Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • SR06
    • By SR06 15th Aug 16, 10:56 AM
    • 20Posts
    • 7Thanks
    SR06
    PCS Notice to Keeper Millenium Parking Services
    • #1
    • 15th Aug 16, 10:56 AM
    PCS Notice to Keeper Millenium Parking Services 15th Aug 16 at 10:56 AM
    Hi all,

    First time posting. I have read the NEWBIES thread and looking for some more advice before I proceed with the next stage.

    My flatmate and I rent a two bed apartment in Swansea that has one allocated parking spot for our flat. The parking spot has one permit that any car can use.

    My flat mate had gone away for the week and didn't leave the permit behind at the flat. During that period, my mother's car was parked in our parking space with 'Awaiting parking permit' attached to the front windscreen wiper on a template that contains the apartment’s details. On 25/06/2016 my mother's car had a PCN from Millennium Parking Serves for 'No permit displayed'. The piece of paper had come off the windscreen and was on the floor in front of the car.

    My mother's car was then moved to the visitors spot and received another PCN on 28/06/2016 for 'Exceeded Max Stay Period'.

    The PCNs were not paid and my mother has received two PCS Notice to Keeper letters with threats of debt collectors if £150 for each ticket is not paid within 28 days of notice – this is causing her a lot of stress. The first letter relating to the 'No permit displayed' PCN has a date of sending this notice of 26/07/2016, and the second letter 01/08/2016.

    Millenium Parking Services are employed by clcproperty.

    I've done:
    1. Rang BPA to find out if they are members. BPA said that MPS are cooperate members of BPA and are members of IPC. The private parking signs state they are Member of the BPA, Accredited IPC operator, and Registered with the ICO.
    I can't find them as an approved operator on the BPA website, they are listed on an aos member on theipc website.

    2. Rang clcproperty explaining the circumstances. They didn't think my circumstances were exceptional and wouldn't be able to help.

    3. Rang Dawson's agency – the agency we went through the process of renting this apartment. They advised to write to Millennium Parking Services directly with the hope that they'd drop one of the fines.

    On the back of the Notice to Keeper letter it states:
    “At the time that the parking charge was incurred, a Notice to Driver was affixed to the vehicle or sent by post. This offered the driver the ability to appeal within 21 days of its imposition.” As this period has lapsed it goes on to say “If you consider there to be exceptional circumstances as why you should be able to appeal outside of this period then you should send your reasons in writing to us at the contact details provided.”
    If the appeal is considered and rejected, you can appeal to the Independent Appeals Service.


    How should I proceed to appeal these parking charges? Any advice is greatly appreciated.
    Last edited by SR06; 15-08-2016 at 11:02 AM.
Page 3
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 11th May 17, 9:54 AM
    • 858 Posts
    • 1,455 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    new link to my skeleton
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/qjzj1n3sguuz7yo/SKELETON%20final%20anonymised.docx?dl=0
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 11th May 17, 10:22 AM
    • 858 Posts
    • 1,455 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    Regarding the MPS/MDES argument:
    technically speaking, too late. HOWEVER, they should have produced the landowner contract to you during the pre-action phase under paras 6(a) and (c) of the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct. The entire point of those obligations is so that defendants understand exactly what case is being brought and the core documents being relied on. Had they complied, you would have seen the landowner contract and would have seen that it was signed by MPS.


    In addition, Millennium is supposed to have fully particularised its claim in the Particulars in the Claim Form (Rule 16.4). By now providing this information now, in their evidence, when it should have been in the Claim Form, means that they are effectively amending their Particulars. This is a clear attempt to circumvent Rule 16.4 (not providing clear particulars in the first place) and Rule 17.1(2) (you cannot amend a claim without permission once it has been served).


    They should not be allowed to get around the rules in this way, but they are.


    So, what I would do is deal with the issue in your WS if it hasn't already been served. Add the MPS/MDES stuff, and say as follows:
    "To the extent that any new matters have been included in this Statement which are not dealt with in the Defence, I ask the court to take into account the following:
    1. the Particulars of Claim were extremely brief, did not state the cause of action, did not specify what contract was relied upon (if a breach of contract was claimed, which it now appears is the case) and made it impossible for me to submit a full and proper defence. This was in breach of Rules 16.2 and 16.4 and paragraphs 7.3 and 7.5 of Practice Direction 16.
    2. Matters were exacerbated because in addition to failing to particularise the claim in the Claim Form/Particulars of Claim, the Claimant also failed to comply with paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct.
    3. It is only now, in its Witness Statement, that the Claimant has particularised its claim and has produced a copy of the contract it claims was formed with the driver, and a copy of the contract with the landowner, on which it relies on in asserting its rights to issue parking charges.
    4. Effectively, this means that the Claimant has amended its Particulars of Claim without making any application (which it should have done pursuant to Rule 17.1(2).
    5. It would be contrary to the rules of natural justice for the Claimant to behave in this way and for me to be denied the opportunity to respond to the new matters raised by the Claimant in its Witness Statement.
    6. I therefore ask that the new matters contained in this Statement are treated as being part of my defence of the claim. I am of course a litigant in person, whereas the Claimant is represented by solicitors who act for a number of different private parking companies and they issue and pursue thousands of these types of claims and should know and comply with the court rules.


    I'm not sure the MPS/MDES point will work. But try it anyway. ]


    I think the better point to add (if you didn't include it anyway) is in relation to the landowner contract. I've seen it already because it was the one produced in my case. There were two clauses in there (I think it was 3 and 4 of the T&Cs) which said that Millennium was authorised to issue pcns to cars that were reported to it as being unauthorised by the landowner, and the other clause provides for the landowner to report cars to Millennium. So I say the contract only allows Millennium to ticket cars that are reported to it. So you want to point that out and you want to write to Gladstones and ask them to provide evidence that the landowner reported the car. Otherwise you say they weren't entitled to issue a pcn to it at all.


    Also the contract was made with a Barratt subsidiary, but it was a different company than the one that had originally owned the land, so the contract was not with the landowner. so I say that Millennium were nothing more than trespassers on the site at the time the pcn was issued in my case. And there is case law saying that a subsidiary cannot claim the rights of its owner, they have to be formally passed from one company to another. So I said that the contract was worthless.


    In addition, by the time of my parking event the land had been sold on to a Guernsey company and so even if the contract had originally been valid, it no longer was once the land had changed ownership. You need to phone land registry and find out who owns the land - you ask for Official Copy Register Entries and you pay £3 for them. It's money well spent. In my case the land changed hands before the pcn.


    All these arguments are set out in full in my Skeleton, which you can crib from.


    These are important arguments to run and you are entitled to run them in response to their WS. If they argue that you are trying to add points to your WS you rely on what I've said above.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 11th May 17, 10:23 AM
    • 858 Posts
    • 1,455 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    Just checking - you are referring to Particulars and Defences here - but I know you are post-DQ stage so I am assuming what you are referring to is the Claimant's Witness Statement and your WS. Or am I missing something?
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 11th May 17, 10:24 AM
    • 858 Posts
    • 1,455 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    BTW Millennium withdrew the day before my hearing. They wrote 2 days before "offering" to settle for £150 and I told them where to go and 24 hours later they withdrew.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 11th May 17, 10:38 AM
    • 858 Posts
    • 1,455 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    I'm also a bit confused about what they are suing you for.


    You say that you weren't the driver. But you are RK and if the NtK was valid under POFA then you can be liable as keeper, even if you later name the driver.


    You were originally confused about what the ticket actually related to - son parking in his own space or parking in a visitor's space (again by son) - is this right? Has their WS clarified what the complaint actually is? Was it your son parked there both times? Or son in his space and you in visitor space?


    What you want to focus on as your best and primary argument is the tenancy argument - son had rights to the space. They cannot come along after your son is already a tenant/owner and impose new parking conditions on him when he already has the rights. You must demonstrate in the WSs (in son's is the most logical) that son has those rights. If he's a leaseholder then the rights will be in the lease and he must exhibit that to his WS. If he's a tenant, then the rights must either be in his tenancy agreement (and again he must produce this) or if the tenancy is silent then he must get his landlord/the estate agent to confirm IN WRITING that the tenancy includes sole rights to the space, that the space is part of the leasehold land owned by the landlord and explaining that this was not mentioned in the tenancy but was an oral term agreed at the time it was signed, and explaining why it was missed out of the written tenancy agreement (eg. the landlord may have bought an off the shelf tenancy from WHSmith for £10, or the estate agent may have used its precedent that didn't mention parking spaces and they forgot to add it). I think it's also better to produce the lease as well to prove that the landlord had those rights in the first place - if landlord can't help with that then pay Land Registry for it, it's money well spent.


    If the complaint is visitor parking then likewise you need to show that son was granted rights to parking for visitors that were not restricted in the way the Claimant now asserts.
    • SR06
    • By SR06 9th Jun 17, 8:25 PM
    • 20 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    SR06
    Hi all,

    I've got the Lease from the Land Registry.
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/kxbyr24jqa037dj/Lease_15Aurora.pdf?dl=0

    I've had a read of it and not sure how much rights it grants the leaseholder/tenant. Also a bit worries about point 19 in the section the section COVENANTS ENFORCEABLE BY THE LESSOR AND THE MANAGER.

    Appreciate any input anyone has about the Lease and the two parking charges.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

3,552Posts Today

7,934Users online

Martin's Twitter