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
    • handymanuk
    • By handymanuk 2nd Sep 17, 3:24 PM
    • 13Posts
    • 19Thanks
    handymanuk
    PCN For Parking in my Own Space (Leasehold Flat) - Resolved
    • #1
    • 2nd Sep 17, 3:24 PM
    PCN For Parking in my Own Space (Leasehold Flat) - Resolved 2nd Sep 17 at 3:24 PM
    Some background. I own and live in a leasehold flat. Recently the management company have contracted AM Parking Services to manage the common carpark. All residents have allocated spaces, clearly numbered. I've owned the property for 10 years. The rights to park my car in the numbered space corresponding with my property are conveyed to me within my lease with the landowner.

    One evening in July I parked my car in my space but forgot to display the permit. In the morning I had received a PCN from AM Parking Services. I appealed with them on the basis that I have sole rights to use the space without a permit or other conditions. I appealed on the basis of 'not improperly parked'. They rejected the appeal. I appealed to POPLA and was unsuccessful. I provided a copy of my lease. AM Parking Services repeated several times that they agree that I have the right to park my car in my space. They also provided the lease and made reference to several extracts and yet the POPLA assessor stated that I hadn't demonstrated that the lease was in effect as the copy I sent was not signed. This is crazy since both parties agree that it was in effect.

    Here is the decision:

    Operator: AM Parking Services
    Assessor summary of operator case: The operator states that it has issued the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) as the appellant did not display a permit.
    Assessor summary of your case: The appellant states that the space in question is leased to him and the operator does not have any rights over this allocated space. Therefore the PCN is not valid. The appellant states that there is no loss to the operator.
    Assessor supporting rational for decision: When entering onto a private car park, the motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage at the site sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. Therefore upon entry to the car park, it is the duty of the motorist to review the terms and conditions, and comply with them, when deciding to park. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the signage that states “Parking Conditions Apply. Valid permit holders only. A valid permit is required to be clearly displayed in the windscreen at all times. All vehicles must park within a designated bay at all times. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions will result in a £100 Parking Charge being issued”. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the vehicle, registration number [registration], parked at [location] car park on the [date]. The warden subsequently issued at PCN at [time] as the appellant failed to display a valid permit. From the images taken by the warden at the time the PCN was issued, I can that there is no permit displayed in the appellant’s windscreen. The appellant’s case is that he owns and lives in a leasehold flat at the development since 2007. The appellant states that the lease between himself and the landowner permits him to park a vehicle in his allocated space which is bay number [number]. This bay number corresponds with his address which is number [number]. The appellant states that due to this lease the operator does not have rights over his allocated space and therefore he is not liable for the PCN as it is not valid. POPLA is an evidence based service and can only assess an appeal on the basis of the evidence supplied to us. While I note the appellant has provided a copy of a lease and plan showing the allocated bays, as this is undated and not signed by the parties to the agreement, I am unable to determine whether or not this lease is a live or valid agreement. The operator has provided a copy of an agreement between themselves and the landowner. From this agreement, which is dated 17 April 2017, I am satisfied that the operator is entitled to operate and manage the car park with effect from this date and as such is entitled to issue parking charge notices and pursue them if they remain unpaid.In addition, the appellant states that there is no loss to the parking operator. The legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, ParkingEye-v-Beavis. Cambridge County Court heard the case initially, handing down a decision in May 2014 that a parking charge of £85 was allowable. It held that the parking charge had the characteristics of a penalty, in the sense in which that expression is conventionally used, but one that was commercially justifiable because it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in its amount. Mr Beavis took the case to the Court of Appeal, which refused the appeal in April 2015, stating that the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable. Mr Beavis further appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 4 November 2015, concluded: “…the £85 charge is not a penalty. Both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail outlets. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to practice around the United Kingdom, and taking into account the use of this particular car park and the clear wording of the notices.” As such, I must consider whether the signage at this site is sufficient. When doing so, I must first consider the minimum standards set out in Section 18 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice. Within Section 18.1 of the BPA Code of Practice, it states as follows: “You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and conditions are.” Furthermore, Section 18.3 of the BPA Code of Practice states: “You must place signs containing the specific parking terms throughout the site, so that drivers are given the chance to read them at the time of parking or leaving their vehicle. Keep a record of where all the signs are. Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.” As stated, these are the minimum standards that a parking operator must meet when informing motorists of the terms and conditions at a particular site. In addition to this, I note that within the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA 2012) it discusses the clarity that needs to be provided to make a motorist aware of the parking charge. Specifically, it requires that the driver is given “adequate notice” of the charge. The Act then moved on to define “adequate notice” as follows: (3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) “adequate notice” means notice given by: (a) the display of one or more notices in accordance with any applicable requirements prescribed in regulations under paragraph 12 for, or for purposes including, the purposes of sub-paragraph (2); or (b) where no such requirements apply, the display of one or more notices which: (i) specify the sum as the charge for unauthorised parking; and (ii) are adequate to bring the charge to the notice of drivers who park vehicles on the relevant land. Even in circumstances where PoFA 2012 does not apply, I believe this to be a reasonable standard to use when making my own independent assessment of the signage in place at the location. Having considered the signage in place at this particular site against the requirements of Section 18 of the BPA Code of Practice and PoFA 2012, I am of the view that the signage at the site is sufficient to bring the parking charge to the attention of the motorist. Therefore, having considered the Supreme Court decision, I conclude that the parking charge in this instance is allowable. Although the charge may not be a genuine pre-estimate of loss; the signage at the location is clear, the motorist did not keep to the terms and conditions set out on the signage, and the charge is neither extravagant nor unconscionable. While the charge in this instance was £100; this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court. While I acknowledge the appellant’s comments regarding him being a leaseholder of the car parking space, it is ultimately his responsibility to park in accordance with the terms and conditions of the car park As the appellant did not display his permit, he did not adhere to the terms and conditions of the site. In the absence of a copy a signed and dated agreement, I can only conclude that the operator is entitled to operate the site and therefore the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly I must refuse this appeal.

    What do I do now? I was parked in my own space. There was no loss, discomfort to anyone. The lease has not been varied, and the parking company cannot provide evidence of such, since it hasn't happened. The management company did send a letter out stating that AM Parking services would be operating and that if "You park in an unauthorised place you will be issued with a PCN". They did not specify other regulations. I did not park in an unauthorised place, it was my space! How can I be entering into a contract with the parking company for simply exercising my existing rights?

    POPLA seem to be biased against the motorist. The assessor ignored the details of my case and even spouted the Beavis case back at me. The circumstances of that case are completely different to mine. That case involves a stranger. This is a private, secure, gated carpark containing allocated spaces to which only specific named individuals are lawfully allowed to occupy. The management company have continually said that they cannot get involved. A point which I continue to rebuke, since the parking company is operating on their behalf.

    What should I do now? I have been advised to write to AM Parking Services stating that I consider the POPLA decision defective, giving the reason that they found against me on a point that neither of us were disputing. I will also state that if they continue to pursue me I will continue to resist.

    Please help. This is stressing me out no end.

    Thank you.
    Last edited by handymanuk; 08-09-2017 at 4:59 PM. Reason: Update result
Page 1
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 2nd Sep 17, 3:54 PM
    • 15,513 Posts
    • 24,235 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #2
    • 2nd Sep 17, 3:54 PM
    • #2
    • 2nd Sep 17, 3:54 PM
    An utterly appalling decision from POPLA (I suspect by a relatively new assessor - but that's no excuse).

    You should complain to the Lead Adjudicator (John Gallagher) that your legally binding lease agreement has been called into question by the assessor and has been used as the sole reason to turn down your appeal.

    (As an aside - is the lease agreement incomplete by way of missing signatures, or is there no section for these?).

    You can also write to AM Parking to tell them you dispute the findings of POPLA and you will not be paying them a penny. Instead you urge them to issue court proceedings where you will prevail, and in doing so will be seeking punitive costs against them in addition to a counterclaim for the misuse of your data under the Data Protection Act and will be seeking maximum damages of £750 as precedented by the binding cases of Vidal-Hall v Google and Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd (2013).

    http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/data-protection-act/

    Here's some more advice on the DPA put together by MSE poster Timothea. This will give you the background and conditions for you to consider and determine whether you might have a case to pursue.

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5585388

    Tell AMP that you expect them to issue proceedings within 14 days or you will consider the matter closed.

    I would write to your MP and tell him about this diabolical decision and ask that he/she gets behind the Bill (to go through Parliament in February 2018) which sets out plans to bring in legislative regulation of the private parking sector.

    Others will be along shortly to offer more advice.

    Just an appalling situation for you, and one which we will give you plenty of support in overcoming.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    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.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 2nd Sep 17, 4:37 PM
    • 7,379 Posts
    • 6,423 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #3
    • 2nd Sep 17, 4:37 PM
    • #3
    • 2nd Sep 17, 4:37 PM
    I do not believe it!

    Let thm take you to court, where you will bring these up

    http://nebula.wsimg.com/d31f6731eeb7b4e07c7fc2f512f18abc?AccessKeyId=4CB8F 2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/millenium-lose-copper-quarter.html

    There are lots more similar judgements on tinternet.
    Last edited by The Deep; 02-09-2017 at 4:51 PM.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • fisherjim
    • By fisherjim 2nd Sep 17, 5:49 PM
    • 2,580 Posts
    • 3,839 Thanks
    fisherjim
    • #4
    • 2nd Sep 17, 5:49 PM
    • #4
    • 2nd Sep 17, 5:49 PM
    Citing Beavis:

    Both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail outlets.

    Has nothing to do with a residential property!
    • handymanuk
    • By handymanuk 2nd Sep 17, 6:40 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    handymanuk
    • #5
    • 2nd Sep 17, 6:40 PM
    • #5
    • 2nd Sep 17, 6:40 PM
    Thank you so much for your support. The fact that you would help a complete stranger with this matter really warms me. I've been so distressed by the whole matter. I don't know why, but it has really affected me.

    You should complain to the Lead Adjudicator (John Gallagher) that your legally binding lease agreement has been called into question by the assessor and has been used as the sole reason to turn down your appeal.
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    Thank you. Should I just email the complaints email address marking it for the attention of John Gallagher?

    I will draft something up and post it here.

    (As an aside - is the lease agreement incomplete by way of missing signatures, or is there no section for these?).
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    The lease is signed, it's just that I was never given a signed copy, which I realise now is a failing of my solicitor. Is there any way to get hold of a copy? Is it held by the land registry?
    Whether I have a copy or not makes no difference to whether it was in effect or not. If it's not then great, I'll claim back the £10k in service fees from the management company, plus the ground rent that I've been paying.

    The POPLA decision makes no sense. The assessor dismissed my copy of the lease but seemingly agreed with the parking company that the conditions in the lease they provided (not for my property but for another property on the development) allowed them to operate. If they can provide a lease which doesn't relate to my property and it be allowed, how can I effectively do the same and it be disallowed. It is not logical.

    (You can also write to AM Parking to tell them you dispute the findings of POPLA and you will not be paying them a penny. Instead you urge them to issue court proceedings where you will prevail, and in doing so will be seeking punitive costs against them in addition to a counterclaim for the misuse of your data under the Data Protection Act and will be seeking maximum damages of £750 as precedented by the binding cases of Vidal-Hall v Google and Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd (2013).
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    Just so I am clear, you are suggesting that I invite AM Parking services to take me to court? Is that a good idea?

    Is there any reason to suspect that they have breached the DPA? It seems that unknowingly, I provided them with my details when I appealed as it was a condition of being able to appeal, according to them. Clearly this is a tactic by them to obtain the driver's details, although I could not know this at the time.

    Just an appalling situation for you, and one which we will give you plenty of support in overcoming.
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    Thank you so much for your support.

    I do not believe it!

    Let thm take you to court, where you will bring these up

    There are lots more similar judgements on tinternet.
    Originally posted by The Deep
    Thank you. The first link that you included doesn't work unfortunately. I will post up details of my lease and the full text of their initial response to my appeal. So that everything is clear.

    Citing Beavis:

    Both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail outlets.

    Has nothing to do with a residential property!
    Originally posted by fisherjim
    Totally agree, but that didn't stop the POPLA assessor using it against me!
    • handymanuk
    • By handymanuk 2nd Sep 17, 7:01 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    handymanuk
    • #6
    • 2nd Sep 17, 7:01 PM
    AM Parking Services Response to POPLA
    • #6
    • 2nd Sep 17, 7:01 PM
    Here is the response to POPLA during my appeal. I've added my comment in line, in bold, plus provided the lease extracts.


    This person was issued a PCN for failure to display a valid permit on Private Land which we manage on behalf of the client, The Terms & Conditions by which the landowner wishes to manage his land [](I would argue that the T&Cs are set out in the lease, plus, the contract is with the management company, not the landowner) are clearly laid out on the signs and we have proof that the appellant breached these.

    We note that [my name] contends that he owns the bay (I never stated that, I stated that I have a right to use of the bay, subject to the conditions in the lease). However as can be seen from the Lease extracts 4.3, 4.25, 4.24, 4.28, 6.2.6, 6.2.10 and 6.2.14 this would apply to the parking ( LEASE ATTACHED ),

    [lease extract 4.3]

    To pay and discharge all existing and future rates taxes assessments and outgoings whether parliamentary local or otherwise now or in the future imposed or charged upon the property or any part thereof or the parking space or on the lessor or lessee in respect of the proper or the parking space save those required by law (if any) to be discharged by the Lessor.

    (this is a tax or rate?)

    [lease extract 4.25]

    Not to park any vehicle (including any caravan, boat or trailer) on any part of the development (including the parking space) save a private motor vehicle in a good and roadworthy condition with a current MOT certificate (where required) and bearing a valid vehicle licence and not to obstruct in any way at any time any of the estate roads footpaths and access drives on the development whether by parking thereon of vehicles or otherwise.

    (I parked my own private motor vehicle which is in good and roadworthy condition, bearing a valid licence was parked in my own parking space, not obstructing anything)


    [lease extract 4.24]

    Not to carry out repairs to motor vehicles on any part of the development (including the parking space) save in an emergency

    (not relevant)


    [lease extract 4.28]

    To observe such reasonable regulations as the lessor or the managers may make from time to time under the provisions set out in clause 9.

    [lease extract 9.2]


    the lessor or the managers shall have the right from time to time to […] [removed part about bin stores and moving parking spaces] and to make minor variations to the terms of any lease of any part thereof (including this lease) and to make reasonable regulations for the efficient management and maintenance of the development and the comfort and convenience of the tenants therein.


    (there is no evidence of lease variation, is it reasonable to penalise me for parking in my own space, is fining me purposeful to the efficient management, comfort or convenience of tenants, given that no other tenants, nor the management company, nor anyone else for that matter could have suffered any form of inconvenience, lack of enjoyment, disruption, discomfort or other such consequence I consider this point not relevant)

    [lease extract 6.2.6]

    to employ and maintain such staff agents and advisers including concierges caretakers managing agents and chartered accountants as may be required to attend to the running inspection care and management and (where appropriate) the certification and regulation of the development and the fulfilment of the lessor’s and the managers obligations and responsibilities under this lease including the provision of statements of account to the lessee and other tenants

    (I accept that the management company is able to employ the operator to provide services, that is not in dispute, I am disputing the right that the operator has to apply their own terms and conditions, superseding conditions laid out in the lease)


    [lease extract 6.2]

    the lessor covenants with the lessee until the handover date and the managers covenant with the lessee thereafter to provide the following services in relation to the development:

    [lease extract 6.2.10]

    to provide any other services which the lessor or the managers (acting reasonably) wishes to provide for the lessees of the development

    (I accept that the management company is able to employ the operator to provide services, I do not accept that the operator’s terms override the terms laid out in the lease)

    [lease extract 6.2.14]

    to provide such lighting and other cleaning to any drives accessways walkways parking areas paths gardens grounds and other external parts of the development and to provide such other facilities therein as the lessor or managers shall determine

    (not clear how this is relevant)


    …the appellant does not own his parking space but a mere right to park the Land owner uses a Management Company who has employed our services for parking enforcement at [name of apartment complex] ( CONTRACT ATTACHED ) (I agree that the operator has entered into a contract with the management company). All residents received a letter from the management company informing them of the parking enforcement ( LETTER TO RESIDENTS ATTACHED ).From the pictures provided, the signs situated near his vehicle would have offered the ‘parking contract’.

    For a ‘parking contract’ to be established there needs to be an offer and an acceptance - the ‘parking contract’ is offered on the signage and accepted when the motorist remains at the location (surely the parking contract is set out in the lease, not by some third party). Prominent Charges on Signs Clauses 18.3 and 18.4 of the BPA Code of Practice explain that the purpose of the signage is to bring the location Terms & Conditions to the attention to motorists visiting there. We contend that over 98% of visitors will follow the T&C’s (what evidence is there of this?) and as such it is important that the specific conditions are given due prominence, we achieve this by highlighting the key requirement at the top of the notice and by using easily identifiable graphics to point out the other conditions. We also appreciate the need, in Clause 18.4 of the Code and in Clause 2 (3) (b) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act, to adequately bring to the attention of motorists the amount of the parking charge - we achieve this by using a different font and size to the graphics used for the various parking conditions, and detailing the charges near to it. In section 18.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice it states that ‘’ In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be aware of from the start.’’ (I have no contract or relationship with the BPA, nor does the landowner or management company) We as an approved operator of the BPA have provided photographic evidence of the signage on site, informing the motorist to the full terms available within the car park.

    When entering private land where parking is permitted, the motorist is entering into a contract with us by remaining on this land (my contract is with the landowner, not the operator). The terms and conditions of this land are displayed around this area (T&Cs are stated in the lease with supercedes any other T&Cs). It is essential that these terms are adhered to in order to avoid a PCN a contract was formed and the motorist did not keep to the parking conditions to which a PCN was issued. The Appellant was parked on our clients land whilst failing to display a valid permit. I have enclosed their original appeal to us along with our appeal response. The signs on the Relevant Land are clear, VALID PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY. A valid permit is required to be clearly displayed in the windscreen at all times. The manner in which the Appellant parked was such that incurred the parking charges as set out above. The appellant states about no loss but can I refer you to the Parkingeye Vs Beavis result where it was ruled by 3 senior Judges in the European Court we as a BPA member are governed by them to how much is charged and our costs are within the BPA code of practise.

    Given that [my name] is a resident and there was a prior parking enforcement company enlisted to implement parking enforcement along with a letter from the Management Company and our permit along with our signage being erected, we contend that he is fully aware of the implications of any breach, including the amount of the Parking Charge. As a resident of [name of apartment block] he has the right to park on the land owned by our client but does not own it himself. As a resident of [removed] he is required to follow the parking restrictions on this land as agreed between [management company] and AM Parking Services to which a valid permit must be displayed at all times. Section 19.3 of the British Parking Association Code of Practice states: “If the driver breaks the contract, for example by not paying the tariff fee or by staying longer than the time paid…they may be liable for parking charges”. Regardless if a motorist has parked in a certain area previously, or if other motorists park similarly without a PCN being issued, this does not affect the validity of a PCN issued at any one time. The vehicle is situated on black tarmac which the land belongs to our client (the land belongs to the landowner, not the management company), If the motorist was unsure if he was parked near to a sign clearly stating VALID PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY ( PHOTO EVIDENCE OF VEHICLE AND SIGN ATTACHED ), it is reasonable to expect him to find alternative parking arrangements in order to avoid contravening the terms and receiving a PCN. The terms and conditions of the site state: “VALID PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY”…FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS WILL RESULT IN A £100 PARKING CHARGE NOTICE BEING ISSUED”. Our operator issued the PCN on [date] to vehicle registration [removed] because the vehicle failed to display a valid permit. The photograph exhibited OE1 picture 1 shows the location of the vehicle with signs, the appellant also states that he lives at [removed] so this would mean he has a permit so he would know the parking restrictions within the car park and the appellant would have had to drive past the entrance sign stipulating permit holders only and the numerous enforcement signs around the private car park ( PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE OF ENTRANCE SIGN AND SIGN LOCATION ATTACHED ). Our Company has been instructed to manage the Relevant Land and without concession the appellant has failed to prove otherwise. Our parking operators monitor the entire site within the boundary of private land, not just the designated bays within that land the terms and conditions apply to the entire site. When deciding to park, it is the motorist’s responsibility to be aware of the terms and conditions of the car park and comply with these.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 2nd Sep 17, 7:03 PM
    • 15,513 Posts
    • 24,235 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #7
    • 2nd Sep 17, 7:03 PM
    • #7
    • 2nd Sep 17, 7:03 PM
    Thank you. Should I just email the complaints email address marking it for the attention of John Gallagher?
    Yep. Head it up 'Complaint - Maladministration'.

    The lease is signed, it's just that I was never given a signed copy, which I realise now is a failing of my solicitor. Is there any way to get hold of a copy? Is it held by the land registry?
    While I reckon I know quite a bit about private parking issues, I'm not the expert in leaseholds. There may be others here who can advise on this specific.

    The POPLA decision makes no sense. The assessor dismissed my copy of the lease but seemingly agreed with the parking company that the conditions in the lease they provided (not for my property but for another property on the development) allowed them to operate. If they can provide a lease which doesn't relate to my property and it be allowed, how can I effectively do the same and it be disallowed. It is not logical.
    One of the issues you will bring up in the context of 'maladministration'.

    Just so I am clear, you are suggesting that I invite AM Parking services to take me to court? Is that a good idea?
    How else are you going to put this to bed? Don't forget, AMP have 6 years to issue court proceedings against you. You will never know just when (if) the court claim will arrive. Do you want to live the next 6 years with this nagging in the background. If it's going to happen, you wrest the initiative. Take the fight to a bully and more often than not they run away.

    Is there any reason to suspect that they have breached the DPA? It seems that unknowingly, I provided them with my details when I appealed as it was a condition of being able to appeal, according to them. Clearly this is a tactic by them to obtain the driver's details, although I could not know this at the time.
    Did you respond to the windscreen ticket, or to a Notice to Keeper through the post? If the former - pity! If the latter - we're in business!

    Whatever, it doesn't stop you threatening them with being sued - you're in control of whether you execute the claim. Just hit them with it!

    The Deep knows quite a bit about leasehold/rental agreements. He owns properties (that's why he's rich! ).
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    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.
    • handymanuk
    • By handymanuk 2nd Sep 17, 7:04 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    handymanuk
    • #8
    • 2nd Sep 17, 7:04 PM
    Letter from the management company to residents
    • #8
    • 2nd Sep 17, 7:04 PM
    Here is the letter from the management company to residents. Note the date, the parking operator actually didn't start operating until the start of July.

    Please note that from Monday 17th April 2017 A new company called AM Parking Services Ltd will be taking on parking controls.

    There are no set up charges from the new company to take this on so there are no extra costs to the leaseholders.

    Each property that has a parking space as per the plan we hold is entitled to a permit per bay and these will be hand delivered to each property by the parking control company with an accompanying letter. These are new permits and will replace the existing ones from [old parking company]. New signs will be erected by the parking company, replacing the existing ones, advising of the parking restrictions.

    If you or your tenant(s) lose the permit(s) then you or they will need to contact the parking control company, their details are at the end of this letter. Instructions will also be on the letter with the permits.

    Leaseholders and tenants are not permitted to lend or sell their permits to any third party who is not resident at [development], even if they themselves do not have a vehicle.

    Visitors permits can be obtained from the concierge, these will be for a maximum of four hours with no return within 12 hours.

    If you rent your property out please ensure that your tenant(s) and/or letting agents are aware of these changes.

    If you do park in an unauthorised place you will receive a parking charge notice.

    If you receive a parking charge notice we cannot enter into correspondence in its regard, all queries regarding parking charge notice must be via AM Parking Services Ltd whose details will be on the ticket.

    Yours sincerely,

    [management company]
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 2nd Sep 17, 7:07 PM
    • 15,513 Posts
    • 24,235 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #9
    • 2nd Sep 17, 7:07 PM
    • #9
    • 2nd Sep 17, 7:07 PM
    This cannot override your leasehold agreement without you agreeing to it via formal legal documentation. Check out 'Derogation from Grant'.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    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.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 2nd Sep 17, 7:54 PM
    • 51,532 Posts
    • 65,134 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Copy the action taken in hairray's thread.

    Also read Daniel san's thread.



    No idea why anyone there is accepting a permit scheme at all. And that letter from the MA gives the permit to you and says ''there are no extra costs to the leaseholders.''

    OK then, no contract was agreed by you, to pay any money.

    and it says:

    ''If you do park in an unauthorised place you will receive a parking charge notice.''

    You didn't, so that's OK then. No breach, not even a 'relevant obligation' created by this letter to even display the permit!
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • handymanuk
    • By handymanuk 3rd Sep 17, 10:15 AM
    • 13 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    handymanuk
    Yep. Head it up 'Complaint - Maladministration'.
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    Perfect. I will do that.

    How else are you going to put this to bed? Don't forget, AMP have 6 years to issue court proceedings against you.
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    Good point. I understand what you are saying. I will do that.

    Did you respond to the windscreen ticket, or to a Notice to Keeper through the post? If the former - pity! If the latter - we're in business!
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    I responded to a windscreen ticket. I know not to do it again now!

    This cannot override your leasehold agreement without you agreeing to it via formal legal documentation. Check out 'Derogation from Grant'.
    Originally posted by Umkomaas
    Thank you. I've looked at that, it's great, although I wonder if it applies more to the management company, since the parking company is not a party to the lease.

    Copy the action taken in hairray's thread.

    Also read Daniel san's thread.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Thank you. I will do that.
    • Guys Dad
    • By Guys Dad 3rd Sep 17, 10:34 AM
    • 10,202 Posts
    • 9,347 Thanks
    Guys Dad
    Lease not signed?

    Take a photocopy, scribble over the signature box as if the signature and date were redacted.

    Send to POPLA.

    Job done.
    • handymanuk
    • By handymanuk 3rd Sep 17, 1:09 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    handymanuk
    Thank you. But they won't accept any more evidence. I will write to the lead assessor as a matter of complaint.
    • handymanuk
    • By handymanuk 3rd Sep 17, 1:19 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    handymanuk
    My Letter to the Management Company
    Here is the letter that I have drafted to the management company. I'll adapt it to send to the parking company.

    Dear Sir/Madam,

    I am writing to you to in relation to a parking charge notice that was left on the windscreen on my car (registration XXXXX) whilst parked in my marked bay (number XX) on the morning of the DATE at ADDRESS. The PCN was issued by AM Parking Services.

    This letter is to direct you to instruct AM Parking Services to cancel the issued PCN and close the matter.

    The lease, in relation to land registry title number XXXXXX, which exists between myself, as the owner and occupier of ADDRESS, the landowner and yourselves, MANAGEMENT COMPANY as the managers grants me the right to park my vehicle upon the space numbered XX without the requirement to display a permit or comply with terms outside those stated within the lease, or terms set by any third party who is not party to the lease 2.15:

    “The right to park not more than one roadworthy private motor vehicle on the
    parking space subject to the right of the Lessor or the Managers to nominate or
    substitute an alternative parking space at anytime during the Term together with right of way with a private motor vehicle over the accessways for the time being leading thereto for the purpose of access to and egress from the parking space or any substituted or alternative parking space”

    Both AM Parking Services and I have photographic evidence of the fact that the vehicle was parked in accordance with the terms of lease at the time that the PCN was issued. I can supply evidence of the vehicle’s registration with the DVLA which shows the registered address and registered keeper’s details which match my own. I can supply evidence of the existence of up to date road tax. I can also prove that the vehicle is in a road worthy condition.

    The lease has been in effect since my completion date, the XXXXXX, and has not been varied since that date. It was therefore in force, unchanged from the COMPLETION DATE on the PCN ISSUE DATE when the PCN was issued. Therefore, all terms within the lease were in effect on the date relating to this matter.

    My vehicle, registered to me, at the address of ADDRESS, is in roadworthy condition and is taxed, it was parked in the bay numbered XX. I therefore met all of the obligations in the lease in relations to my right to park my vehicle upon it’s allocated space. I therefore deny and resist any requirement to pay any charge to any party in relation to this matter.

    AM Parking Services were acting on your behalf, as your agents, as noted in the letter from MANAGEMENT COMPANY dated the XXXXXX.

    Neither the landowners, managers or any agents acting on their behalf can force me to enter into an additional contract simply to exercise existing rights, unless there is agreement between both parties through the signing of legally binding documentation to that effect. This has not occurred.

    In previous correspondence you have made reference in the lease to clause 6.2.10:

    “To provide any other services which the Lessor or the Managers (acting reasonably) wishes to provide for the lessees of the Development”

    This clause allows you to employ or contract third parties to provide services. Nowhere in this clause does it state or imply that third parties can impose additional terms and conditions on tenants or residents, nor does it state that existing rights can be varied or removed by third parties, nor does it state that by employing such agents you confer rights to them contained under this lease.

    AM Parking Services have made reference to the following clauses:

    “4.28: To observe such reasonable regulations as the lessor or the managers may make from time to time under the provisions set out in clause 9.”

    “9.2: the lessor or the managers shall have the right from time to time to [...removed part about bin stores and moving parking spaces…] and to make minor variations to the terms of any lease of any part thereof (including this lease) and to make reasonable regulations for the efficient management and maintenance of the development and the comfort and convenience of the tenants therein.”

    No variations to the lease have occurred, minor or otherwise. There is no evidence that regulations have been set. There is no correspondence which state that regulations have been set.

    You may refer to you letter, dated XXXXXX, in which you state the following:

    “If you do park in an unauthorised place you will receive a parking charge notice”

    The term ‘unauthorised place’ is not defined. However, it is a fair inference that lawfully parking my vehicle in my own space, in accordance with the rights conveyed to me in the lease my parking space in this situation cannot be an ‘unauthorised place’, therefore the PCN is not valid.

    As a tenant I am protected by law from derogation of grant. This right protects both the tenant and the landlord against actions which materially affect the rights of both parties. By employing AM Parking Services and failing to ensure that tenants and residents are protected from charges resulting from parking vehicles in accordance with the lease it could be argued that you have made the property materially less fit for purpose, have deprived me of my existing right to park my vehicle in my space and have interfered with my right as a tenant to quiet enjoyment. This would be in breach of the lease clause 5.1:

    “That the Lessee paying the rent reserved by this Lease and performing and observing the covenants contained in this Lease shall peaceably hold and enjoy the Property for the Term without any interruption by the Lessor or any person lawfully claiming through under or in trust for the Lessor”

    Should the PCN not be cancelled within 14 days from the date of this letter I will be forced to pursue a claim in the County Court against MANAGERS to recover any loss. I’m absolutely willing to go to court in relation to this matter. I have an extremely strong case, backed by similar legal precedent. I refer you to similar cases where the ruling was in relation to a tenant being issued a PCN from a third party parking company:

    - PACE Recovery and Storage v Mr N C6GF14F0
    - Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011
    - Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E Appeal

    I will rely on those cases to form part of my defence to the court, should this matter reach that stage.

    Additionally, if it is subsequently discovered that MANAGERS has provided AM Parking Services with any personally identifiable information that relates to myself I will also enter a claim with the County Court for damages under a breach of the Data Protection Act. Again, there is legal precedent for this, specifically where information has been obtained or supplied to private parking contractors.

    In my email dated XXXXX I made you aware of the fact that AM Parking Services provided me with a copy of the lease relating to plot number XX (not my plot, another apartment on the development) as part of their evidence against me in the appeal to POPLA. This may well constitute a breach of the DPA, as I referred to above.

    I am also writing to AM Parking Services directly in relation to this matter and will instruct them to cancel the PCN. If they do not, I will invite them to pursue me in the County Court, where I am fully confident they will not be successful, given the strength of my defence in this case.

    In summary, I was lawfully parked, I deny all charges against me and require that you instruct AM Parking Services, acting on your behalf, to cancel the PCN. If this occurs within 14 days from the date of this letter I will consider the matter closed. If this does not occur then further action will be taken.


    Yours sincerely,
    • handymanuk
    • By handymanuk 3rd Sep 17, 5:13 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    handymanuk
    My Letter to the Parking Company
    Here is my letter to the parking company. This all takes a lot of time doesn't it!
    I've repeated myself several times in the letter, I realise that. But I hope that it is clear and effective.

    Dear Sir/Madam,

    I am writing to you to in relation to a parking charge notice that was left on the windscreen of my car (registration XXXXX) whilst parked in my marked bay (number XX) on the morning of the DATE at LOCATION. The PCN was issued by yourselves, AM Parking Services.

    This letter is instruct you to cancel the issued PCN and close the matter within 14 days from the date of this letter or issue proceedings against me in the County Court.

    I did not enter into contract with you by parking my car in its allocated space on the DATE. My right to park existed long before you were employed by MANAGERS, who are in fact the managers, not the landowners and you continued to state wrongly, in your response to POPLA. I did not enter into any contract since you are unable to offer me rights which I already hold. No offer, no contract, no breach, no parking charge due.

    I have appealed to you directly, which you rejected. I then appealed to POPLA which was unsuccessful. It is clear that the decision by POPLA is defective. The defects are that the adjudicator has worked on the basis of not finding that I have a valid lease, when in fact that is common ground between you, as the operator and myself; and also that the adjudicator started from the premise that there was a parking contract when one of the key issues in the case was whether or not there was a parking contract which could be enforced against me.

    You have stated on at least two occasions that I have a right to park in my allocated space and I have written evidence of this. You also produced a lease (not relating to my property) and used that against me as evidence. Therefore, in mounting your defence you do agree with me that the lease in effect and agree to the rights conveyed within it.

    Additionally, both yourselves and POPLA make reference to ParkingEye vs. Beavis. That case relates to an unconnected stranger parking on private, commercial land where there is a commercial interest to enforce parking restrictions. It does not apply to residential land which PROPERTY is. There is no commercial interest in the landowner or the managers of PROPERTY in pursuing residents lawfully parking in accordance with the lease and you cannot show otherwise therefore, that case is irrelevant.

    I assert again that the lease, which exists between myself, as the owner and occupier of PROPERTY, the landowner and the management company, MANAGERS grants me lawful rights to park my vehicle upon the space numbered XX without the requirement to display a permit or comply with terms outside those stated within the lease, or terms set by any third party who is not party to the lease 2.15:

    “The right to park not more than one roadworthy private motor vehicle on the
    parking space subject to the right of the Lessor or the Managers to nominate or
    substitute an alternative parking space at anytime during the Term together with right of way with a private motor vehicle over the accessways for the time being leading thereto for the purpose of access to and egress from the parking space or any substituted or alternative parking space”

    Both you and I have photographic evidence of the fact that the vehicle was parked in accordance with the terms of lease at the time that the PCN was issued. I can supply evidence of the vehicle’s registration with the DVLA which shows the registered address and registered keeper’s details which match my own. I can supply evidence of the existence of up to date road tax. I can also prove that the vehicle is in a road worthy condition.

    The lease has been in effect since the completion date of the purchase of my property, the DATE, and has not been varied since that date and you cannot supply any evidence to that effect as it has not happened. The lease was therefore in force on the DATE, unchanged from the DATE. Therefore, all terms within the lease were in effect on the date relating to this matter and your claim against me has no legal basis. I therefore continue to deny and resist any requirement to pay any charge to any party in relation to this matter.

    Neither the landowners, managers or any agents acting on their behalf can force me to enter into an additional contract simply to exercise existing rights, unless there is agreement between both parties through the signing of legally binding documentation to that effect. This has not occurred, I have signed nothing which relates to a variation of the lease and you cannot supply evidence of such. Your contract with the managers is simply a contract to operate, it forms no contract with tenants or residents who are not party to it. I cannot be bound to a contract which I am not party to.

    In the POPLA appeal you have made reference in the lease to clause 6.2.10:

    “To provide any other services which the Lessor or the Managers (acting reasonably) wishes to provide for the lessees of the Development”

    This clause allows the managers to employ or contract third parties to provide services. Nowhere in this clause does it state or imply that third parties can impose additional terms and conditions on tenants or residents, nor does it state that existing rights can be varied or removed by third parties, nor does it state that by employing such agents the mangers confer rights to third parties contained under this lease. Therefore, you have no right to apply additional terms upon me or other tenants and residents on the property. No contract was formed between myself and AM Parking Services by parking my car in my allocated space. As no contract was formed, no breach can occur and no charge is due.

    You also made reference to the following clauses:

    “4.28: To observe such reasonable regulations as the lessor or the managers may make from time to time under the provisions set out in clause 9.”

    “9.2: the lessor or the managers shall have the right from time to time to [...removed part about bin stores and moving parking spaces…] and to make minor variations to the terms of any lease of any part thereof (including this lease) and to make reasonable regulations for the efficient management and maintenance of the development and the comfort and convenience of the tenants therein.”

    No variations to the lease have occurred, minor or otherwise. There is no evidence that regulations have been set. There is no correspondence which state that regulations have been set.

    You also refer to the letter from the managers, dated DATE, in which it is stated:

    “If you do park in an unauthorised place you will receive a parking charge notice”

    The term ‘unauthorised place’ is not defined. However, it is a fair inference that lawfully parking my vehicle in my own space, in accordance with the rights conveyed to me in the lease my parking space in this situation cannot be an ‘unauthorised place’, therefore the PCN is not valid. It is up to you to prove otherwise, however, you cannot.

    I continue to deny that I entered into any contract with yourselves by simply exercising my existing rights to access the land and park my vehicle upon it within the allocated space. I consider your actions wholly unreasonable and vexatious and I will strongly defend myself in court against your claim if it comes to that.

    I have an extremely strong case, backed by legal precedent. I refer you to similar cases where the ruling was in relation to a tenant being issued a PCN from a private parking company:

    - PACE Recovery and Storage v Mr N C6GF14F0
    - Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011
    - Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E Appeal

    I will rely on those cases to form part of my defence to the court, should this matter reach that stage. I am fully confident of winning any claim that you make against me in court.

    I am also writing to the MANAGERS directly in relation to this matter and will direct them to instruct you to cancel the PCN. I will also consider what legal action that may be necessary in relation to my right to quiet enjoyment being breached by the managers and by your actions. I also note that you supplied a copy of a lease relating to another property at PROPERTY I will make the owner aware that you are giving out his personal details unlawfully and suggest that he makes a claim against you for a breach under the Data Protection Act.

    In summary, I was lawfully parked, I did not enter into a contract with you, I deny all charges against me and instruct you to cancel the PCN. If this occurs within 14 days from the date of this letter I will consider the matter closed. If this does not occur then I invite you to pursue this matter in court, where I am prepared and ready to mount a vigorous and robust defence against your claim.


    Yours sincerely,
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 3rd Sep 17, 5:38 PM
    • 7,379 Posts
    • 6,423 Thanks
    The Deep
    I wish you the best of luck, but imo you are wasting your time writing to a PPC in this manner. They do not react to common sense. They won at PoPLA. ergo you owe them money.

    Have you read this?

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

    Mr Davey is a barrister with a practice in Winchester.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • handymanuk
    • By handymanuk 3rd Sep 17, 5:47 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    handymanuk
    Well, I think that too, but the research that I have done suggests that by doing so, at least if the matter does end up in court I can prove that I have tried to address it directly. I've also given them a deadline to respond and if nothing else, it's made me feel a bit better!

    In doing the research that I've done I've been through my lease and actually found a clause about quiet enjoyment. It prohibits the landowner, managers or their agents from 'interrupting' my enjoyment as long as I'm paying the rent and abiding by covenants in the lease, which clearly I have done. I could have a case against the management company for breach of that by allowing these guys onto the site and not ensuring adequate protection for residents abiding by the terms of the lease.

    I've read the UKPC vs Davey case but that seems to be on the basis that UKPC were ticketing on land register to them under the land registry. I wonder whether that applies in my case.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 3rd Sep 17, 5:55 PM
    • 51,532 Posts
    • 65,134 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    See the hairray and Daniel san threads, as you sound like you are headed the same way!
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • handymanuk
    • By handymanuk 8th Sep 17, 4:51 PM
    • 13 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    handymanuk
    UPDATE: I received notification from the management company that the PPC have cancelled my ticket. It seems that my letters worked.

    THANK YOU to everyone here that has helped.I owe you.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 8th Sep 17, 5:20 PM
    • 6,342 Posts
    • 8,150 Thanks
    beamerguy
    UPDATE: I received notification from the management company that the PPC have cancelled my ticket. It seems that my letters worked.

    THANK YOU to everyone here that has helped.I owe you.
    Originally posted by handymanuk
    Well done

    AM Parking Services walked the plank

    Rather shows how useless POPLA have become, they are
    akin to the IAS scam
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
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

182Posts Today

1,869Users online

Martin's Twitter