As we all know ParkingEye just doesn’t bother to comply with the advertisement regulations to obtain consent BEFORE it erects its signs and that is a criminal offence under regulation 30 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisement)(England) Regulations 2007.
When challenged on this some time ago the BPA defended its Member’s criminal conduct by an email of the 4th August 2014 from Mr Peter Beasley.
This provided a number of interesting explanations -
1. ParkingEye could not legally apply for advertisement consent – (Comment: then we find that it has been doing so for each Planning Authority that now requires such an application.
2. Its the landowners fault. (Comment - Yes they blame their client )
3. Planning Authorities won’t take any action so we may as well wait until they complain and then put an application in. (Comment: Ahh if only we had the luxury of picking and choosing which crimes we will not commit and which we will)
Now we have an even better excuse. Here is an extract from an email of the 9th March 2016 from the Charity that owns the Moorgate Retail Park in Bury (no advertisement consent nor planning permission for their cameras.)
“Parking eye have advised that the displaying of signs which highlight the terms and conditions of use of the car parking facility at the retail park is a legal requirement for private car parks.
As a responsible operator, if they want to ensure that motorists abide by rules concerning, for instance, how long they may stay and how much they will be charged, they must display those conditions under consumer protection legislation.
As far as committing a crime at the site goes, Parkingeye recently sought advice on the topic and they have been advised independently that due to the nature of the signs and their purpose, they are in the position that, given that the displaying of such signage is an obligation under the law, it will be exempt from normal planning protocols on advertising consent.
Because of the above, Parkingeye are of the view that no crime is being committed in this regard.”
So the latest is that as the PoFA requires them to have signs they don’t need to comply with the 2007 Advertisement Regulations.
1. There is nothing in the PoFA which indicates that it overrides all other legislation.
2. PoFA requires ParkingEye to obtain registered keeper data but that does not mean that Regulation 27 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and licensing) Regulations 2002 does not apply – ask the DVLA
3. Can all planning Authorities up and down the land be wrong
Then we have to ask ourselves why does a Charity take its legal advice from ParkingEye. It is required by law to take its own independent legal advice.
Shall we wait and see what other tripe ParkingEye come up with to justify its failure to comply with the law?
The Parking Prankster