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

[johnjordan]

Because the LPA, DVLA and so far the BPA are all saying there is nothing wrong with what Parking Eye are doing. Particularly the DVLA who say 'nothing to do with us gov, see the BPA'

[dx100uk]

i doubt they would take any notice at all.

 

now if it is fraud is another matter. and just about everything mentioned in the above post has been no diff in +5yrs, so why has no-one done it...urm...

 

dx

 

 

 

[johnjordan]

I don't know why, but looking at previous posts about private parking tickets, one of the things you tell people to do is to see if signs etc. have planning permission.

 

If it makes no difference if they have or haven't then what is the point of telling them to find out?

 

It would be my guess that 90%+ of private parking company's do not have PP for their equipment yet they are fleecing the public of millions of pounds and getting away with it.

 

Anyway, I'll forget all about it and let them carry on.

[dx100uk]

yes you wonder who they play golf with or if the councils just don't care.

the info regarding signs etc are ofcourse an important issue, and ofcourse is necessary weaponry to counter a court claim should one ever be raised.

 

there is ofcourse, and this has came up recently by one time new users that suddenly pop-up with wonderful info on specific threads they directly come too, to use this info to 'head-them-off-at-the-pass' type actions before it ever goes that far, and it's 'guaranteed to work' .

 

but thats what a forum is about.................but IMHO you need to be careful, we always say not to fire your bullets until necessary, rather than tip them off how you might defend a claim some weeks, months or even years in advance.

 

dx

 

[johnjordan]

Ok Dx, point taken.

 

But it really grips me that of all people, the DVLA are complicit in a fraud and getting away with it. But then I suppose we shouldn't expect any different from a Govt. department.

[dx100uk]

as it grips everyone, but if there REALLY was a fraud route against whomever..., then why has it not been done to date? nothing has changed in years to make it 'an only till now' moment?

 

it's all very well these one-hit-wonders suddenly appearing on a forum with magical ideas, to me it's just like trump and his mate mypillow re the fake election fraud.. if they are that wonderful why not get on and do it rather than getting a mug to try it for them.

 

though i will say, through non public info via cag, i am very concerned to learn that this actually appears to point back to a very very respected website, that until this, many inc me & CAG had enormous respect for.

 

 

[shuteyepark]

My investigations started eight years ago, when I made my first complaint to the BPA. That was immediately and unconditionally rejected, along with many others over a period of years, until I realised that every complaint would be batted away. Over the years, I estimate that many thousands of similar complaints have disappeared into the long grass. Should you complain, I would wager that your complaint will also be dismissed. You need to understand that the Trade Associations exist to protect their members, and their very existence depends upon income from ever-increasing numbers of parking charges. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas!  So no, don't bother to complain to a Trade Association. After all, it is the failure of self-regulation that has inevitably led to the new statutory code that is being drafted.

 

Meanwhile, the DVLA has an ever-increasing revenue stream from selling keeper data and the question of whether their staff earn performance bonuses was never resolved, despite an FOI request. Their position is that it is for the Trade Associations to discipline their members, and that is correct. Sadly, they have no appetite to take action, and the many letters I have written over the years have achieved nothing. So don't

waste your time and effort complaining to the DVLA. 

 

As far as the local planning authorities are concerned,  and I have studied over 400 of them, they exist to

scrutinise developments (existing and proposed) to protect the environment. As far as advertisement consent is concerned, they assess projects in terms of amenity and public safety. Most parking signs are approved, content being immaterial, but occasionally signs are rejected because they cause clutter,

especially in sensitive sites (e.g. Listed sites).  Out of many thousands of developments I have only come across one where a sign was rejected because it obstructed sight lines and might be dangerous. So, again, there is little point writing to planning authorities - they have a presumption to consent.

 

According to para 11 of the Annex to the 2007 Advert Regs the Secretary of State considers that "...it would often be reasonable for local planning authorities to invite a person who appears to be contravening the Regulations to remove the advertisement, or to apply for consent, before they prosecute." However, he then goes on to state that: "In cases of blatant, deliberate or repetitive displays of advertisements, immediate prosecution may be the more appropriate course to secure the early removal of an unlawful advertisement".

 

Unauthorised advertising is a criminal offence, and Councils have a duty imposed under s.17 of the Crime and Disorder Act1998 to do all they reasonably can to prevent crime and disorder in their area.