It will certainly be used - strictly speaking the signs should be removed until they are legalised,but like a lot of things it seems to be just brushed off as a minor transgression. if it wasn't important why would it be statute rather than just a council planning decision ? I'm sure the minor transgression of being 5 minutes overstay in a car park wouldn't be treated as a minor transgression. We're fighting against a rigged system, that's the problem. Nevertheless ,I'm compiling a fair list which together will hopefully paint a picture for the Judge. The reason I keep 'wittering' on about the BPA, the regulatory body, is that in Beavis the Judge said "...it is in practice binding on the operator since it's existence and observation is a condition of his ability to obtain details of the registered keeper from the DVLA." That is the Supreme Court, so it carries more weight than anything else. i can identify plenty of breaches of the code which will put the operators performance into question...it might work, it depends who presides. I can append the relevant legislation which is conditional on compliance , such as the freedom of rights etc.

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.

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.

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.

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..

you should have said, just followed the link - thanks

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?

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

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...

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 ?

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

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 ?

well done .. Thank goodness for sites like this one where people can go to for help and advice.

Thank you for the clarification. From personal experience I did ask for the agreement within a SAR request because the one they sent via a CCA was illegible. I wanted to be sure of my ground that a legible one wouldn't emerge later, should the dispute get out of hand. The bank (not natwest) spent ages backwards and forwards attempting to send my a legible agreement, as I dug my heels in. So while it may not be a requirement, in this case they either didn't know that or were just being conscientious ?? The ultimate outcome was this bank gave up in the end, and while they did not actually say there was no legible agreement they did state they would no longer pursue. When I raised the same legibility dispute through CCA they simply stated they had complied, and wouldn't correspond with me anymore. I don't know if this helps at all, but polite ( and firm) dialogue can sometimes pay dividends regardless of what we see the rules as.

for clarification, the CCA request can be satisfied with reconstituted documents, but a SAR must include the originals (copied) if they exist ? Thus if a SAR does not include an all singing and dancing agreement it's fair to assume that there wasn't one at the outset..is that a fair conclusion. Say it is, then is there any point in asking for a CCA request..why not just go for the SAR..? (I know you have to pay £10 for the latter)..