a criminal act.

[lookinforinfo]

.

 

Besides which, if they don't have planning permission for their signs and ANPR cameras, they've committed a criminal offence. And a contract can't be formed as a result of a criminal act.

 

Dragon fly has said it all in the above sentence.

The lack of planning permission is illegal

-so the signs should not even be there.

 

But as they are there, they are not capable of creating a contract.

That in itself should be sufficient to have their stupid claim thrown out.

But throw all you have at them as some Judges need more than just one thing.

 

However, LPC will know that they don't have planning permission they know they have no cause to take any action against you.

 

you could ask for exemplary damages from the Court for wasting your time and for abuse of the Court when they knew they had no chance of winning but were just trying to scare you into paying .

[ericsbrother]

not so,

you need to look up the term "bare licence",

it is not the same as a lease or tenancy,

it is an agreement to let someone be there for a consideration, whatever that is.

 

When you see an ice cream van parked in a layby they havent leased the layby,

they have merely sought permission to park up and flog ice creams and that means they have no responsibilities either which an occupier of the land would have.

 

If LCP say they are occupier then you spend £3 checking this out with the land registry or you phone the Valuations Agency and see who is liable for business rates on the land and I bet it isnt the parking co.

 

The VA will probably tell you who the owner of the land is as well and that will save you £3

 

I'm no expert on land owners,

but the PPC has a lease so effectively owns the land for the duration of the lease

- at the end of the lease the land reverts back to the original owner.

 

LCP describe themselves as owner/occupier/operator and told me their was no 'contract' with the landowner because of this - they say they have Locus Standi.

[ericsbrother]

the planning aspect is somehting that is usually ignored as councils cant be bothered to enforce and usually planning permission is on the and anyway.

 

That doesnt mean that the parking co can ignore the law, it is still a criminal offence so you can use that against them as long as you can show an understanding of why they need it and it isnt deemd consent.

 

There is an article attached to the Parking Pranksters blog written by a retired lawyer that tell you all.

[jackospades]

The lack of advertising consent and planning for the cameras is worth a mention, but I don't think it is in itself enough, based on cases I've read elsewhere..depends on the Judge I guess.

 

POPLA eventually provided me a copy sent by LCP of the land registry property register which shows LCP as the leaseholder, although the prohibitions and restrictions are not detailed.

 

It simply states "There are excepted from the effect of registration all estates, rights, interests, powers and remedies arising upon, or by reason of, any dealings made in breach of the prohibition or restriction against dealings therewith inter vivos contained in the lease." So there are 'conditions'...

 

Advertising can not have deemed consent, it's separate and written into the regulations and unlawful to ignore.

 

The problem is, so what if the Council aren't bothered to chase it up..Judges don't seem to think their job is to get Councils to do theirs... It cannot be remedied retrospectively either, so will remain unlawful until fixed.

 

I've read that article on PP, but it's another one of the farces of legislation where non compliance is met with a shrug and carries no weight with District Judges.

..Similarly it doesn't always work in invalidating a contract based on the signs offering the terms.

..it's slack which is why my operators can just ignore it.

[ericsbrother]

you are preaching to the converted,

i believe that I was the first person to use the 2007 Town and Country Planning Act against a parking co back in 2008 which is why I suggest that people here use it as an argument in their defence but do not rely solely upon it.

 

The problem is that the parking co's lie to the courts and again this has been commented upon elsewhere.

Judges wont have every bit of legislation buried intheir heads and will expect you to prove this so even showing them the relevant sections of the Act isnt enough when the liars claim they have deemed consent unser s2 or whatever whern it doesnt apply.

 

they have tried claiming their signs are "informational", refer to the size of the signs when not relevant to the class of signage etc.

 

They all know by now they need the PP but cant be arsed to apply for it in case they get turned down or get lumbered with another bill that eats into their nefarious gains

[jackospades]

I think it's in the BPA CoP what size signs should be, and that's bigger than 0.3m2 stated in the legislation, but yes absolutely if needed I will have copies of everything ..thank you.

 

It is a breach of the CoP not to comply will rules and regs from other bodies.

..and added to many other breaches you would think based on the BPA points system that LCP would be near suspension.

..but of course it's all secret.

.the BPA represents the operators and not the drivers (although they will take complaints)

 

The BPA is just another useless self serving set up which hopefully will soon be abolished and replaced by an effective regulator...in my dreams.

[ericsbrother]

Look, the BPA isnt going to bite the hand that feeds it so stop wittering on about their COP,

they only invented it to keep their members out of prison for fraud not to help the motorist.

 

The BPA/POPLA has never considered an appeal or representation that relied on the law rather than their assertion that the signage says it all.

 

that is why these companies dont like it when people post a defence when they get sued as it is a fair bet that anything that is not some weak bit of mitigation will beat the claim.