Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: Caravan1 on February 29, 2024, 01:41:31 pm
-
The car is in my name
So you have the V5c in your name and the address is your address? If not it's not in 'your name' in a meaningful sense of the phrase.
-
To everyone (except HCA who has bowed out):
The question is whether the Leisure Centre car park is “provided or controlled” by the Council; not whether it’s “owned or operated” by the Council.
I’m aware of a number of local authorities who have handed over the operation of Council car parks to private operators in the (in my view) erroneous belief that they have thereby converted a council car park into a private one (examples include the City of London and Transport for London).
Be interesting to see what the FOI returns.
Similar, locally there are facilities run by a third party company, on council land (buildings once were also owned by the council, and still is owned by the council on the land registry), who also have private parking companies in situ. There is however no council orders in relation to those car parks, and FOI sent to said council returned an excerpt of lease contracts handing over control of the land for X period. My friend paid the ticket before I could get dug further into it unfortunately, even with the offer of me paying for the whole thing if they eventually took them to court and won.
-
To everyone (except HCA who has bowed out):
The question is whether the Leisure Centre car park is “provided or controlled” by the Council; not whether it’s “owned or operated” by the Council.
I’m aware of a number of local authorities who have handed over the operation of Council car parks to private operators in the (in my view) erroneous belief that they have thereby converted a council car park into a private one (examples include the City of London and Transport for London).
I will report the results of my FOI request when they come through.
As a practical matter, OP has nothing to lose and much to gain by sending the letter I provided at reply #19.
OP have you sent that email?
-
According to the council themselves "The centre is owned by East Herts Council and managed by Everyone Active".
Let's see what the FOI comes back with.
-
My research shows three car parks in Hartham Lane, clearly shown on GSV:
Hartham Common:
Hartham Lane:
Hartham Leisure Centre.
Hartham Common and Hartham Lane are listed on the council's website, the leisure centre is not.
The Off-Street order does not list the car park of the leisure centre. https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/TRO/East%20Hertfordshire/ET08.pdf
The Lane and Common car parks have clear identity i.e. EHDC.
The leisure centre similarly, but it's private, and has been for at least 5 years.
IMO, the evidence is overwhelming that the leisure centre car park is 'relevant land'. If someone wants to run an argument that because the leisure centre is 'managed in partnership with EHDC' this must mean that it is 'owned or operated' by the council by virtue of them also being empowered to provide off-street car parks, then they'll need more than just words but legal argument.
I don't want to continue with this as Nosy Parker is well respected and equally well versed in matters, I'll just bow out now knowing that I've put my case to the OP in the best way I can.
-
The only references to 'council' are from the OP
Prompted by the OP’s claim at Reply # 11 that it’s a ‘Council owned car park’I did some research of my own. I reported the results at Reply #19. Those results support the proposition that it’s a Council owned car park without relying on the OP’s word.
The fruits of that research are persuasive but not conclusive so I asked the question directly via a FOI request to East Herts District Council. I’ll post the reply when it comes in.
-
Miraculous change.
So miraculous in fact that it doesn't even appear to be a material change. Nosy's research seems sound - the letter we have seen makes clear it's the car park at the leisure centre, which seems to clearly be part of the same premises - and the leisure centre would seem to be owned by the council (as they proudly state on their website).
If there are documents the OP has but has not shared, it would indeed be useful to see them.
I'm still not sure that we've established the issue around whose name and what address is on the V5C document...
-
Still reserved and with good reason IMO.
The only references to 'council' are from the OP who instead of posting docs simply gives us their interpretation and despite me asking to see whatever they have, the OP has ignored.
So, what is the sum of the OP's contribution on this point?
offense in a local car park connected to a council run leisure Centre.
V5 address correct. Location..council run leisure Centre car park in Hertford.
Miraculous change.
OP, post the only documents you have pl.
-
Good catch, thanks DWMB. I’ve corrected that post.
-
A very minor correction, I belive it is the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 rather than of
-
BTW, it looks as though East Herts Council is acting in breach of ministerial requirements by allowing its car park to be operated like a private car park with PCNs issued on a contractual basis. Have a look at the ministerial letter on the subject https://committees.westminster.gov.uk/documents/s31749/Appendix%20F%20-%20Letter%20from%20DfT.pdf
-
I have conducted some research of my own.
The Leisure Centre website says it is managed in partnership with East Herts Council by Sports and Leisure Management Limited https://www.everyoneactive.com/centre/hartham-leisure-centre/
The audited accounts of that company describe its business as the management of sports and leisure facilities on behalf of local authorities:
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/02204085/filing-history
East Herts Council is a district council and therefore a traffic authority as defined in POFA paragraph 3.
Therefore (notwithstanding HCA’s reservations) I think it’s likely that this car park is provided or controlled by a traffic authority and therefore excluded from the POFA definition of relevant land.
All of which means that the registered keeper can write to the Data Protection Officers of CEL and DCBL along the following lines:
“Dear Sir or Madam
Re [ ]
I have received correspondence from your organisation in relation to the above referenced parking charge.
Please note that I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I am not obliged to identify the driver and I decline to do so.
As there is no presumption in law that the registered keeper of the vehicle drove it on any particular occasion CEL cannot pursue me for the parking charge as driver.
As the car park in question is provided or controlled by East Herts Council it is not ‘relevant land’ as defined in paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. So CEL cannot pursue me as keeper.
As CEL has no legal entitlement to pursue me for this parking charge I require your organisation to erase my personal information from its records.
I have attached a copy of a [recent utility bill][my vehicle V5C registration document] to show that I am the correct data subject that your organisation must delete along with the rest of my personal information.
Failure to act in accordance with my erasure request may open your organisation to a claim for compensation under data privacy law. Continuing to press me to pay this parking charge may open your organisation to a claim for compensation under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
I will vigorously defend any claim brought against me in pursuit of this parking charge and will seek costs and counterclaim from compensation if such a claim is brought.
Yours faithfully,”
The email addresses are
dataprotectionofficer@ce-service.co.uk
dpo@dcbltd.com
-
… and this has come from CEL who apparently run the council owned car park.
Looks like I’m not the only one on holiday and only skim-reading. This is from the post that specifically identifies the location as a “council owned car park”.
-
offense in a local car park connected to a council run leisure Centre.
This is the only mention of 'council', no suggestion it's anything other than a private PCN.
OP, pl stick to answering the last post and to repeat an earlier post of mine - post the docs, what ever they are, and tell us to whom they're addressed.
-
I’m on my hols and looking at threads in the odd spare moment so I haven’t had the time to unpick all the (mis)information in this one.
I did pick up the comment that this is a council owned car park. If that’s true, it’s possible that there is no keeper liability because car parks provided or controlled by councils that fall within the definition of ‘traffic authority’ in the law known as POFA are exempt from the provisions in POFA for keeper liability. So are car parks where parking is subject to statutory control.
If this council is a traffic authority or the car park is covered by parking byelaws, the keeper has a cast iron defence and if nobody identifies the driver, the driver can’t be pursued. Check out POFA paragraph 3 - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enacted
-
This is getting tedious. You now say you have ‘received a letter that wasn’t sent to you’… what on earth does that mean? Is the letter addressed to you at your correct address or is it addressed to you at your family members address and it was subsequently passed to you?
If the V5C is in your name but not your address, why didn’t your family member tell you about the original PCN instead of letting you be ambushed?
If you are the registered keeper but not the day to day keeper, why doesn’t your family member register the car in their own name? The V5C is not proof of ownership. You can own the car but be neither the driver or the keeper.
I’d suggest you do one of two things… throw your family member under the bus and tell CEL they were driving or… irrespective of ‘exceptional circumstance’, you could still email CEL and show that the NtK was sent to the wrong address and they should send you the original as per BPA CoP 23.8.
You need to sort out the V5C if you want to avoid all sort of problems in future.
-
You're going to have to explain that.
Whose name is on the V5C?
Whose address is on the V5C?
-
The car is in my name but a family member is the main driver of the car and has the V5 in their possession.
-
When I asked someone if the V5 had the correct address on they said yes. What they actually meant to say is no. This has now been rectified. But.. If my V5 has/had the incorrect address on how did DCBL get my new/current address?
??
You asked someone whether your V5C had the correct address? Who is the registered keeper?
IMO, because of this revelation CEL have no obligation to re-issue the NTK (and wind back their clock) because the keeper failing to maintain current DVLA V5C details is not an 'exceptional circumstance'.
But as you're beyond any stage prescribed under PoFA or the creditor's code of practice you might as well tell them because the ball's in their court anyway as regards the next step.
-
So now I’ve been sent a copy of a letter I didn’t receive (wrong address) and this has come from CEL who apparently run the council owned car park.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Thank you
-
Ok so it appears there has been a faux pas. When I asked someone if the V5 had the correct address on they said yes. What they actually meant to say is no. This has now been rectified. But.. If my V5 has/had the incorrect address on how did DCBL get my new/current address?
A simple credit reference search.
This is good though. You can now evidence that the original NtK was never received.
Whilst you could face a real “fine” up to £1,000 for not updating your details, It is highly unlikely. It is not surprising that so many people forget to update their V5C or are unaware that updating their drivers licence has nothing to do with the V5C even though it is the same agency that deals with it.
So, now you write to CE and explain that you did not receive the original NtK as it was sent to an old address. They should now re-issue the NtK to you, the keeper, at your current address and they should restart the clock and allow you to appeal as per BPA CoP rule 23.8.
Also inform them that you have sent a data rectification notice to their DPO with an instruction that they must update their records with your current address for service and they must delete your old address.
The data rectification notice should go to their DPO whose details can be found in CEs privacy policy on their website. Use the words underlined above in your email to the DPO.
-
Ok so it appears there has been a faux pas. When I asked someone if the V5 had the correct address on they said yes. What they actually meant to say is no. This has now been rectified. But.. If my V5 has/had the incorrect address on how did DCBL get my new/current address?
-
Email a complaint to Civil Enforcement stating that you never received the original NtK and that under the BPA CoP rule 23.8 as you never received the original NtK, you were unable to appeal. Unless they are able to provide strict proof of posting the NtK, they should re-issue the NtK. Failure to comply will result in a complaint to the BPA.
The operator must have a process for considering appeals received outside of the normal 28-day period allowed for lodging an appeal where the appellant provides evidence of exceptional circumstances for the appeal not being lodged within the normal timeframes – where the addressee only discovers and can show that a parking charge notice has been issued in their name after the 28-day period the period must restart and any enforcement, excluding court action, must be paused.
It's a very wishy washy paragraph that is almost impossible to prove. However, the BPA have added this to the latest CoP, probably because they know that the upcoming legislation will require them to re-issue PCNs that are not received. They will wan their members to start abiding by these new rules in preparation for the introduction of the Parking on Private Land (Code of Practice) Act 2019.
It is not an appeal as they will not accept one at this stage. Whilst you cannot prove you received one, they equally cannot prove they sent one. The NtK should be reissued and the clock started again. You will be able to lodge a POPLA appeal if they then reject your original appeal.
-
We need to see the docs themselves(hosted externally), pl do not try to transpose.
Or we could try reading the OP's post where he explains that he never received the original notice(s).
-
We need to see the docs themselves(hosted externally), pl do not try to transpose.
-
V5 address correct. Location..council run leisure Centre car park in Hertford.
-
Location? V5C address correct?
All we know is that you were issued a speculative invoice for an alleged breach of contract from an unregulated private parking company of ex-clampers that goes by the name of Civil Enforcement Ltd.
You've already been advised to ignore DCB Ltd. Ignore everything they mention about anything. They can recommend to their client that you be tarred and feathered, it makes not one iota of difference. The words "court" and "bailiffs" are just inserted to intimidate you. They are powerless to do anything.
DCB Ltd are not a party to the contract the driver has allegedly breached. You, as the keeper of the vehicle, may be liable or you may not. It will depend on what the actual alleged breach of contract is and how they have worded their Notice to Keeper (NtK) that you have not received.
-
First letter received. Title
Notice of debt recovery - unpaid parking charge £170.
Goes on to say I have an unpaid charge and DCBL have been instructed by their customer to collect the debt. The customer as it states on the letter is Civil Enforcement Ltd.
Parked in same car park for the last 6 months on a regular basis. The signage is there ( max stay 2.5 hrs) but it’s not exactly obvious.
The letter then goes on to say that I have 14 days to pay. This case is not subject to high court of bailiff action however if you fail to contact us we will recommend to our client the commencement of legal action.
-
No "offence" has been committed so stop calling it that. DCBL have not issued the "ticket". Have a read of their letter and see who they are acting on behalf of.
DCBL are only a debt collector and have no authority to do anything to you. They are hoping you are low hanging fruit on the gullible tree and will succumb to their threats. They have no power and you can safely ignore DCBL. Do not attempt to communicate with them, at all!
Now, please read the READ THIS (https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/) thread and provide us with the detail requested.
If this is the first you have heard about this, check the address on your V5C logbook. Nine times out of ten people move house and update their licence but not the V5C. Go check now.
Once you've read the READ THIS thread and complied with what is asked of you, you will likely get more advice that will be of use to you.
-
Received a letter today from DCBL regarding an alleged parking offense in a local car park connected to a council run leisure Centre.
Parking limit is 2.5 hours but DCBL claim I overstayed my welcome and I need to pay £170 or have a nice man knock at my door.
DCBL offer no evidence of the length of time I was parked. No mention in my letter and no photographic evidence to validate their claim. The letter implies that I’ve already received a letter and have ignored it. This is not the case. This is the first I’ve heard of this alleged offense which took place on 11/12/23.
Ignore the letter or is there another route I should take? TiA