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
    • blankwall
    • By blankwall 10th Mar 17, 9:12 AM
    • 3Posts
    • 1Thanks
    blankwall
    Ticket from CPM for a car park where I am a leaseholder!
    • #1
    • 10th Mar 17, 9:12 AM
    Ticket from CPM for a car park where I am a leaseholder! 10th Mar 17 at 9:12 AM
    Hello. I really appreciate that this forum exists and I hope someone can give me some advice on how to proceed in this situation.

    I recently received a CPM Parking ticket for the car park of the flat where I am a leaseholder. I was away at the time and the building management company had told me (in writing) that they would inform me (and all lease holders) when a new parking management company took over the car park.

    Needless to say they didn't. They are also saying that the parking company did a mail drop explaining the new system. Apparently they did but I didn't see it, I have seen another copy and it was addressed to the occupier not the leaseholder.

    I called the parking company and they said they had a video of someone putting something through the door which they would email to me. This still hasn't happened but I imagine it just proves they put something through the door?

    My building management company say they will not get involved in any disputes with the parking company - I imagine this is part of the contract they have with them as in the copy of the circular that was put around the block and it says that the landowners will not get involved in any tickets. If that even legal? My lease also says nothing about parking permits. As far as I can see there must be some kind of deal where the parking company get anything they can take and the management company will now not get involved.

    Please can I have some advice about what to do next? Has anyone been in a similar situation please?
Page 1
    • Half_way
    • By Half_way 10th Mar 17, 9:16 AM
    • 3,392 Posts
    • 4,736 Thanks
    Half_way
    • #2
    • 10th Mar 17, 9:16 AM
    • #2
    • 10th Mar 17, 9:16 AM
    Plenty of similar cases, search "own space" as fur the management company they wail be jointly liable, as are lying if they say nothing to do with us.
    Will post more later.
    Also try a search for tortuous interference with lease for the management agency.
    From the Plain Language Commission:

    "The BPA has surely become one of the most socially dangerous organisations in the UK"
    • safarmuk
    • By safarmuk 10th Mar 17, 9:26 AM
    • 192 Posts
    • 380 Thanks
    safarmuk
    • #3
    • 10th Mar 17, 9:26 AM
    • #3
    • 10th Mar 17, 9:26 AM
    My building management company say they will not get involved in any disputes with the parking company
    Unfortunately for them it is not that simple for them to wash their hands of this as Half_way implies. More on that later, but first things first.

    My lease also says nothing about parking permits.
    Good. Now you need to check it for other clauses. Specifically:
    * Do you have an allocated parking bay?
    * Is that allocated parking bay mentioned as a particular in your lease?
    * Does your lease then state you have right of exclusive use to that allocated parking bay?
    * What does the lease say about visitors bays?
    * Is there any mention of Estate Regulations or the ability for the MA to make changes from time to time for the benefit of all residents?

    Lastly - what do the other leaseholders think about this, were you all consulted before this was implemented?

    Once you get back on the questions above I can try and help more.

    And yes, this situation is very common and people on this forum have experienced it and tackled it.
    • DoaM
    • By DoaM 10th Mar 17, 9:28 AM
    • 1,823 Posts
    • 1,715 Thanks
    DoaM
    • #4
    • 10th Mar 17, 9:28 AM
    • #4
    • 10th Mar 17, 9:28 AM
    Also try a search for tortuous tortious interference with lease for the management agency.
    Originally posted by Half_way
    Fixed. If you search for the other term you might get unusual results.
    Diary of a madman
    Walk the line again today
    Entries of confusion
    Dear diary, I'm here to stay
    • blankwall
    • By blankwall 10th Mar 17, 10:34 AM
    • 3 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    blankwall
    • #5
    • 10th Mar 17, 10:34 AM
    • #5
    • 10th Mar 17, 10:34 AM
    I'm away at the moment but as soon as I get back I will have a look at the lease.

    Bays have certainly never been allocated and the lease is over 10 years old so predates any parking management companies.

    The sound of tortious interference sounds good. There was a dialogue with between the leaseholders and the management company when a previous parking company was brought in a few years ago, but nothing at all this time when the new cowboys appeared.
    Last edited by blankwall; 10-03-2017 at 10:36 AM. Reason: Extra info / replies
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 10th Mar 17, 11:00 AM
    • 6,157 Posts
    • 4,963 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #6
    • 10th Mar 17, 11:00 AM
    • #6
    • 10th Mar 17, 11:00 AM
    Some reading

    http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/own-parking-space/

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/residential-parking.html

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/test-cases-scheduled-for-overstone.html

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/ukpc-hit-for-352-for-discontinuing.html

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/tenancy-agreement-not-overruled-by.html

    http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?377246-UKPC-liable-for-trespass-**SUCCESS**

    http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?377246-UKPC-liable-for-trespass-**SUCCESS**

    and much much more
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • safarmuk
    • By safarmuk 10th Mar 17, 4:30 PM
    • 192 Posts
    • 380 Thanks
    safarmuk
    • #7
    • 10th Mar 17, 4:30 PM
    • #7
    • 10th Mar 17, 4:30 PM
    I'm away at the moment but as soon as I get back I will have a look at the lease.
    Yes, the lease contents are paramount. You need to check this thoroughly.

    Bays have certainly never been allocated and the lease is over 10 years old so predates any parking management companies.
    No allocated bays in a Residential Car Park is unusual - is it a free for all on parking for residents then? This means its not as cut and dried as the usual "own parking space" issue we normally see here - but again lets see what the lease says.

    There was a dialogue with between the leaseholders and the management company when a previous parking company was brought in a few years ago, but nothing at all this time when the new cowboys appeared.
    What happened to the last PPC that were brought in and who were they? How much of a gap was there between the old lot and the new lot? Were there complaints about the old lot?

    Finally, for now, do you know who the freeholder is (the people you pay ground rent to and who would have appointed the MA)?

    We will come up with a strategy once we know better where you stand ...
    • Half_way
    • By Half_way 10th Mar 17, 4:48 PM
    • 3,392 Posts
    • 4,736 Thanks
    Half_way
    • #8
    • 10th Mar 17, 4:48 PM
    • #8
    • 10th Mar 17, 4:48 PM
    Lynzer on Pepipoo has put together some very good guides re residential parking
    1: http://www.thebridesmother.co.uk/Media/residential-parking.pdf

    and a few template letters to give you an idea
    http://www.thebridesmother.co.uk/Media/Templates.pdf

    but as above your lease agreement is key
    From the Plain Language Commission:

    "The BPA has surely become one of the most socially dangerous organisations in the UK"
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 12th Mar 17, 9:48 AM
    • 6,157 Posts
    • 4,963 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #9
    • 12th Mar 17, 9:48 AM
    • #9
    • 12th Mar 17, 9:48 AM
    Apparently they did but I didn't see it, I have seen another copy and it was addressed to the occupier not the leaseholder.

    Anything which I receive addressed suchly goes in the bin unopened.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • blankwall
    • By blankwall 16th Mar 17, 12:05 PM
    • 3 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    blankwall
    I agree with the occupier stuff going straight in the bin!

    Finally had a good look at the lease and the only mention of anything that could refer to the car park is:
    "The common parts: Means all (...) access yards, roads footpaths storage areas and other areas and things (if any) included in the Estate provided by the Lessor fr the common use of Residents and their visitors and not subject to any lease or tenancy of any of the flats on the Estate."

    Not particularly helpful?
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 16th Mar 17, 12:22 PM
    • 38,170 Posts
    • 76,345 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    [QUOTE=blankwall;72260632]I agree with the occupier stuff going straight in the bin!

    Finally had a good look at the lease and the only mention of anything that could refer to the car park is:
    "The common parts: Means all (...) access yards, roads footpaths storage areas and other areas and things (if any) included in the Estate provided by the Lessor fr the common use of Residents and their visitors and not subject to any lease or tenancy of any of the flats on the Estate."

    Not particularly helpful?[/QUOTE]

    On the contrary. There is nothing about parking, or a requirement to show a permit, or that a third party (parking scammers) can add on their own Ts and Cs to an existing contract (lease/AST.)
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 16th Mar 17, 12:56 PM
    • 389 Posts
    • 577 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    The MC may well have contracted with the PPC not to interfere in its pursuance of drivers to pay its "charges". But they cannot hide behind that to absolve themselves of any responsibility. More fool them for entering into a stupid contract that exposes them to liability.


    The MC is liable - first the PPC is acting as its agent so they are liable for all wrongs committed by the PPC, second because they (probably) wrongly interfered with your rights by bringing in the PPC in the first place, thirdly because they cannot impose new terms into your leasehold title.


    If it gets to the stage of court proceedings, plenty of threads on here about joining the MC as a party to the proceedings and making a claim against them.


    I think you should write to the MC formally now, once the leasehold points have been clarified:
    1. to ask them to get the charge cancelled
    2. to point out that the clause in the PPC contract does not absolve them of their legal obligations and duties
    3. to put them on notice that you will hold them liable for all your losses and inconvenience in dealing with this matter
    4. to put them on notice that should this matter proceed to court, then you will join them as a party to any proceedings and make a counterclaim against them


    It's also time to get the residents together to put pressure on the MC because this situation is only going to get worse. MCs are blindly bringing PPCs onto a huge number of residential sites and it's time they understood that they can't just pass the buck for their over zealous ticketing.


    I'm still smiling at the thought of the PPC videoing its lackey posting leaflets through everyone's doors!


    If the MC is suitably pressurised, it should try to get your ticket cancelled, or better still end the contract. The contract probably contains a clause obliging the PPC to comply with its ATA Code of Practice - the Code should state that there should be some sort of grace period before new parking terms are enforced, and your PPC is clearly in breach of this. For instance, if your PPC is a member of the BPA then this is in clause 18.11 of the CoP:


    18.11 Where there is any change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you should make these clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you should consider a grace period to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 17th Mar 17, 10:50 AM
    • 389 Posts
    • 577 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    I actually had a dream last night about the PPC person putting leaflets/letters through the letterboxes. So I do apologise if I'm taking this a bit personally.


    Make a collection of all the pizza/UPVC windows/gardening services/begging letters from Red Cross, NSPCC etc, many of which are in sealed envelopes addressed to "the Occupier" etc etc, that gets put through your letterbox in a typical month. Then when the time comes you can ask them how you were supposed to distinguish the thing they posted through your letterbox from all of these. You need to show that you were given no notice of the changes and this will illustrate the point perfectly and make them look like the complete numpties they are.
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 17th Mar 17, 11:12 AM
    • 38,170 Posts
    • 76,345 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    I actually had a dream last night about the PPC person putting leaflets/letters through the letterboxes. So I do apologise if I'm taking this a bit personally.


    Make a collection of all the pizza/UPVC windows/gardening services/begging letters from Red Cross, NSPCC etc, many of which are in sealed envelopes addressed to "the Occupier" etc etc, that gets put through your letterbox in a typical month. Then when the time comes you can ask them how you were supposed to distinguish the thing they posted through your letterbox from all of these. You need to show that you were given no notice of the changes and this will illustrate the point perfectly and make them look like the complete numpties they are.
    Originally posted by Loadsofchildren123
    Agreed. The scammers should know who the residents are if they intend to enter into a contract with them. Sending an alleged letter detailing something they intend to rely on in contact law must include a name in my humble opinion. (Unless of course your name is, Mr/Mrs The Occupier.)

    Any reasonable person (the ubiquitous Man on the Clapham omnibus) would expect a contract to be addressed to them in person.
    If it ever got to court you would require them to provide strict proof such a legally binding document was received by that named individual.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
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

3,461Posts Today

9,010Users online

Martin's Twitter