Euro parking Services/Gladstones Claimform - for PCN

[ericsbrother]

Read the law on signage and adverts.

 

 

There is a thing called "deemed consent" for certain signs. these include your house number, estate agent signs, bus stop signs, fire exits etc as they are informational.

 

 

the argument that the parking co's use is they are also informational.

No they arent,

they are advertising a unilateral contract and are adverts as per the original case of Cahill v the Carbolic Smoke Co.

 

Read the Mansfield thread for absolute chapter and verse of the law and how councils should react.

It is from may last year, quote it as PE took someone to court and lost.

 

Chase CPR 16.4?

After a fortnight give the court a ring, why not?

they will probably tell you the letter has been forwarded to the judge

 

 

but it may well just end up on a pile of other papers to do with your case and not get read before the rest of the casework.

 

That will mean that ECP will get asked about their claim and have to show a cause for action before you are expected to say anything.

 

 

Could get decided by case management and again that may mean you get asked to furnish some defence reasoning and then get told that they have no prospect of winning.

 

 

all things are possible, it depends on how that judge runs his court.

Edited January 3, 2017 by dx100uk

[Startkey&Clutch]

I know who the land owner is and their address.

 

 

Will call the court and chase cpr16.4 today.

 

 

Im afraid the planning part isn't going in as Im still quite ill and having difficulty concentrating.

I got that a contract cannot be formed if there is an illegal act ie the signs have no permission but cannot get my head around the permission needed.

Have been reading through what oddfellow led me to and the 'mansfield' thread with parking eye and get all kinds of dimensions for the signage so will measure them today.

Am I on the right track?

[Oddfellow]

Bear in mind that the size of the signage will be set by their planning consent (which they don't have) ... AFAIK there are no size constraints below which consent for an advertisement is not required, but that may be what ParkingEye tried to rely on in the Mansfield case (I'm not familiar).

Size of sign will also dictate whether the Ts & Cs they rely on to form a contract with you are in a font size that is illegible!

[Startkey&Clutch]

Im reading through 'Regulations of the Town and Country Planning' and got 'General: section 4' which is requirement for consent.

 

Am trying to find the reply from the council saying them don't need permission, off the top of my head they said it was due to the size of the signs so it looks like they were talking cobblers.

The Mansfield case seems to be about ANPR.

 

Am usually up for a fight but don't feel its going in at the moment, probably my meds.

It sounds like I need to go back to the council.

 

The council sent me this....

 

Further to your email to our Neighbourhood Warden Manager in respect of the signs at the private car park off @@@@@@ @@@@@

 

 

from the photographs you have provided it appears that none of them exceed 0.3m in area,

they are not illuminated,

they do not contain any characters or symbols that exceed 0.75m in height and they do not appear to be displayed above 4.6m above the ground.

 

 

On this basis it appears that the signs can be displayed under the deemed consent provisions of the Advertisement Regulations 2007 and therefore do not require express consent from the Planning Authority.

[ericsbrother]

No

, you need to read things properly.

 

Go back to the Mansfielfd thread and just look at the section of the act quoted by one of the interested posters.

 

PE got extra clobbered because of the cameras need separate PP anyway and that is why the council chucked to book at them, the law is the same.

 

PE asked for retrospective PP and it was refused and they were told to take down all of their signage and apply again.

 

They were granted PP within a fortnight with better signage.

 

The point is they DONT have the PP needed and that is that.

The junior at your planning dept has just trotted out the usual stock response for people who want to put up something at is a sign but not an advertisement,

which is in a different section of the Act and cannot be given deemed consent.

 

the council doesnt have to charge people for the consent but many do and it generally goes through on a nod as the ability to challege such signage is very limited but PE will still need to apply. They dont because of the lack of a penalty for not doing so.

 

If you want to argue about the size of the signage then this is down to the BPA CoP and also the regulations under the RTA for signage.

 

Generally the signs will squeak in th BPA bit but the characters will be too small for the sign to be legal if on a public highway.

 

Now obviuously they arent on the road but they are supposed to be read from the driver's seat whilst driving on the road so the higher threshold should apply

Edited January 4, 2017 by honeybee13
Paras.

[Startkey&Clutch]

How is this as a email to the council or have I missed the target?

 

Dear Mr @@

 

I am writing to you regarding some signs which are displayed at the entrance to a car park at @@@@@@@.

 

These signs are an advertisement, and not a deemed consent sign, therefore they fall under Town & Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007

 

They are advertising a unilateral contract and are adverts as per the original case of Cahill v the Carbolic Smoke Co

 

These signs measure 63.5cm by 44.5cm and are clearly visible from the road, I am not aware of size constraints below which consent for an advertisement is not required.

 

Neither Euro Parking Services nor the landowner, have advertisement consent for their signs at this park and, by virtue of Regulation 30 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements)(England) Regulations 2007 that is a criminal offence

 

You have emailed my colleague and stated that these signs do not require planning permission, could you clarify this for me please?

[ericsbrother]

completely mised the point.

 

The point is they DONT HAVE PLANNING PERMISSION SO THEY ARE CRIMINALS

 

the idea of writing to the council was to find this out,

if they had PP then the junior customer service bod would have said that they had it under application 2001/234 or whatever.

 

 

the fact they dont know the law that well is no surprise and of no relevance to EP breaking the law.

Sticking with this fact is the best route rather than trying to explain something you dont know about.

 

You could of course read the Mansfield thread again from top to bottom and then look up the relevant part of the Act then you will know what it is about.

 

 

You are the one being taken to court so you will have to question ES or answer any point you are asked.

 

 

If you dont do your homework you may well lose just becuase you cant show you are right evne when you are so find the relevant clause and print it out to use in your evidence bundle.

[Startkey&Clutch]

I think I've got it now.

Sorry for being slow.

 

Because they dont have pp it can be brought up in court.....

 

And the size of the sign means they need it??

[ericsbrother]

can the lack of pp be brought up in court? Yes that is one of the main thrusts of your defence.

 

The size of the signs are competely irrelevant if they have no PP

 

Now get reading up on it so you can find the relevant parts of the act and show copies of it to the court.

 

 

they wont be impressed if you just take a big book along and say that there is somehting about it here somewhere,

you must have the papers in the judges hands before it starts.

[Startkey&Clutch]

I couldn't resist asking the council the specific question if there is pp in place, this was their reply......

 

Dear Mr @@@,

 

Are you referring to the private car park on @@@ @@@ operated by Euro Parking Services and to their warning signs displayed on the fences? I

 

 

f so, I can confirm following a recent stie visit that

none of these advertisements exceed 0.3m in area,

they are not illuminated,

they do not contain any characters or symbols that exceed 0.75m in height

and they do not appear to be displayed above 4.6m above the ground.

 

 

On this basis they can be displayed under the deemed consent provisions of the Advertisement Regulations 2007 and therefore do not require express consent from the Planning Authority.

 

Thank you for your enquiry.

[ericsbrother]

they have got it wrong,

that would be for classes 1-16 and parking contracts do not fall within those classes as they do not relate to the shop or business as it has been decided by the Valuations Agency that the car park is not separate from the store.

 

 

If the supermarket did its own scheme where they robbed the customers blind that would fall under class 2 according to the council wonk who hase determined the above and it doesnt anyway, nor class 3.

Classes 4 or 5 have different size limitations so

 

 

it begs the question

what the person who replied to you was thinking about.

 

 

I suspect that they arent used to being asked about this

just about signs for shop fronts, village fetes etc.

 

 

Also there are classes that do not require any consent

but these are in enclosed spaces not readily visible from public land.

 

 

Well that cant be the case because how are you supposed to decide whether to accept a condition if you cannot see it before entering the private land?

 

 

So either planning consent needed or it is an unfair contract and unenforceable.

 

 

That is why we like the planning aspect, the parking co's dont generally apply and hope everyone is ignorant to this.

 

So yet again I invite you to read up on this yourself

[Startkey&Clutch]

I've had another email from the council...

 

 

Thank you for your email. For the avoidance of doubt I feel that I ought to clarify a couple of points.

 

I do in fact agree that, for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the warning signs for Euro Parking Services do constitute advertisements. However, the point I was previously making was that under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisement) Regulations 2007, the advertisements do not require “express advertisement consent” from the Local Planning Authority. This is because they satisfy the criteria (as outlined in my previous email) for one or more of the classes of advertisement that can be displayed with “deemed consent” under the above Regulations.

 

I was not aware of the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892] EWCA Civ 1, however it appears to me that this case relates specifically to matters of contract law, as opposed to planning law. Therefore, I do not believe that the case is relevant to the determination as to whether, for the purposes of the Regulations referred to above, express advertisement consent is or is not required for the warning signs. It is possible that the case might be relevant in a situation where it is alleged that a breach of contract has occurred, however in such circumstances this would be a private, civil matter between the respective parties and would not involve the Council as the Local Planning Authority. If this is a situation that you find yourself in then you should seek your own independent legal advice.

 

I hope this clarifies matters in respect of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisement) Regulations 2007.

 

Kind regards,

 

 

My wife says I look with my eyes close so would you mind giving me a clue as to which post in the Mansfield thread I need to look at please?

[ericsbrother]

I cant believe that you have again contacted the council when it has been explained to you why the law applies and you then took the time to go into such detail with completely the wrong people.

 

 

Also, Cahill has nothing to do with planning so it make me wonder what on earth the poor sod at the other end of your email is to think of what you are trying to say.

 

You have a choice ,

continue to keep shooting yourself in the foot and then talking your own case down or accept that we might be telling the truth and get on with fighting this court claim rather than sending stupid emails to the council.

 

That is my last posting on this so no, I wont be spending the time going back over things that you can easily do for yourself.

 

 

You can lead a horse to water but you cant make it drink says the adage.

[Startkey&Clutch]

Thank you for your time eb, but I didn't contact the council again.

[ericsbrother]

OK then

, you need to look at regulation 30 and then read through the parking pranksters blog dated the 27th Aug 2016 and you will see that PE got a pasting in a court case and you will find a specimen defence including the quote form Lord Mansfield (mere coincidence the thread thre was about a Mansfield development and planning) about you cannot profit from criminality and no PP = criminality.

 

As they know they dont have PP and need it their terms are also an unfair contract because they are hiding the material facts from you-just an extra point.

 

As already said,

deemed consent only applies to certain types of sign and the PE signs do not fall into this category,

therefore they do need permission.

 

The law doesnt say you dont need permission unless..

.. or they wouldnt be a law.

 

In short, you need planning permission for even your house number because they let you off. doesnt stop the house no being a sign does it.

[Startkey&Clutch]

Thank you eb for not giving up on me, I feel very bad a was just about to pay up

[dx100uk]

oh god no

you do that

it funds them to do it to others

 

 

dx

[ericsbrother]

a problem we see commonly is that people read things but do not read them slowly and digest every word so they construe something that is not meant or not there.

 

 

You have to pick through things very carefully and only respond when you are absolutely sure you have fully understood things.

 

 

You can always come back here and ask us what is meant by so-and-so,

apart from parking issues there are people like andy-dd who know a lot about property law that may be relevant. someone will flag it up if need be.

 

 

Also, you are not the only person in your position so you must read a lot of thread when you come here, not just yours.

 

 

Do a screenshot of anything useful and file it with your other paperwork.

Same goes for anything you glean on other sites,

companies houe, land registry, parking prankser's blog are all gold mines so get what you can for free and in the case of land registry the online fee is only £3 and you can claim that back when you win.

Thank you eb for not giving up on me, I feel very bad a was just about to pay up

 

you will also need to copy the relevant laws so sch4 of the POFA 2012, the relevant bits fo teh planning act (in this case you need to show that it is not deemed consent because their signs are not informational etc so not only the law but all the other references, lists and guidance published