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
    • Biggkidd
    • By Biggkidd 23rd Dec 17, 10:41 AM
    • 30Posts
    • 4Thanks
    Biggkidd
    Multiple PCN's when permit displayed
    • #1
    • 23rd Dec 17, 10:41 AM
    Multiple PCN's when permit displayed 23rd Dec 17 at 10:41 AM
    Hello all and thanks for taking the time to read this

    A bit of history...

    I've lived on my estate since 2012 as part of a Shared Ownership scheme. In my Lease which was signed upon purchase, is no mention of parking enforcing rules being implemented on the premises. In January 2017, the Residential Management Association, which made up of Residents, employed Parking and Property Management with policing of parking on the estate. All residents were issued with permits and subsequently were asked to use the spaces marked out by PPM, labelled VP (Visitors Parking) and U (Unreserved).

    Over the course of time, my permit has faded but still clearly displays the company logo. I have received multiple PCN's (all PCN's related to VP spaces)I have been in a similar situation before and Gladstone failed to show so i won by default, this time i want to take the fight to them and put them on the back foot right away.

    As mentioned earlier, I have a lease which makes no mention of needing to use a permit on site. No mention of a RMA or PPM. I have received a variety of NTK's, all which clearly display the permit in the windscreen.

    If there is any advice or any more information needed BEFORE you can advise me, please ask and ill reply as soon as i can. Thanks in advance.

    Merry Xmas
Page 2
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 4th Jan 18, 2:31 PM
    • 7,678 Posts
    • 6,748 Thanks
    The Deep
    Interference with your rights to "peaceful enjoyment" of your property may be a breach of your rights under The Landlord and Tenants Acts.

    Have you seen this?

    https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?377246-UKPC-liable-for-trespass-**SUCCESS**
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • Timothea
    • By Timothea 4th Jan 18, 6:07 PM
    • 152 Posts
    • 295 Thanks
    Timothea
    Not sure whether this is a good time to mention this but i already have a claim raised against me for another PCN. I contacted the DVLA to request who and when my details were provided. Today I discovered It turns out the PPC have reused my data as they haven't requested it on every occasion. Where do i stand with this?
    Originally posted by Biggkidd
    That's a breach of the Data Protection Act and the PPC's contract with DVLA. Complain to DVLA, explaining exactly what has happened. Also ask DVLA to confirm that one or more breaches have occurred and what enforcement action they will take against the PPC.

    Once you have all this in writing, you could make a DPA breach claim (or counterclaim if the PPC sues you first) if you are up for it. Further advice about DPA breaches and claims can be found in this thread:

    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5585388
    • Biggkidd
    • By Biggkidd 6th Jan 18, 3:01 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Biggkidd
    Thanks for all the comments. Ill be sure to include some of these points in my next letter.

    Timotea, that's exactly what i thought. Should i highlight this to the PPC and get them to call off this claim? Its something i will no doubt add to my WS should i go all the way to court. They may well end up with egg or there face, or the judge could turn a blind eye...hopefully not the latter!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 6th Jan 18, 3:04 PM
    • 52,924 Posts
    • 66,467 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    They won't 'call off the claim'. Start a new thread about that claim if you don't have one yet.
    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.

    • Biggkidd
    • By Biggkidd 9th Jan 18, 7:01 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Biggkidd
    So after sending this......

    My apologies for not following up your reply sooner, but I wish to take no part in any face-to-face discussion regarding the parking on the estate. As mentioned to you in previous correspondence, my lease makes no indication for a Resident to display a permit at ANY time. You suggested I contact the Landlord concerning the Covenants within my Lease but I have no need to do this as the conditions are in black and white, and are as follows;

    Quiet Enjoyment
    That the Leaseholder paying the rents reserved by this Lease and performing and observing the covenants contained in this Lease may peaceably enjoy the Premises during the Term without any lawful interruption by the Landlord or any person rightfully claiming under or in trust for it.

    Mutual Covenants

    3. Not to use the Car Parking Spaces or any part of the estate for the housing or parking of any vehicle other than a taxed and road worthy private motor vehicle.

    16: No caravans, mobile homes, boats or trailers whatsoever and no commercial vehicle exceeding 3500kg shall be parked at any time on the Car Parking Spaces or any part of the Estate except temporary use of removal and delivery vans.

    17: Not to permit any vehicle of any description belonging to the Leaseholder his family servants’ visitors or licensees to remain on any part of the Common Parts in such a manner as to obstruct the ready approach to any building or part of the estate.

    Easements, Rights and Privileges

    1: The right for the Leaseholder and all persons authorised by the Leaseholder (in common with all the other persons entitled to like right) at all times to use the Common Parts for all purposes incidental to the occupation and enjoyment of the Premises and the Visitors Parking Space (but not further or otherwise).

    6: The right on a first come first served basis for bona fide visitors of the Leaseholder to park a private motor vehicle on the Visitors Parking Space for a period not exceeding 36 hours in any one time.

    As you can see, none of the terms within these deeds has been violated. None of the terms within these deeds make any indication that a permit policy was in force. Citing these reasons, I wish to make it clear that I will NOT be displaying a permit in future. I am omitting myself from the scheme. Should any of the existing parking charges associated with my vehicle result in court action, I will deem you responsible in any counter-claim I raise, citing a Breach of Data Protection and Tortious Interference of my contractual rights. You are liable for the actions of your agents. I am formally requiring you to cease and desist from interfering with my lease, and order the PPC to do the same.

    As you work on behalf of the Residents, I demand to see the contractual agreement you have with the Landlord, yourselves and the PPC. This is within me rights to request as a Leaseholder, as i believe my rights are being interfered with.

    I got this....

    Thank you for your email. The option for open discussion is always welcome, and you are welcome to join us to discuss any proposals you may have. The choice is yours.

    With regards to the subject in hand thank you for taking the time to pick the relevant articles that you feel justify your argument. As we do not have access to full copies of all/individual TP1’s or lease agreements and we can only take what you have written as a guide and therefore cannot comment or pass judgment.
    What we would advise is that you refer to a conveyancing map (eg: DRG no. ISO-413/MANAGE Rev E), speak to your landlord, and check the memorandum of association. All the information you require for the legitimacy and authority of the Management Company are contained within those documents.

    Kind Regards


    What is my next move here? Should I contact the Landlord to see there view on this matter? Should I highlight to the Landlord that the MA and PPC are interfering with my rights to quiet enjoyment and my rights as a Leaseholder by requiring a permit to park etc? #lost!
    • Biggkidd
    • By Biggkidd 17th Jan 18, 7:45 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Biggkidd
    Hearing Imminent
    I mentioned in this earlier chain that i have another case currently against me. I have to supply a witness statement by Friday and am getting in a bit of a pickle. Could someone advise whether this is ok?

    1. I, xxx am the Defendant in this matter and litigant in person. I request some leniency from the Court as I am representing myself and have no legal training.

    2. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my personal knowledge, they are true to the best of my information and belief.

    3. I moved into this property as a Leaseholder in March 2012. Tenancy agreement attached as proof of residence. Clause xxx confirms who party to the Lease is. I have never received any variation to this document from the Landlord. (Exhibit A- Tenancy agreement)

    4. I submitted appeals for two of the parking charges (xxx & xxx), both times citing that I wasn’t the driver via PPC’s web appeal service drop down menu ‘ Are you the owner of the vehicle?’ Yes “Where you the driver of the vehicle?” No. I would add that the alleged contravention happened almost a year ago and it is impossible for me to remember who stopped/parked the vehicle at the time and I’m not at liberty to disclose who the driver was. I am defending this claim as the Registered Keeper. It is a fact I have another named driver on my insurance and family members have used my car in the past. (Exhibit B- Vehicle Insurance)

    5. Within the Schedules and Covenants of the Lease, it grants permission to park a private vehicle in the parking space where this alleged contravention has occurred. These covenants are also shared by my visitors. There is not agreement in the lease, which states a parking permit must be on display/valid or pay penalties to a third party for the non-display of any type of permit. (Exhibit A-Schedule 1-3 & Exhibit C- Pace V Mr N)

    6. I have rights to ‘Quiet Enjoyment’ on the Lease. (Exhibit A- Clause 5.1) The Claimant has no legal right to unlawfully issue parking charges or issue a claim in their name. The legal definition of Quiet Enjoyment is as follows;
    “A Covenant that promises that the grantee or tenant of an estate in real property will be able to possess the premises in peace, without disturbance by hostile claimants”
    “Quiet enjoyment is a right to the undisturbed use and enjoyment of real property by a tenant or Landowner. The right to quiet enjoyment is contained in covenants concerning real estate. Generally a covenant is an agreement between two parties to do or refrain from doing something”

    7. The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. (Exhibit C- Pace V Mr N & Exhibit D-Saeed V Plustrade)

    8. Quoted from the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999.

    ‘A person who is not a party to the Contract shall have no right to enforce any of its provisions which, expressly or by implication, confer a benefit on him, without the prior written agreement of both Parties. This clause does not affect any right or remedy of any person which exists or is available apart from the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 and does not apply to the Crown.’


    IPC Failures


    9. There is a concerning number of failures incurred by the Claimant. I will highlight some examples which demonstrates their non-compliance with the IPC Code of Practice (Exhibit E- IPC Code of Practice)

    10. The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice B1.1:

    “If you operate parking management activities on land which is not owned by you, you must supply us with written authority from the land owner sufficient to establish you as the ‘Creditor’ within the meaning of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (where applicable) and in any event to establish you as a person who is able to recover parking charges. There is no prescribed form for such agreement and it need not necessarily be as part of a contract but it must include the express ability for an operator to recover parking charges on the landowner’s behalf or provide sufficient right to occupy the land in question so that charges can be recovered by the operator directly. This applies whether or not you intend to use the keeper liability provisions”

    The Claimant is put to strict proof they have such authority to operate on site and to take action in their own name. The same is a requirement of any contract based on conduct.

    11. The Claimant has so far failed to prove a sufficient grace period was given to enable the driver to make an informed decision on whether to park. i.e. The driver may have been reading the signs and no evidence has been p. As no grace period was given, there can therefore be no contract (15. Grace periods)
    12. The Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to impose a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout (Exhibit F- Signage for Beavis Case & Exhibit G- Signage for Claimant)
    13. The defendant avers that the signs erected on site are incapable of forming the basis of a contract and indeed make it clear that that is not the case. It is therefore denied that any contract was formed or was capable of being formed. Underlining that is Section B.2.1, B.2.2 of the IPC Code of Practice which gives clear instructions as to the placing, visibility and clarity of any signs that are used to form contracts. It says:

    “Where the basis of your parking charges is based in the law of contract it will usually be by way of the driver of a vehicle agreeing to contractual terms identified by signage in and around a controlled zone. It is therefore of fundamental importance that the signage meets the minimum standards under The Code as this underpins the validity of any such charge. Similarly, where charges are founded in the law of trespass and form liquidated damages, these too must be communicated to drivers in the same way’

    14. Essentially, this case is not supported by any similarity in the circumstances or signage. Mr Beavis refused to pay a charge of £85 for overstaying a permitted period of free parking in a car park at a retail park. The signs displaying this information were accepted to be large, prominent and legible. The notice stated ‘2 hour max stay… Failure to comply … will result in a Parking Charge of £85.’ Mr Beavis exceeded the time limit by one hour but declined to pay the charge and maintained the term which sought to impose the charge was an unfair term. The Beavis case does not assist the claimant and in fact, supports my defence.

    POFA 2012
    15. The Protection of Freedom Act 2012 Schedule 4 has not being complied with (Exhibit H- PoFA 2012 Schedule 4)

    a) Notwithstanding that the Claimant claims no right to pursue the Defendant as the registered keeper under PoFA, the Claimant has failed to meet the conditions of the Act and has never acquired any right to pursue the Defendant in this capacity if it cannot identify the driver.

    b) The claimant has no right to assert that the defendant is liable based on ‘reasonable assumption’. PATAS and POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Michael Greenslade, clarified that with regards to keeper liability, "There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver and operators should never suggest anything of the sort"(2015).
    c) The keeper can only be held liable if the Claimant has fully complied with the strict requirements including 'adequate notice' of £100 charge and prescribed Notice to Keeper letters in time and with mandatory wording.

    d) Paragraph 4, Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, makes it clear the keeper can only be liable for the amount on the original notice. The original notice stated the charge was "£100, reduced to £60 if paid within 14 days.

    Data Protection Breach
    13. I would like to highlight to the court that the processes within the KADOE (Keeper of Vehicle at the Date of an Event) agreement between Parking & Property Management & DVLA has not been adhered to. In turn they have breached Data Protections Act 1998 by not obeying the basic principles.
    a) I contacted the DVLA for a Subject Access Request via email dated 06th September 2017. I asked ‘How often and when the DVLA sent the keeper details out and to provide the information with regards to events between xx/xx/17 and xx/xx/17.
    b) The Claimant failed to request the keeper details for the parking charge on xx/xx/17. (Exhibit I-Subject Access Request)
    This confirmed they have not conformed to the KADOE agreement and breached the Data Protections Act 1998. Parking & Property Management have demonstrated pure disregard for the all Codes of Conduct and the handling of data respectively.
    In the case of Vidal-Hall v Google Inc [2014] EWHC 13 (QB) provides authority that misuse of personal data is a tort and that damages may be non-pecuniary. The case of Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd [2013] All ER (D) 199 provides authority that a reasonable sum for compensation would be £750.
    I have since contacted the DVLA in regards to the use of my personal data. I’m awaiting a response.
    I believe the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

    Signed:

    Help greatly appreciated.
    • Biggkidd
    • By Biggkidd 17th Jan 18, 7:48 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Biggkidd
    I have also received there WS. Should i prepare a skeleton argument and submit a few days before the hearing? I have been doing as much research as i can.. very overwhelming!
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th Jan 18, 8:59 PM
    • 52,924 Posts
    • 66,467 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Please show us their WS! We'd love to help tear it apart, piece by snivelling piece.
    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.

    • Biggkidd
    • By Biggkidd 17th Jan 18, 9:26 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Biggkidd
    can someone tell me how i attach images?
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 17th Jan 18, 9:34 PM
    • 5,206 Posts
    • 3,668 Thanks
    KeithP
    can someone tell me how i attach images?
    Originally posted by Biggkidd
    Host your images somewhere like tinypic, dropbox, etc, and then post the links here.
    .
    • Biggkidd
    • By Biggkidd 17th Jan 18, 9:38 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Biggkidd
    thanks Keith
    • Biggkidd
    • By Biggkidd 17th Jan 18, 9:50 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Biggkidd
    Gs ws
    Signage:



    PG1:



    PG2:



    PG3:



    PG4



    PG5:



    Land Reg:



    Hope you guys can view

    They also provided a million pictures of signage around the site, NTK and pics.
    Last edited by Biggkidd; 18-01-2018 at 6:40 AM.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 17th Jan 18, 11:37 PM
    • 5,206 Posts
    • 3,668 Thanks
    KeithP
    Pages 3 and 4 are identical.

    Why not edit post #32 so that the pages appear correctly?
    Then delete post #33.

    Help others to help you.
    .
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 18th Jan 18, 6:49 AM
    • 1,963 Posts
    • 3,457 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    Where is their contract. They are not landowners/occupiers so can only derive their standing from the contract they have been given. (paras 7,8 and 10 refer)

    You'll have issues with para 12 as any permit will refer to the your right (if proven) to park in a space. See also the sign.

    IMHO this will be a score draw so watch for costs.
    Last edited by IamEmanresu; 18-01-2018 at 7:53 AM.
    Idiots please note: If you intend NOT to read the information on the Notice of Allocation and hand a simple win to the knuckle dragging ex-clampers, then don't waste people's time with questions on a claim you'll not defend.
    • Biggkidd
    • By Biggkidd 18th Jan 18, 8:41 AM
    • 30 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Biggkidd
    Cheers Keith, still getting used to the setup.. all done now
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 18th Jan 18, 9:55 AM
    • 1,579 Posts
    • 1,731 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    Para 9 and 10 are their usual bluster.

    The key is REASONABLE. It is not REASONABLE to reduce your granted rights, to charge you monies outside of your ground rent, to force you to contract iwth a third party for something you already own rights to, etc.

    They then suggest that accepting the permit means you are bound by a contract somehow. This is clearly nonsense - someone sending you something through the post doesnt mean you accept it just by opening the letter. You respond that this was displayed ONLY as a courtesy. Also, why is the onus on you to object? Its just an unsolicited piece of junk mail - why should you waste your time responding to it?
    • Biggkidd
    • By Biggkidd 18th Jan 18, 5:54 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Biggkidd
    Totally agree with this! Who in their right mind would accept its reasonable for a 3rd party to act in this manner? As i'm not a 100% homeowner, I cannot become a member of the RMA. Matters regarding the estate are taken out of 'our' hands (our meaning all the other residents) and essentially the RMA & PPM have enforced these rules without consultation. One of the members who signed the 'contract' with PPM has actually left the RMA, yet PPM continue to use the signature to confirm conformity. Worth mentioning? I will use these points to prepare my skeleton argument but does my WS need tweaking at all? I think i've covered most of the points raised in my initial defence, but you guys are the experts!!
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 18th Jan 18, 6:02 PM
    • 1,963 Posts
    • 3,457 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    Have you got the contract? Could you put it up.

    They can only operate if they have the authority as they cannot offer parking as such unless they have a contract. The contract (like your lease) has restrictions which may or may not allow them to pursue you.

    So was there a contract in the pack, what does it say and who signed it.

    you guys are the experts!!
    Wouldn't go that far.
    Idiots please note: If you intend NOT to read the information on the Notice of Allocation and hand a simple win to the knuckle dragging ex-clampers, then don't waste people's time with questions on a claim you'll not defend.
    • Biggkidd
    • By Biggkidd 18th Jan 18, 6:16 PM
    • 30 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Biggkidd
    The first signee on this 'contract' has since left the RMA, so can this contract still be valid?



    • Sassii
    • By Sassii 18th Jan 18, 6:52 PM
    • 154 Posts
    • 95 Thanks
    Sassii
    Did you tried to call the court asking if the PPC paid the court trial fees on time or if the court received their WS on time.

    As I can see the PPC had a contract with Management Company not with the Landlord, is that right?.

    Check your lease definitions for common parts, foot path, estate roads as in some contracts Management Company doesn't have control of all the estates.
    Last edited by Sassii; 18-01-2018 at 6:54 PM.
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

294Posts Today

2,642Users online

Martin's Twitter