Parking Eye - zero planning permission - Belvoir Retail and Leisure Quarter. 46-48 High Street. Coalville LE67 3EF

[johnjordan]

In the small town where I live Parking Eye have taken over the running of one of our car parks and use ANPR cameras to record entering and leaving times. We are allowed two hours free parking before charges start.

 

Since this started quite a few people have been receiving parking charge notices and it is obvious that these are cases of 'double dipping' but unless the motorist can supply proof that he/she did not leave their car parked in the car park overnight then PE are rejecting appeals.

 

Thankfully I haven't yet received  a ticket myself but as a Parish Councillor I approached a local District Councillor to ask if PE had planning permission for the cameras as I was unable to find any on the councils planning portal. His reply was that he wasn't prepared to ask and in any case, in his words, "Planning enforcement wouldn't stop a parking ticket being enforced - regulatory enforcement isn't likely to circumvent contract law".

 

My question is, is he correct and that even if PE do not have planning permission for the ANPR cameras they can still use them as evidence in court if someone chose to take it that far?

 

Thanks in advance.

[dx100uk]

he's talking BS.!!

 

 

[johnjordan]

That was what I thought. Surely if they don't have permission for the cameras then, as they shouldn't be there they can't be used to penalise people.

 

Thanks dx, straight to the point as always  

[dx100uk]

ANPR, Planning permission. - Private Land Parking Enforcement - Consumer Action Group

 

from post 9

[johnjordan]

Thanks Dx, it's only just popped up that you made that post.

[lookinforinfo]

The Parking Eye Mansfield thread is an excellent thread and not one I have seen so well explained.

 

At the moment in Courts the lack of PP for signage in car parks appears to be de minimis. As you have found John, most Councils seem to see it as nothing serious and yet by turning a blind eye to not enforcing the Town and Country  [Advertisements] Regs. they are allowing their own residents to be ripped off as well as losing out on the fees necessary when applying for permission.

 

Another problem is that while pp is applied for after the car park is up and running, one would have thought that Councils should insist that while they are pondering whether to grant permission then the signage should be covered over.

 

I suspect that much of the Council laissez faire is through ignorance of the interpretation of the Regs. but I am surprised that it affects so many Councils.

 

A rough survey by a private member of the public wrote to many councils enquiring on how many car parks using private parking companies to run the parking had planning permission.

 

Over 300 of them confirmed that permission had never been granted. Extraordinary that so many Councils are failing in their duty.

[johnjordan]

I have received a reply today from my council confirming that Parking Eye have not applied for planning permission for their ANPR cameras or the related signs. The council officer said he had 'visited the site', even though the site in question is used as a cut through from one side of the town to the other side.

 

Anyway, I have read through the various posts on this subject and still can't decipher whether the lack of planning permission makes any parking charge notices unenforceable. I would have thought that as the cameras shouldn't be there then no action could be taken.

[dx100uk]

so PE have committed a criminal offence..

means all tickets are null and void.

[dx100uk]

open

 

[johnjordan]

With reference to my post back in March about Parking Eye issuing tickets obtained through ANPR cameras erected without planning permission, they have now, after many emails by myself to my local council, applied for planning permission for the cameras, signage and payment machines.

 

I posted this on a local facebook page and not surprisingly many people who had been ticketted by PE were upset, so much so that it came to the attention of P who issued the statement below in the local newspaper.

 

I would welcome your comments:

Parking firm pours scorn on drivers' claims of illegal fines at town car park - Leicestershire Live

WWW.LEICESTERMERCURY.CO.UK

---

Planning permission has only recently been sought for cameras that have stood for months

 

[FTMDave]

Well done on all the work put in.

 

Of course PE will try to BS their way out of it in the media, but there's not really much to discuss.  They were supposed to apply for PP before they put their signs up.  They clearly didn't.  They were committing a criminal offence under The Town and County Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 which means a contract cannot have been formed with them.

 

They have also broken the Code of Practise they signed up to in which it is stated they have to obtain all relevant legal permissions.  Another reason why the invoices they send out have no validity.

 

Sadly, however, while motorists moan but still pay these charlatans they keep getting away with it.  The thing to do is refuse to pay them and challenge them to do their worst.

[lookinforinfo]

The Council, at the very least, should insist that PE cover up their signs and not issue any further PCNs until their planning application has been granted. 

[johnjordan]

Thank you for your replies. I have emailed my local planning authority quoting the Town & Country law and informed them that as a planning authority it is reasonable to assume that they were aware of this and are therefore complicit in the illegal activities of PE. 

 

I have also told them that I will be informing the ICO of this and that they must order PE to cease all operations until PP is granted, which it undoubtedly will.

[johnjordan]

Well I didn't get very far with my local council. Attached is their reply to my question.

jJordan-nov21.pdf

[dx100uk]

right now reply to the silly twonk that they are NOT FINES, and only a local council can issue PENALTY CHARGE NOTICES on Public Roads/car parks controlled by them . Private Land is not subject to such.

 

(p'haps @Gick etc will put that better,) though their letter explains it later..

 

they are correct in the attaining of data from the DVLA is outside their emit, however retro planning does not absolve PE from attaining unlawful payment from everyone when they did not have planning perm.

 

this needs to goto the local press IMHO.

 

[johnjordan]

I was just miffed that they won't tell PE to stop their operation until they have planning permission, especially taking this clause into consideration:

"It must assess the balance of public interest on a case by-case basis"

 

Obviously the council do not consider people being issued illegal parking charges to be in the public interest.

 

Do you think it's worth taking this to the Ombudsman or should I just give up?

 

I will be taking your advise in getting the local press involved.

 

 

[dx100uk]

await the experts.

i think this has been done??

[lookinforinfo]

How do the Council not act when the Regulations are quite clear that no advertisements may be displayed unless consent is granted. They have already conseded that there is no consent. 

It may be that they can still apply for pp but inthe meantine the signage should be covered over and no PCNs issued until the council have consented. 

At a time when Councils are ever more strapped for cash you would have thought that claiming the fees for the permission plus a fine for not applying for permission in the first place. That would go some way to make up for the amount of money that Parking Eye have ripped off motorists for .

 

Requirement for consent

4.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2), no advertisement may be displayed unless consent for its display has been granted—

(a)by the local planning authority or the Secretary of State on an application in that behalf (referred to in these Regulations as “express consent”); or

[johnjordan]

Absolutely. A local facebook page has picked this up and the ward District Councillor will ask embarrassing questions next week, I know he feels just as strongly about the councils apparent inaction as I do.

[brassnecked]

If someone was double dipped and was using Google Maps, or a connected nav system  wouldn't geolocation data prove they only used the cut through showing them miles away from the car park for the relevant time, or dashcam footage time dated and GPS verified.?

[johnjordan]

Further update:

I informed DVLA about this but they have said a sign is a sign whether or not it has PP, and PE are entitled to ask for keeper details.

 

I reminded them that they had not said anything about the ANPR cameras, their silence on this is deafening.

 

I have also reported PE to the BPA, but so far not received a reply.

[lookinforinfo]

The DVLA know less about POFA than my dog that died twenty years ago. They also never admit they have made an error.

 

Trading Standards would probably be a better avenue for you either on Council inaction on no pp thus appearing to aid and abet a PE scam, condoning PE committing an offence and allowing them to rip off the Council customers as well as financial impropriety by not insisting that PE pay for the requisite fees for permission.

You could also complain to the ICO on the same grounds and get two investigations going.

[shuteyepark]

Every parking company (PC) seeking keeper names and addresses must sign a contract with DVLA. This is called the KADOE (Keeper of vehicle At Date Of Event) Contract and Clause B2.1 permits the PC to seek recovery of unpaid  Parking Charges in accordance with the Accredited Trade Association Code of Practice (CoP). So 'reasonable cause' for data access is conditional upon CoP observance.

 

There are two CoPs:  British Parking Association (BPA) and Independent Parking Community (IPC).  Clauses 2.4, 2.6 and 4.3 of the BPA Code and Clauses 2, 2.1, 2.4, 2.42 and 3.1 of the IPC Code require PCs to comply with the Law.   That law will include: the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 whereby ANPR cameras (except those attached to buildings or pre-existing mounts such as lamp-posts) require planning permission;  and, separately, the Advertisement Regulations  2007 whereby the installation of unauthorised signs is a criminal offence (Level 4), with a fine of up to £2,500 per sign. 

 

Almost invariably Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) consider parking signs to belong to Class 2A of Schedule 3 of the Regs, so any sign larger than 0.3sqm in area requires express consent. Some 95% of a sample of 3,000 private land parking sites across England and Wales have been found to have displayed signs larger than this threshold. Almost invariably LPAs state that advert consent cannot be back-dated, so even if advert consent is applied for belatedly (usually after 'outing' by angry Parking Charge victims!) it is only valid from the date of the Decision Notice, prospectively.

 

Next, Clause C1.1 of KADOE also requires that signs must comply with the Law and with the CoP.

KADOE also requires its licensees to comply with Industry Best Practice (usually Clause A5 or A6).  Even PC / landowner contracts and PC / hospital contracts often require PCs to comply with the Law, KADOE, CoP and Best Practice.

 

(To be continued, as space limited) 

 

(Continued, 2)

 

This is what the higher courts have to say regarding access to DVLA data files:

 

1)  In the High Court in Stephen Duff v. Secretary of State for Transport ANORS [2015] EWHC 1605 (Admin) Mr Justice Edis at para [38] of his judgment said:

"In any event, a person who wanted disclosure to enforce a genuine liability by improper means would have a cause for wanting it but not a reasonable cause. The function of the policy is to prevent malpractice and thus to ensure that disclosure is made to those whose cause is reasonable in this sense".  (Emphasis added).   Erection of illegal signage, breach of POFA, breach of KADOE and/or breach of a CoP, for example, would constitute improper means.

 

2) In ParkingEye v. Somerfield [2011] EWHC 4023 QB.  In the High Court. HHJ Hegarty at [263] held that the ParkingEye / landowner contract:

"...in effect, required all necessary planning permissions and other consents to be obtained before the installation could proceed".  (Emphasis added).

 

3) In ParkingEye v. Beavis [2015] in the Supreme Court, where at [111] seven Law Lords considered the evidence, the majority concluded:

".....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".   (Emphasis added).

 

(Continued, 3)

 

Contract Law.

 

It is trite law that a contract  is illegal at formation if it cannot be enforced without beaching the Law.

A recent study of over 3,000 private land parking sites across England and Wales has shown that at some 95% of sites signage had been installed in breach of the Advertisement Regulations. As a consequence in each case there would have been a breach of KADOE, the CoP, Industry Best Practice, and possibly also the PC / landowner contract.

 

Where PCs are displaying their terms and conditions of parking signs in breach of the Regs (as in the vast majority of cases they are), motorists will be contractually bound to the terms and conditions by their conduct in parking and will breach their 'parking contract' with the PC if an infringement of the terms occurs. However, every such parking contract will automatically have been illegal at its formation because the contracts could not have been formed without the illegal display of the PCs' terms and conditions signs.

 

Every related parking charge demand issued by these PCs falsely purports the recipient's liability

to pay the demand, and the question arises as to whether this constitutes fraud by false representation, contrary to s.2 of the Fraud Act 2006.

[johnjordan]

Wow!!!!

 

Do I have your permission to send this to my LPA, DVLA and BPA please?

[dx100uk]

why?