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
    • scrib2074
    • By scrib2074 13th May 17, 12:39 PM
    • 19Posts
    • 25Thanks
    scrib2074
    4 PCNs in 7 days in residential carpark
    • #1
    • 13th May 17, 12:39 PM
    4 PCNs in 7 days in residential carpark 13th May 17 at 12:39 PM
    Hi, any help appreciated
    I have lived in the same housing association flat for the last 7 years. For the first 2 years there was no parking management company operating. Signs went up one day and a few weeks later tenants received permits. The carpark is now managed by National Parking Management Ltd (NPM), IPC member.

    I have always displayed whatever permit they gave me. Never had one PCN before last week. I changed car in February and wrote my new plate number on the permit, put a white sticker over the top of old number. I don't think the validity of the permit is the issue though.

    Starting May 5 I have received 4 Parking Charge Notices in the post. They cover 4 separate incidences of "not displaying a valid permit". The photos are taken from a distance and very shadowy, I think to conceal the fact my permit is there, on the bottom right passenger side. You can see something round and white is there but that's it!

    I appealed the first PCN using NPM's online form before coming to this forum. I haven't responded to the next 3. I sent them a close up photo of my permit which shows I'd written over old reg, no idea if they can use that against me. You certainly can't see that from the photos on the PCN. Today's was so dark, my car is a dark colour and you seriously can hardly see the car let alone any permit.

    I have contacted my landlord by email several times. I got all the way to "Housing Services Manager" person. They just refer me back to NPM and tell me to appeal. She finished by saying NPM are acting in accordance with regulations and she can't help me any more.

    My tenancy agreement mentions parking only in the context of parking in marked bays, noise and not being obstructive. Variations to the agreement are permitted with 28 days notice, I am certain I received no notice about a parking company coming in.

    I am now resorting to hanging my visitors permit from the mirror and parking facing inwards so the NPM employee can't get far enough away to miss the permit.

    Any advice on how to proceed would be most welcome. Hard to believe without showing photos that they are saying I'm not displaying a permit when you can barely see the car on the PCNs.
    Thanks for any advice
Page 2
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th May 17, 8:58 PM
    • 45,805 Posts
    • 58,764 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    You should read, use and adapt the humdinger of a LBC that LoadsofChildren123 wrote here:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=72557302#post72557302

    I would absolutely go on the attack. Even about the 12 'fee' for daring to have to change the VRN on the 'permit' which again was never agreed by you or your landlord, any more than the 'parking charges' were.

    You will need to adapt what LoadsOf has written (as linked by hairray in post #103) because your case is different with a different lease granted to your landlord and different status for you as authorised tenant (but you still enjoy rights). Your case is especially helped if your Landlord will show you any points in his/her lease about 'peaceful enjoyment' or the 'right to park a vehicle/use the car park, etc.'

    Get researching and read that absolute peach of a LBC. No waiting to be sued.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • scrib2074
    • By scrib2074 17th May 17, 4:57 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 25 Thanks
    scrib2074
    You should read, use and adapt the humdinger of a LBC that LoadsofChildren123 wrote here:

    I would absolutely go on the attack. Even about the 12 'fee' for daring to have to change the VRN on the 'permit' which again was never agreed by you or your landlord, any more than the 'parking charges' were.

    You will need to adapt what LoadsOf has written (as linked by hairray in post #103) because your case is different with a different lease granted to your landlord and different status for you as authorised tenant (but you still enjoy rights). Your case is especially helped if your Landlord will show you any points in his/her lease about 'peaceful enjoyment' or the 'right to park a vehicle/use the car park, etc.'

    Get researching and read that absolute peach of a LBC. No waiting to be sued.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Thanks so much for your help and advice. I can see why people fold and pay, my landlord brushed off my complaints and the parking company say they have the landlord's backing.

    I now have a copy of my tenancy agreement on the way from the housing association. I do have a copy but I'm missing the appendix so wanted the whole thing.

    The Landlord's duties section does not specifically mention parking, it does say
    Not to interrupt or interfere with the Tenant's right to peacefully occupy the
    Premises except where:
    (a) Access is required subject to reasonable notice to inspect the condition of
    the Premises, to undertake an annual inspection of gas-related appliances
    (2.6) or to carry out repairs or other works to the Premises or adjoining
    property, except in the case of an emergency when no notice is required;
    (b) The Landlord is entitled to possession at the end of the Tenancy.
    Under Tenant's Duties
    Parking and Roadways
    3.41 Not to block local roadways, other vehicular access and footpaths, and to keep
    the road, car parking spaces and footpaths clear of unroadworthy, unlicensed
    and untaxed vehicles and other obstructions.
    That is the only time car parking spaces are directly referenced in the document. My car has an MOT and is taxed and insured as it was at the time of issue of the PCNs. My reading is I can use the car parking spaces as long as my car meets those conditions but it does not specifically say so. It also does not say I need a permit to use them.

    Under Tenant's Rights
    Right to Occupy
    4.1 To occupy the Premises without interruption or interference from the Landlord
    for the duration of the Tenancy (except for the obligation contained in this
    Agreement to give access to the Landlord's employees, agents or contractors)
    so long as the Tenant complies with the terms of this Agreement.
    I also pay a weekly service charge covered in the agreement. That includes outside maintenance services such as the cutting back of the hedge around the carpark to reveal the nasty, threatening signs. It also covers exterior lighting which is in the carpark, some away from the buildings so it's only purpose is to light rear carparking spaces.

    There was no consultation process before a parking scheme was introduced and no notice from the landlord that there would be a 12 fee to continue using the carpark if you wanted to buy a new car. Or that you need to display a permit at all.

    I am onto the researching, thanks for the link to that thread. I'm livid about the last email from the parking mob, "the fee you will pay was agreed between the landlord and us". Not sure my landlord has the power to enter me into contracts...
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th May 17, 11:28 PM
    • 45,805 Posts
    • 58,764 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I'm livid about the last email from the parking mob, "the fee you will pay was agreed between the landlord and us". Not sure my landlord has the power to enter me into contracts...
    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).
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • safarmuk
    • By safarmuk 18th May 17, 1:09 PM
    • 328 Posts
    • 578 Thanks
    safarmuk
    To be honest, from experience, you will not get a sensible answer back from the PPC, so don't expend/waste any energy on that at all. All the PPC's seem to believe that there is no other contract than the signage in the car park and quote it verbatim.

    They conveniently (or deliberately) forget about the lease or AST that was there before their signs.

    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.
    • scrib2074
    • By scrib2074 18th May 17, 6:18 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 25 Thanks
    scrib2074
    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).
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Good point, I shall ask the landlord. My homework for the weekend is to write a letter to them. I will definitely post here for comments before sending.

    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.
    Originally posted by safarmuk
    Thanks, and I agree. I'm sure I'll be ignored by the PPC. I'm equally sure I'll get a response to any correspondence I send to my landlord. As a housing association they live for consultation which is why I was so surprised none was done before bringing the scammers in. They also seem to have the blinkers on that PPCs are awesome and everybody would want their carpark infested with them. The obvious contradiction that the PPC was brought in to protect the rights of tenants to park there and yet they are issuing invoices to those same tenants for parking there was certainly lost on their Housing Services Manager. More than happy to target them instead.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 19th May 17, 12:47 AM
    • 45,805 Posts
    • 58,764 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Good.

    Hairray's thread now has examples of all out 'legal attack' letters for Managing Agents and the PPC.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • scrib2074
    • By scrib2074 20th May 17, 10:21 AM
    • 19 Posts
    • 25 Thanks
    scrib2074
    Good.

    Hairray's thread now has examples of all out 'legal attack' letters for Managing Agents and the PPC.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Far from an all out legal attack but an opening salvo maybe. Names changed to protect the "innocent". Feedback welcome, please let me know if I need to redact further for here.

    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.
    Thanks for all links supplied and to the work of LoadsofChildren123 and Parking Prankster.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 20th May 17, 10:50 AM
    • 12,609 Posts
    • 19,388 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Nice letter. Will keenly await seeing their response. Just one point for you to consider a small (but large!) addition:

    I will vigorously defend any court action GP bring against me and I will not hesitate to issue a counter claim.
    ....... and further will not hesitate in joining Mickey in that counter claim.
    NEWBIES - wise up - DO NOT IGNORE A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE - you have been warned!

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.

    Please note: I am NOT involved in any 'paid for' appeals service.
    • scrib2074
    • By scrib2074 20th May 17, 11:57 AM
    • 19 Posts
    • 25 Thanks
    scrib2074
    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.
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    Me too with the response. Thanks, I had considered adding this. I'm still mulling it over but I think I'd like to see first whether the HA chooses a conciliatory or an antagonistic response style. They also probably did not comply with the consultation part of the tenancy agreement given the fees and charges the PPC have introduced. So I'd like to hold onto a couple of aces and just see if I can get them to show their hand before going all crazy legal on them.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 20th May 17, 2:09 PM
    • 45,805 Posts
    • 58,764 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I am not keen on the first line, which negates the entire letter:

    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.

    Can you not say:

    This letter is a complaint but I am giving you a fair chance to address the matter informally. I have serious concerns about the imposition of terms which are not compatible with my existing parking rights under my tenancy agreement, which pre-dates the third party signs now in the car park. I would like to remind you of the doctrine applying to property, that 'a grantor must not derogate from his grant' - i.e. that you cannot offer unfettered parking rights with one hand in 2010, then take away that free offer and replace it with extremely onerous terms (allowing an ex-clamper firm to maraud through the site, targeting residents' cars) on the other hand, now.

    Should my concerns not be satisfactorily addressed I will not hesitate to escalate the matter using your official complaints procedure. However, I am hoping that reason will be applied under the circumstances and that you have not signed a contracting allowing your parking agent to dictate matters regarding your own tenants, given that you are the principal and remain liable for their actions.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 20-05-2017 at 2:14 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • scrib2074
    • By scrib2074 20th May 17, 4:03 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 25 Thanks
    scrib2074
    Coupon-mad, thanks for your feedback

    I have to keep Mickey's official complaints procedure as a last resort. They cannot address the matter informally if I make an official complaint. Also, as soon as it's an official complaint that's my one chance on the issue with them, next stop the ombudsman.

    I'm guessing they would want to avoid using the official complaints procedure as much as I would, one of the reasons I say that. If the results from this are unsatisfactory I can just resend the letter and say it is an official complaint. They will be forewarned but I will get to look "reasonable" so it balances out. Invoking the procedure would also be an official complaint against their property services manager and I don't wish to do that, she's misguided but I don't want her investigated. Not that I think her job would be in any danger from an internal investigation.

    Should I need to escalate may I borrow the phrase "allowing an ex-clamper firm to maraud through the site, targeting residents' cars"? It's awesome
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 20th May 17, 4:27 PM
    • 6,502 Posts
    • 5,411 Thanks
    The Deep
    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.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • scrib2074
    • By scrib2074 20th May 17, 4:50 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 25 Thanks
    scrib2074
    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.
    Originally posted by The Deep
    I agree in principle but the problem is she seems to genuinely believe that the PPC have the same interests as she does, that is: ensuring residents have access to parking. So far I have not been able to convince her that the permit system is a cynical ploy to allow the PPC to ticket residents. I'm uncomfortable with complaining about somebody with such childlike innocence.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 20th May 17, 8:36 PM
    • 45,805 Posts
    • 58,764 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    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.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • scrib2074
    • By scrib2074 21st May 17, 3:09 AM
    • 19 Posts
    • 25 Thanks
    scrib2074
    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.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Thanks, yes, this is just the first stage. I've never had any kind of dispute with my landlord before and have no idea how they will respond. Uncharted waters so I'm going to sail carefully.

    I have removed the complaint bit all together, realised they cannot make it official anyway so it's a waste of words. I also wanted to let them know that my tenancy predates the introduction of the scammers and I know there was no consultation about it.

    I've removed the bit about not paying the PCNs as it's not hugely relevant to my landlord and the court action and counter claim bit I can keep in my hand in case it's needed. I wanted to let them know that the paper permits are a scam and there are alternatives.

    The changes are at the beginning and the middle, I included the whole thing for ease and cohesiveness.
    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.







    • scrib2074
    • By scrib2074 22nd May 17, 5:21 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 25 Thanks
    scrib2074
    The plot thickens. I got a letter from my landlord today to "all tenants".

    "Full consultation with tenants" before PPC was invited in
    . There was none.
    PPC could manage carpark at no cost to Mickey or tenants, 2 parking permits issued free annually. Additional permits at 5 each. Tenants buy new new permits if they change their vehicle.
    Not sure if a new permit is the same as an additional one but the cost is 12 not 5.

    Then Mickey gets tough.
    They will NOT intervene where the PPC has issued a parking charge. This is an outsourced service regulated by the IAS, a certified Dispute Resolution entity so we have confidence in their conduct and judgement. We would like to maintain the good joint partner relationship we have with the PPC and not undermine their decisions.
    It's interesting they value their relationship with the PPC more than that with their tenants. I'm glad I haven't posted the letter I wrote as I will be making some adjustments.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 22nd May 17, 9:50 PM
    • 45,805 Posts
    • 58,764 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    They will NOT intervene where the PPC has issued a parking charge. This is an outsourced service regulated by the IAS, a certified Dispute Resolution entity so we have confidence in their conduct and judgement. We would like to maintain the good joint partner relationship we have with the PPC and not undermine their decisions.
    I have never seen such a deluded and idiotic opinion about the *fine* (considered by many here) kangaroo court that is the IAS.

    Why don't you send a letter or put notes on the communal boards for ''all tenants'' to disabuse them of the fanciful notion that the IAS is a 'service' providing fair judgments for consumers. Tell everyone that in fact, the IAS is run by the same people who run the parking firm's own Trade Body AND they are the same two people who run Gladstones Solicitors, whose potential conflict of interest is clear to any independent fair-minded person. Gladstones being the firm who sue people for these parking firms, hot on the heels of (quelle surprise) a lost appeal at the ''IAS'' stage.

    Maybe attach a copy of the Parking Prankster's Blog about the (alleged) kangaroo court and Mr Hurley/Mr Davies' mixed interests.

    I wonder if more tenants/residents than you realise, have been complaining. Get together?
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; Yesterday at 10:55 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN in England/Wales? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT

    Click on the trail, top of this page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    DON'T read old advice to ignore, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • scrib2074
    • By scrib2074 23rd May 17, 5:35 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 25 Thanks
    scrib2074
    I have never seen such a deluded and idiotic opinion about the fine kangaroo court that is the IAS.

    Why don't you send a letter or put notes on the communal boards for ''all tenants'' to disabuse them of the fanciful notion that the IAS is a 'service' providing fair judgments for consumers. Tell everyone that in fact, the IAS is run by the same people who run the parking firm's own Trade Body AND they are the same two people who run Gladstones Solicitors, whose potential conflict of interest is clear to any independent fair-minded person. Gladstones being the firm who sue people for these parking firms, hot on the heels of (quelle surprise) a lost appeal at the ''IAS'' stage.

    Maybe attach a copy of the Parking Prankster's Blog about the kangaroo court and Mr Hurley/Mr Davies' mixed interests.

    I wonder if more tenants/residents than you realise, have been complaining. Get together?
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Thanks very much for this as that's exactly what I was thinking of doing and I was sure I'd read on here somewhere that the IAS are hardly impartial.

    There's a line in the letter about tenants having to buy a new permit if they get a new car which I'm sure was aimed at me. The fact they sent it to everyone though suggests maybe more people are complaining. I'm going to write a rebuttal to the HA letter and send it to all tenants, including that about the IAS. And point out that their valued partner charge 12 for permits not the 5 that they agreed.

    The letter also says that when they set up the deal the PPC said the "service" would be provided at no cost to the HA or tenants. In the very same paragraph is the bit about tenants having to buy new permits if they change car. How is 12 not a cost? It's mind boggling. Deluded and idiotic indeed.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 23rd May 17, 5:45 PM
    • 12,609 Posts
    • 19,388 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    The letter also says that when they set up the deal the PPC said the "service" would be provided at no cost to the HA or tenants.
    What they mean is the PPC will not charge a parking management charge; it will be a free service.

    Well zippeee, what a great deal your MA has done on your behalfs. I bet they're feeling smirkingly pleased with their hard negotiating skills to get all that for free.

    Well, Mr MA, are you not aware that they've offered you nothing as this is the business model of every PPC in the land? Gain entry to the car park by offering a free service, but licensed then to rape and pillage the bank accounts of anyone who falls foul of their made up, heavily self-weighted rules and regulations.

    That's the great 'no cost' deal your MA has done for you.
    NEWBIES - wise up - DO NOT IGNORE A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE - you have been warned!

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.

    Please note: I am NOT involved in any 'paid for' appeals service.
    • scrib2074
    • By scrib2074 23rd May 17, 6:32 PM
    • 19 Posts
    • 25 Thanks
    scrib2074
    What they mean is the PPC will not charge a parking management charge; it will be a free service.

    Well zippeee, what a great deal your MA has done on your behalfs. I bet they're feeling smirkingly pleased with their hard negotiating skills to get all that for free.

    Well, Mr MA, are you not aware that they've offered you nothing as this is the business model of every PPC in the land? Gain entry to the car park by offering a free service, but licensed then to rape and pillage the bank accounts of anyone who falls foul of their made up, heavily self-weighted rules and regulations.

    That's the great 'no cost' deal your MA has done for you.
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    Wow, thanks so much for letting me know. I was very confused about how a no cost service could charge 12. I had misunderstood that no cost meant no cost not that there would be no upfront cost. If that makes sense. I had no idea there could be a parking management charge and assumed, as you so eloquently phrased it below, that the PPC got all their money from hapless carpark users. Which you say is in fact the case so my landlord, while correct on the no cost bit, is still deluded and idiotic.
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

1,974Posts Today

12,642Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • The strange thing with a 4yr old is having to play & smile while inside feeling sick for those in trauma in my birth town #Manchester

  • Just a quick ta-ta for now. I'm taking the week off for family time with mini and Mrs MSE. So I won't be here much. Back after the bank hol

  • Ugh another one trying it! Beware https://t.co/Ab9fCRA76F

  • Follow Martin