4 PCNs in 7 days in residential carpark

The_Deep wrote: »

their property services manager and I don't wish to do that, she's misguided but I don't want her investigated


If she is putting the interests of the PPC before those of residents then a complaint should be made.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You should use whatever wording feels comfortable for your case, at each stage. I just feel that saying it's not a complaint detracts from what follows, in your first draft.

Dear Mickey Housing

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 when necessary that entire time. I had no issues with non residents using the carpark in the approximately three years I lived here before the implementation of a parking management scheme. I was therefore surprised to go outside one day and see that signs had gone up restricting parking rights.

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 0 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 you agreed with them that a replacement permit would cost £10 plus £2 banking fee. 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 that requires 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. And Mickey cannot give them permission to do this.

Therefore, GP have no case against me and have committed a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) 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 believe 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 am being ticketed for keeping my car outside my home.

A reputable parking company would simply maintain a database of resident VRMs that a parking attendant may check against. The parking company my employer has contracted with uses just such a scheme. Their employees incur no costs. GP use paper permits so they can both ticket as many residents as possible for any infraction and make money by requiring their replacement for any simple change in circumstance.

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 your tacit support for GP's most rapacious, and deeply cynical, misuse of the purpose for which they were engaged repugnant.

Please reply to the above address within 15 working days.