Tweet
Hi
I have been reading the website with interest as I have been stung by the misleading signage at the car park and
My office received a NTK which they passed on to me however they did not want it coming back to them so on the initial appeal to Premier Park I had to confirm I was the driver which I'm not happy about but what is done is done.
I used the car park according to the pcn for 14 min and was charged with parking session expired or unpaid ....basically not putting my number plate in at the machine as the first 30 min is free anyway.
The car park was unlit making it impossible to read the small print on the signs basically saying go and the the even smaller print at the ticket machine.
I appealed to Premier Parks saying that the car park was not sufficiently lit to see any signs. this as I expected was turned down and I have a POPLA number.
I have adapted and amended a post that mystery1 ( I hope that ok?) posted to cover what I believe would be a useable appeal for me but would like to submit it to see if people think that it is too much or just too much ranting even.
So here goes
1. The charges are penalties and not a contractual charge, breach of contract or trespass. They are not a genuine pre estimate of loss either.
2. In order to form a contract the signs need to be clear so that they must be seen by an average person. They were not readable at the time of parking. So there was no breach of contract.
3. Premier Park Ltd have failed to adhere to the BPA code of practice.
a) Entrance signs / General signs
b) ANPR signs
4. Premier Park Ltd do not hold sufficient interest in the land to offer a motorist a contract to park. They have no locus standi.
5. Unreliable, unsynchronised and non-compliant ANPR system.
6. Premier Park Ltd do not have planning permission for the erection and use of the signage that they have erected and for the cameras they have installed. Therefore they are operating illegally.
1.The charges are penalties.
The charges are represented as a failure to pay which is disputed. The driver at the time was not made sufficiently aware of the full terms and conitions. According to the BPA code "If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a act of trespass, this charge must be proportionate and commercially justifiable. We would not expect this amount to be more than £100. If the charge is more than this, operators must be able to justify the amount in advance"
£100 is clearly not proportionate to a stay in a car park in which the vehicle was allowed to park for a small hourly sum. Neither is it commercially justified because it would make no sense and in any event in was only ruled so in Parking Eye v Beavis in a car park where the operator paid £1000 per week, a case which in any event is being appealed to the supreme court. It is also noted that the judge in Beavis did rule it was a penalty although in that particular car park it was commercially justified due to the £1000 per week paid by the operator. £100 is clearly a penalty. The £100 is not a genuine pre estimate of loss and is extravagant and unconscionable. It is a penalty. It is not an attempt to claim liquidated damages which should be a genuine pre estimate of loss.
I require Premier Park Ltd to submit a full breakdown of how these losses are calculated in this particular car park and for this particular ‘contravention’. Premier Park cannot lawfully include their operational day to day running costs (e.g. provision of signs, ANPR and parking enforcement) in any ‘loss’ claimed. Not only are those costs tax deductible, but were no breaches to occur in that car park, the cost of parking 'enforcement ' would still remain the same.
According to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations, parking charges for breach on private land must not exceed the cost to the landowner during the time the motorist is parked there. As the landowner allows free parking for 30 minutes and the length of claimed stay was 14 minutes, then by definition the parking would not of generated a fee. The Office of Fair Trading has stated that ''a ‘parking charge’ is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists.''
As the first 30 Minutes is free then the penalty is purely for not entering a number plate at the ticket machine, as there is no loss of money because the parking did not exceed this.
It was held in Parking Eye v Cargius that Beavis does not apply in a paid car park and that the charge is a penalty.
I refer the Adjudicator to the recent Appeal Court decision in the case of Vehicle Control Services (VCS) v HMRC ( EWCA Civ 186 [2013]): The principal issue in this case was to determine the actual nature of Private Parking Charges. It was stated that, "If those charges are consideration for a supply of goods or services, they will be subject to VAT. If, on the other hand, they are damages they will not be. The ruling of the Court stated, "I would hold, therefore, that the monies that VCS collected from motorists by enforcement of parking charges were not consideration moving from the landowner in return for the supply of parking services."
In other words, they are not, as the Operator asserts, a contractual term. If they were a contractual term, the Operator would have to provide a VAT invoice, to provide a means of payment at the point of supply, and to account to HMRC for the VAT element of the charge. The Appellant asserts that these requirements have not been met. It must therefore be concluded that the Operator's charges are in fact damages, or penalties, for which the Operator must demonstrate his actual, or pre-estimated losses, as set out above.
As the PCN had no VAT content to it, it cannot be for a service. It must therefore be a penalty.
2. Unclear and non-compliant signage, forming no contract with drivers.
Non of the signage was lit at the time of parking making it impossible to read
I require signage evidence in the form of a site map and dated photos of the signs at the time of the parking event. I would contend that the signs (wording, position and clarity) fail to properly inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011. As such, the signs were not so prominent that they 'must' have been seen by the driver - who would never have agreed to pay £100 in a car park where they could have paid a small sum. It was not a genuine attempt to contract for unlimited parking in return for £100. I would also require the positions of the lights that these signs use to display themselves after dark and if directional which area of the car park they cover, then i would like Premier Park Ltd show that the lighting at the time of parking was in full working order.
I submit that this signage failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice section 18 and appendix B. The signs failed to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach. Further, because Premier Park are a mere agent and place their signs so high or low they have failed to establish the elements of a contract (consideration/offer and acceptance). Any alleged contract (denied in this case) could only be formed at the entrance to the premises, prior to parking. It is not formed after the vehicle has already been parked, as this is too late. In breach of Appendix B (Mandatory Entrance Signs) Premier Park have no signage with full terms which could ever be readable at eye level, for a driver in moving traffic on arrival.
I put it to Premier Park that a sign at the entrance stating see another sign further in the car park as being nothing more than a misleading trap as a contract would be formed at the point of entrance and not after the car is parked, which is what would happen at this car park.
3. Failure to adhere to the BPA code of practice.
a)
The signs do not meet the minimum requirements in part 18. They were not clear and intelligible as required.
The BPA Code of Practice states under appendix B, entrance signage:
"The sign must be readable from far enough away so that drivers can take in all the essential text without needing to look more than 10 degrees away from the road ahead."For a contract to be formed, one of the many considerations is that there must be adequate signage on entering the car park and throughout the car park. I contend that there is not.
There is no entrance sign at all on the right side of the entrance, the left side of the entrance does but not at eye level. All signs in their largest type show 30min free parking and the in much smaller type it directs you to go find another sign.
From turning right into the entrance of the car park to pulling into a parking bay and getting out of the car you have managed to park without actually seeing a sign displaying the terms and conditions . Too late for an implied contract to be formed at this stage ,and that would be the case in daylight hours as well, let alone at night.
The BPA state for entrance signs:-
18.2
entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format.
The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and it is recommended that you follow Department for Transport guidance on this. See Appendix B for an example of an entrance sign and more information about their use.
A standard form of entrance sign must be placed at the entrance to the parking area. There may be reasons why this is impractical, for example:
•
when there is no clearly defined car park entrance - clearly there is with this car park
•
when the car park is very small - The car park is small but has the full capacity to follow these guidelines
•
at forecourts in front of shops and petrol filling stations - Does not apply in this case
•
at parking areas where general parking is not permitted - Does not apply in this case
There are two very small signs at eye level on posts as you walk out of the car park that would be hard to see in bright daylight let alone at night with no lighting. The rest of the signs are either at ground level or above head height. None visible when driving into the car park from the High St. and turning right into the car park.
b )
There is no signage visible stating that ANPR is in use, only that video Surveillance is in use. This again is a clear breach of the BPA Code of Practice as extracted below.
21.1
You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.
4. Contract with landowner - no locus standi
Premier Park do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question. As such, I do not believe that Premier Park has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed to allege a breach of contract. Accordingly, I require sight of a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed and dated site agreement/contract with the landowner (and not just a signed slip of paper saying that it exists). Some parking companies have provided "witness statements" instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. Nor would a witness statement show whether there is a payment made from either party within the agreement/contract which would affect any 'loss' calculations. Nor would it show whether the contract includes the necessary authority, required by the BPA CoP, to specifically allow Premier Park to pursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the Courts, and to grant them the standing/assignment of title to make contracts with drivers.
In POPLA case reference 1771073004, POPLA ruled that a witness statement was 'not valid evidence'. This witness statement concerned evidence which could have been produced but was not. So if the operator produces a witness statement mentioning the contract, but does not produce the actual un-redacted contract document, then POPLA should be consistent and rule any such statement invalid.
So I require the unredacted contract for all these stated reasons as I contend the Operator's authority is limited to that of a mere parking agent. I believe it is merely a standard business agreement between Premier Park Ltd and their client, which is true of any such business model. This cannot impact upon, nor create a contract with, any driver, as was found in case no. 3JD00517 ParkingEye v Clarke 19th December 2013 (Transcript linked):
http://nebula.wsimg.com/0ce354ec6697...essKeyId=4CB8F 2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1
5. ANPR ACCURACY
This Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. I require the Operator to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence form the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.
So, in addition to showing their maintenance records, I require the Operator in this case to show evidence to rebut this point: I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from this Operator in this car park is just as unreliable as the ParkingEye system and I put this Operator to strict proof to the contrary.
6. Premier Park do not have planning permission for the erection and use of the signage that they have and for the cameras they have installed.
I put it to Premier Park Ltd to prove that the signage they have erected on site has planning approval and has the explicit permission of the landowner to erect the signage and cameras in use . Again i will expect the them to provide the relevant documents and contracts in their unredacted original form clearly showing said permissions. The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 and Circular 03/07: Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007. states that
"Illegal advertisements"
Anyone who displays an advertisement, or uses an advertisement site, or
knowingly permits someone else to do so, without the consent required for
it is acting illegally. It is then immediately open to the planning authority
to bring a prosecution in the Magistrates’ Court for an offence under
section 224 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. But, unless an
offence is especially flagrant or repeated, the planning authority may not
initially consider it necessary to prosecute for an advertisement offence.
Instead, they may invite the advertiser to apply for the consent they believe
he needs, and, if consent is refused, there will be a right of appeal to the
Secretary of State.
The continued display of any advertisement after consent has been refused,
and any appeal dismissed, may well result in prosecution. The maximum
fine on conviction of an offence is presently £2,500, with an additional
daily fine of one-tenth of the maximum penalty on conviction of a
continuing offence.
It is illegal to display any advertisement (even if it has deemed consent)
without first obtaining the permission of the owner of the site, or any
other person who is entitled to grant permission.
I contend that displaying signs where the most predominant message is
"FREE 30 MINUTES PARKING"
is in fact advertising and therefore subject to the above stated planning act.
Thank you for taking the time to read through this and would welcome some feedback before I continue.
I have been reading the website with interest as I have been stung by the misleading signage at the car park and
My office received a NTK which they passed on to me however they did not want it coming back to them so on the initial appeal to Premier Park I had to confirm I was the driver which I'm not happy about but what is done is done.
I used the car park according to the pcn for 14 min and was charged with parking session expired or unpaid ....basically not putting my number plate in at the machine as the first 30 min is free anyway.
The car park was unlit making it impossible to read the small print on the signs basically saying go and the the even smaller print at the ticket machine.
I appealed to Premier Parks saying that the car park was not sufficiently lit to see any signs. this as I expected was turned down and I have a POPLA number.
I have adapted and amended a post that mystery1 ( I hope that ok?) posted to cover what I believe would be a useable appeal for me but would like to submit it to see if people think that it is too much or just too much ranting even.
So here goes
1. The charges are penalties and not a contractual charge, breach of contract or trespass. They are not a genuine pre estimate of loss either.
2. In order to form a contract the signs need to be clear so that they must be seen by an average person. They were not readable at the time of parking. So there was no breach of contract.
3. Premier Park Ltd have failed to adhere to the BPA code of practice.
a) Entrance signs / General signs
b) ANPR signs
4. Premier Park Ltd do not hold sufficient interest in the land to offer a motorist a contract to park. They have no locus standi.
5. Unreliable, unsynchronised and non-compliant ANPR system.
6. Premier Park Ltd do not have planning permission for the erection and use of the signage that they have erected and for the cameras they have installed. Therefore they are operating illegally.
1.The charges are penalties.
The charges are represented as a failure to pay which is disputed. The driver at the time was not made sufficiently aware of the full terms and conitions. According to the BPA code "If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a act of trespass, this charge must be proportionate and commercially justifiable. We would not expect this amount to be more than £100. If the charge is more than this, operators must be able to justify the amount in advance"
£100 is clearly not proportionate to a stay in a car park in which the vehicle was allowed to park for a small hourly sum. Neither is it commercially justified because it would make no sense and in any event in was only ruled so in Parking Eye v Beavis in a car park where the operator paid £1000 per week, a case which in any event is being appealed to the supreme court. It is also noted that the judge in Beavis did rule it was a penalty although in that particular car park it was commercially justified due to the £1000 per week paid by the operator. £100 is clearly a penalty. The £100 is not a genuine pre estimate of loss and is extravagant and unconscionable. It is a penalty. It is not an attempt to claim liquidated damages which should be a genuine pre estimate of loss.
I require Premier Park Ltd to submit a full breakdown of how these losses are calculated in this particular car park and for this particular ‘contravention’. Premier Park cannot lawfully include their operational day to day running costs (e.g. provision of signs, ANPR and parking enforcement) in any ‘loss’ claimed. Not only are those costs tax deductible, but were no breaches to occur in that car park, the cost of parking 'enforcement ' would still remain the same.
According to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations, parking charges for breach on private land must not exceed the cost to the landowner during the time the motorist is parked there. As the landowner allows free parking for 30 minutes and the length of claimed stay was 14 minutes, then by definition the parking would not of generated a fee. The Office of Fair Trading has stated that ''a ‘parking charge’ is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists.''
As the first 30 Minutes is free then the penalty is purely for not entering a number plate at the ticket machine, as there is no loss of money because the parking did not exceed this.
It was held in Parking Eye v Cargius that Beavis does not apply in a paid car park and that the charge is a penalty.
I refer the Adjudicator to the recent Appeal Court decision in the case of Vehicle Control Services (VCS) v HMRC ( EWCA Civ 186 [2013]): The principal issue in this case was to determine the actual nature of Private Parking Charges. It was stated that, "If those charges are consideration for a supply of goods or services, they will be subject to VAT. If, on the other hand, they are damages they will not be. The ruling of the Court stated, "I would hold, therefore, that the monies that VCS collected from motorists by enforcement of parking charges were not consideration moving from the landowner in return for the supply of parking services."
In other words, they are not, as the Operator asserts, a contractual term. If they were a contractual term, the Operator would have to provide a VAT invoice, to provide a means of payment at the point of supply, and to account to HMRC for the VAT element of the charge. The Appellant asserts that these requirements have not been met. It must therefore be concluded that the Operator's charges are in fact damages, or penalties, for which the Operator must demonstrate his actual, or pre-estimated losses, as set out above.
As the PCN had no VAT content to it, it cannot be for a service. It must therefore be a penalty.
2. Unclear and non-compliant signage, forming no contract with drivers.
Non of the signage was lit at the time of parking making it impossible to read
I require signage evidence in the form of a site map and dated photos of the signs at the time of the parking event. I would contend that the signs (wording, position and clarity) fail to properly inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach, as in the case of Excel Parking Services Ltd v Martin Cutts, 2011. As such, the signs were not so prominent that they 'must' have been seen by the driver - who would never have agreed to pay £100 in a car park where they could have paid a small sum. It was not a genuine attempt to contract for unlimited parking in return for £100. I would also require the positions of the lights that these signs use to display themselves after dark and if directional which area of the car park they cover, then i would like Premier Park Ltd show that the lighting at the time of parking was in full working order.
I submit that this signage failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice section 18 and appendix B. The signs failed to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach. Further, because Premier Park are a mere agent and place their signs so high or low they have failed to establish the elements of a contract (consideration/offer and acceptance). Any alleged contract (denied in this case) could only be formed at the entrance to the premises, prior to parking. It is not formed after the vehicle has already been parked, as this is too late. In breach of Appendix B (Mandatory Entrance Signs) Premier Park have no signage with full terms which could ever be readable at eye level, for a driver in moving traffic on arrival.
I put it to Premier Park that a sign at the entrance stating see another sign further in the car park as being nothing more than a misleading trap as a contract would be formed at the point of entrance and not after the car is parked, which is what would happen at this car park.
3. Failure to adhere to the BPA code of practice.
a)
The signs do not meet the minimum requirements in part 18. They were not clear and intelligible as required.
The BPA Code of Practice states under appendix B, entrance signage:
"The sign must be readable from far enough away so that drivers can take in all the essential text without needing to look more than 10 degrees away from the road ahead."For a contract to be formed, one of the many considerations is that there must be adequate signage on entering the car park and throughout the car park. I contend that there is not.
There is no entrance sign at all on the right side of the entrance, the left side of the entrance does but not at eye level. All signs in their largest type show 30min free parking and the in much smaller type it directs you to go find another sign.
From turning right into the entrance of the car park to pulling into a parking bay and getting out of the car you have managed to park without actually seeing a sign displaying the terms and conditions . Too late for an implied contract to be formed at this stage ,and that would be the case in daylight hours as well, let alone at night.
The BPA state for entrance signs:-
18.2
entrance signs play an important part in establishing a parking contract and deterring trespassers. Therefore, as well as the signs you must have telling drivers about the terms and conditions for parking, you must also have a standard form of entrance sign at the entrance to the parking area. Entrance signs must tell drivers that the car park is managed and that there are terms and conditions they must be aware of. Entrance signs must follow some minimum general principles and be in a standard format.
The size of the sign must take into account the expected speed of vehicles approaching the car park, and it is recommended that you follow Department for Transport guidance on this. See Appendix B for an example of an entrance sign and more information about their use.
A standard form of entrance sign must be placed at the entrance to the parking area. There may be reasons why this is impractical, for example:
•
when there is no clearly defined car park entrance - clearly there is with this car park
•
when the car park is very small - The car park is small but has the full capacity to follow these guidelines
•
at forecourts in front of shops and petrol filling stations - Does not apply in this case
•
at parking areas where general parking is not permitted - Does not apply in this case
There are two very small signs at eye level on posts as you walk out of the car park that would be hard to see in bright daylight let alone at night with no lighting. The rest of the signs are either at ground level or above head height. None visible when driving into the car park from the High St. and turning right into the car park.
b )
There is no signage visible stating that ANPR is in use, only that video Surveillance is in use. This again is a clear breach of the BPA Code of Practice as extracted below.
21.1
You may use ANPR camera technology to manage, control and enforce parking in private car parks, as long as you do this in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. Your signs at the car park must tell drivers that you are using this technology and what you will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.
4. Contract with landowner - no locus standi
Premier Park do not own nor have any interest or assignment of title of the land in question. As such, I do not believe that Premier Park has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park, or indeed to allege a breach of contract. Accordingly, I require sight of a full copy of the actual contemporaneous, signed and dated site agreement/contract with the landowner (and not just a signed slip of paper saying that it exists). Some parking companies have provided "witness statements" instead of the relevant contract. There is no proof whatsoever that the alleged signatory has ever seen the relevant contract, or, indeed is even an employee of the landowner. Nor would a witness statement show whether there is a payment made from either party within the agreement/contract which would affect any 'loss' calculations. Nor would it show whether the contract includes the necessary authority, required by the BPA CoP, to specifically allow Premier Park to pursue these charges in their own name as creditor in the Courts, and to grant them the standing/assignment of title to make contracts with drivers.
In POPLA case reference 1771073004, POPLA ruled that a witness statement was 'not valid evidence'. This witness statement concerned evidence which could have been produced but was not. So if the operator produces a witness statement mentioning the contract, but does not produce the actual un-redacted contract document, then POPLA should be consistent and rule any such statement invalid.
So I require the unredacted contract for all these stated reasons as I contend the Operator's authority is limited to that of a mere parking agent. I believe it is merely a standard business agreement between Premier Park Ltd and their client, which is true of any such business model. This cannot impact upon, nor create a contract with, any driver, as was found in case no. 3JD00517 ParkingEye v Clarke 19th December 2013 (Transcript linked):
http://nebula.wsimg.com/0ce354ec6697...essKeyId=4CB8F 2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1
5. ANPR ACCURACY
This Operator is obliged to ensure their ANPR equipment is maintained as described in paragraph 21.3 of the British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice. I require the Operator to present records as to the dates and times of when the cameras at this car park were checked, adjusted, calibrated, synchronised with the timer which stamps the photos and generally maintained to ensure the accuracy of the dates and times of any ANPR images. This is important because the entirety of the charge is founded on two images purporting to show my vehicle entering and exiting at specific times. It is vital that this Operator must produce evidence in response to these points and explain to POPLA how their system differs (if at all) from the flawed ANPR system which was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in ParkingEye v Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence form the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.
So, in addition to showing their maintenance records, I require the Operator in this case to show evidence to rebut this point: I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, a local camera took the image but a remote server added the time stamp. As the two are disconnected by the internet and do not have a common "time synchronisation system", there is no proof that the time stamp added is actually the exact time of the image. The operator appears to use WIFI which introduces a delay through buffering, so "live" is not really "live". Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this ANPR "evidence" from this Operator in this car park is just as unreliable as the ParkingEye system and I put this Operator to strict proof to the contrary.
6. Premier Park do not have planning permission for the erection and use of the signage that they have and for the cameras they have installed.
I put it to Premier Park Ltd to prove that the signage they have erected on site has planning approval and has the explicit permission of the landowner to erect the signage and cameras in use . Again i will expect the them to provide the relevant documents and contracts in their unredacted original form clearly showing said permissions. The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 and Circular 03/07: Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007. states that
"Illegal advertisements"
Anyone who displays an advertisement, or uses an advertisement site, or
knowingly permits someone else to do so, without the consent required for
it is acting illegally. It is then immediately open to the planning authority
to bring a prosecution in the Magistrates’ Court for an offence under
section 224 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. But, unless an
offence is especially flagrant or repeated, the planning authority may not
initially consider it necessary to prosecute for an advertisement offence.
Instead, they may invite the advertiser to apply for the consent they believe
he needs, and, if consent is refused, there will be a right of appeal to the
Secretary of State.
The continued display of any advertisement after consent has been refused,
and any appeal dismissed, may well result in prosecution. The maximum
fine on conviction of an offence is presently £2,500, with an additional
daily fine of one-tenth of the maximum penalty on conviction of a
continuing offence.
It is illegal to display any advertisement (even if it has deemed consent)
without first obtaining the permission of the owner of the site, or any
other person who is entitled to grant permission.
I contend that displaying signs where the most predominant message is
"FREE 30 MINUTES PARKING"
is in fact advertising and therefore subject to the above stated planning act.
Thank you for taking the time to read through this and would welcome some feedback before I continue.
Comment