4 PCNs in 7 days in residential carpark

Coupon-mad wrote: »

And I doubt your Landlord agreed it at all!

Show us you LBC in the stylee of the hairray thread link (the LBC written by LoadsofChildren123 is hard-hitting and can be adapted to suit).

safarmuk wrote: »

The Landlord or MA's either don't have control of the PPC or have been told to back off and let the PPC deal with this (in their own belligerent way). Often this leads to stalemate until a court sorts it out and even then the Landlord remains unscathed.

The best way forward is as C-M suggests and target the landlord somewhat starting with reading up on what LOC123 wrote for Hairray.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Good.

Hairray's thread now has examples of all out 'legal attack' letters for Managing Agents and the PPC.

Dear Mickey Housing

This letter is not an official complaint according to Mickey's complaint procedures. I reserve the right to use those complaint procedures if my concerns are not addressed.

I have been a Mickey tenant for 7 years. I have owned a car for that entire period and have used the carpark at KT for parking my car throughout that time. I was recently issued four Parking Charge Notices (PCN) by the private parking company Greedy Park (GP). The first incident for which the PCNs were issued is dated 00 April 2017 and the last 00 May 2017. The reason for issue is failure to display a valid permit.

I do not have a valid permit as I changed my car in February. The new permit style issued by GP requires the holder to write their Vehicle Registration Mark (VRM) on it. My new car, obviously, had a different VRM and I wrote this over the top of the old one in black ink on the permit. I naively believed the purpose of the permit was to show I was a bone fide resident and that the new VRM written in black ink would confirm the permit was not being transferred between cars. GP have informed me that a replacement permit will cost £10 plus £2 banking fee. They also said they have agreed this fee with you. Have you agreed that if a tenant wishes to change their vehicle there will be a £12 fee for doing so as a fait accompli?

Please refer to the tenancy agreement signed by both myself and Mickey Housing dated 0 May 2010. Within this agreement there is no obligation placed on myself as a tenant to display a permit in my vehicle when using the carpark. Parking is only directly referenced once in Section 3.41 which prescribes that I use my car in a considerate manner and that I maintain it in accordance with the law. I am meeting those requirements. Section 1.17 of the agreement allows for Mickey to make changes to the contract under certain circumstances. Mickey has introduced no such variance requiring me to display a permit.

I contend that the tenancy agreement has primacy of contract and that GP's punitive charges are baseless and unenforceable. Please refer to the recent cases of Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF140 and Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7. In both of these cases it was found that a parking company could not override a tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park. In the first case I referenced District Judge Coonan makes the concept of primacy of contract clear. What GP are attempting to do, unilaterally and outside the tenancy agreement, is restrict my right to park to only when a permit is displayed. They cannot do this.

Therefore, GP have no case against me and have committed a breach of the Data Protection Act when they applied for Keeper Details for my vehicle. I have served them a Section 10 notice under the DPA. As GP are acting as your agent, having been authorised by you to carry out its parking management, you are jointly and severally liable for its breaches of the DPA. Furthermore, my right to peacefully occupy the premises is being compromised by a flurry of letters with threats of dire legal consequences if I do not comply with arbitrary conditions and make immediate payment to your agent, GP.

Please note GP had cause to presume I was a genuine resident by the presence of the adjusted permit. They had better cause when they obtained Keeper Details with the registered address as 00 KT Flats. Yet they continued to pursue me for payment and issued 3 further PCNs. No reputable parking company would ticket a bona fide resident. I will not pay the 4 PCNs. I will vigorously defend any court action GP bring against me and I will not hesitate to issue a counter claim.

This is not a situation where a hapless shopper has incurred a charge for over staying in a retail carpark. It is not a situation where somebody is visiting a sick relative and forget to pay and display in a hospital carpark. I am being ticketed for keeping my car outside my home.

Please do not send me GP's contact details in your reply or refer me to their spurious appeals system or to that of the Independent Appeals Service. I am writing to you as the landowner and my landlord.

I have contacted Mickey by email several times about this issue. I asked that Mickey intervene with GP to get the PCNs cancelled and that my car's VRM be added to a whitelist to stop further harassment. My most recent correspondence was with AB, Housing Services Manager. She stated that the reason for the introduction of a parking scheme was that you want to ensure residents can use the car park without problems. I am a resident. I consider 4 invoices demanding payment of £400 total if not paid within 14 days for using that same carpark a problem.

Finally, Ms B referred me back to GP and stated that they were operating with Mickey's permission. Morally I find Mickey's tacit support of GP's rapacious, and deeply cynical, misuse of the purpose for which they were engaged repugnant.

Please acknowledge receipt of this letter to the address above within 15 working days.

Umkomaas wrote: »

Nice letter. Will keenly await seeing their response. Just one point for you to consider a small (but large!) addition:


....... and further will not hesitate in joining Mickey in that counter claim.