If you drive to and shop at Parkgate Shopping Park in Rotherham take note of the following and excuse the preamble but it is necessary. .
Firstly; as you turn into the entrance road to the Shopping Centre there is a sign (about 8 feet up from the ground) on the left hand side partly obscured by foliage then if you continue to drive and park opposite the Matalan store there are no signs about parking visible to the driver.(On a related note Morrison’s Store has refused to employ any PPC scammers on its site.) The law on parking on private land is quite clear. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 banned clamping on private land and requires PPC’s to meet certain criteria before issuing a ticket. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/9155/guidance-unpaid-parking-charges.pdf. NOTE: PPC’s CANNOT ISSUE FINES OR PENALTIES. These are reserved terms used by Local Authorities and the Police.
The Landowner of Parkgate Shopping Centre is British Land.(or one of its 50 subsidiaries) York House. 45 Seymour Street. London W1H 7LX and the Managing Agents are Savills Management Resources. Company No. 03533411. 33 Margaret Street. London. W1G 0JD
There is precedence that says only the Landowner can pursue a driver for unpaid parking charges. See Parking Eye-v-Clarke. Barrow-in-Furness CC. Claim number 3JDoo517. 27th January 2014.
The PPC engaged by Savills to ‘monitor’ parking at Parkgate is TPS (Total Parking Solutions) Company Number 05676135. Somerset House. 6070 Birmingham Business Park.Birmingham. B37 7BF . owned by Mr.Tito Ponzetta-his first two PPC’s were dissolved 15/05/2006 and 25/05/2010-who subcontracts the issuing of parking invoices to RMBC. As far back as 2010 TPS were using an invalid Vat Number. RMBC refuse to acknowledge this because they failed to carry out Due Diligence when they started their partnership with TPS in 2009. In RMBC’s words ‘RMBC is a client of Total Parking Solutions’ and ‘ Total Parking Solutions do not issue tickets at Parkgate Retail World. The Council’s Civil Enforcement Officers issue parking charge notices. The working arrangement was commenced on 26 October 2009 at the request of Savills Management Resources.’ Council employees-paid by us-issuing tickets on behalf of a PPC ? You could’nt make this up.
RMBC via the Parking Services Manager Mr.Martin Beard receives 50% of all parking ticket monies paid by motorists at Parkgate. The total income received by the Council from TPS during the financial year 2010/11 was £19,488.83 and for 2012/2013 it was £21,704.
A list of locations on which TPS operates on behalf of the Council. (Some sites on this list may be out of date. I obtained it in 2011) St.Anns Leisure Centre (on behalf of DC Leisure) Maltby Leisure Centre (on behalf of DC Leisure) Aughton Leisure Centre (on behalf of DC Leisure) Parkgate Shopping Centre (on behalf of Northern Shopping and Retail Parks) Central Library staff car park Civic Offices staff car park Norfolk House staff car park Bailey House staff car park Clifton Park & Museum York Road garage site Greasbrough Road depot access road Rotherham Market traders’ car park William Street grassed area Park Lea Rotherham Wath Library car park disabled bays Montgomery Hall Wath car park disabled bays Queen Street Swinton car park disabled bays Church Street Swinton car park disabled bays Constable Lane Dinnington car park disabled bays
RMBC pays council employees to issue parking invoices on private land for a company that did not-or does not-comply with Company Law. RMBC is giving validity to a company that cannot pursue a driver or registered keeper through the courts. It could be argued that RMBC’s Head of Parking Martin Beard is guilty of misfeasance (n. a form of wrongdoing, especially the doing of something lawful in an unlawful way so that the rights of others are infringed.) RMBC is accepting money from a PPC without any apparent lawful authority. Money which is obtained from motorists who may not be aware of their rights or who are not aware of the appeals process. (http://www.popla.org.uk/makinganappeal.htm) Can you imagine the shouts of outrage from Labour councillors if a Tory controlled council did this? TPS operates a business but does not pay Business Rates with the agreement and blessing of RMBC. This is a kick in the teeth for small business in and around the Borough who are forced to pay their rates. We are lumbered with a discredited Labour controlled council that uses our taxes to help a PPC scam money from motorists and all without a peep from Beck, Dalton or Burton (They “Have your interests at heart”. Allegedly) and ‘Sir’ Kev is more interested in preserving his knighthood.
Another point to bear in mind when parking on private land is the Equality Act 2010. Often private car parks have signs demanding drivers display a blue badge when using the disabled parking bays, or risk getting a parking ticket. However, just because someone does not hold (or does not display) a blue badge does not mean they are not disabled; the Equality Act does not require the driver to display any sort of badge or permit. Anyone who fits the lawful definition of disability is entitled to make use of the ‘reasonable adjustments’. What they (PPC’s) are in effect doing is adding arbitrary rules to the lawful right of someone to use a ‘reasonable adjustment’, and this could be considered a breach of the Equality Act. It should be noted that this does not mean that you should not display a blue badge if you have one. Clearly, if you hold one, it would assist all parties by displaying it. But what is wrong is that parking companies include terms and conditions requiring you to display one as a contractual term for using a disabled bay; they have a duty of reasonable adjustment to disabled persons.
None of the above means drivers can or should park inconsiderately either on private land or elsewhere. If there are marked bays and/or P & D (Pay and Display) machines make sure you use them. Note: There is a wealth of information available if you need help to appeal a parking ticket from a PPC. No PPC has ever won a properly defended case.