would you grass up this man?

missile

kev-1977 wrote: »

the actual appointment of UKPC was a decision made by your Directors.

Who are the directors, have you approached them? Have you spoken with a.n.other residents?

kev-1977

missile wrote: »

Who are the directors, have you approached them? Have you spoken with a.n.other residents?

Hi.
I have no idea who the directors are.
Have not approached anybody.
I haven't spoke to the other residents no. I rarely see anyone walking about. Either we just keep missing eachother or they all like to stay indoors a lot.

But interestingly enough. 2 of the allocated bays are for disabled people. Because nobody who lives in the flats are disabled. They are 99.9% of the time occupied by the other residents.
UKPC for some reason ignore those cars.

HO87

mikey72 wrote: »

The management company have no rights to allow or disallow parking if they don't own the land.

I'd be interested in any reference you may have to support this contention. The RMA's usually have full rights delegated to them - given the nature of their role - they are the ones to make decisions about the offering/negotiation of leases and the management of the entire property/premises day-to-day. With this in mind they would almost certainly have sufficient interest to be able to contract with a PPC. It is the delegated interest, or lack of it, conferred on the PPC by any such contract that is of primary interest.

mikey72 wrote: »

The trader no doubt has trade insurance, even if he hasn't, it's unlikely the police would care, as the cars are parked off road in a private car park.

Dependent upon the ease of access the ostensibly private car park may well be regarded as a "road" for the purposes of insurance. There is ample case law to support this.

mikey72 wrote: »

He can easily state it's simply a mail address, and he's keeping stock, not selling. That could take months, or years to disprove, and the council will be unlikely to investigate for that long.

I agree. This is unlikely to be a productive avenue of enquiry.

pustit

mikey72 wrote: »

The management company have no rights to allow or disallow parking if they don't own the land. The trader no doubt has trade insurance, even if he hasn't, it's unlikely the police would care, as the cars are parked off road in a private car park. He can easily state it's simply a mail address, and he's keeping stock, not selling. That could take months, or years to disprove, and the council will be unlikely to investigate for that long.

Keeping stock may be considered business use for Business Rate purposes

LincolnshireYokel

Yes, I still think thats the line of attack - using domestic premises to run a business without planning permission or business rates. And I bet he isnt registered for VAT or told the Tax Office.

kev-1977

update 22/06/2012

good news
The cars previously for sale have diappeared.
Every car in bays have valid permit/tax discs.

bad news
Not enough room for everyone.

The residents are fighting back
I have spoken to a good 5 residents whom have all emailed the management and parking company, basically saying:
"Your tickets are unenforceable, sod off!"
They replied saying "oh yes they are!"

I fear though some residents will pay up.

I have not received any letters chasing the invoices yet.

LincolnshireYokel

kev-1977 wrote: »

update 22/06/2012

good news
The cars previously for sale have diappeared.
Every car in bays have valid permit/tax discs.

bad news
Not enough room for everyone.

The residents are fighting back
I have spoken to a good 5 residents whom have all emailed the management and parking company, basically saying:
"Your tickets are unenforceable, sod off!"
They replied saying "oh yes they are!"

I fear though some residents will pay up.

I have not received any letters chasing the invoices yet.

So write back saying in effect "noi they arent, if you think they are , illsee you in court, otherwise stop harassing me or ill call the police, Administration of Justice Act 1970 S.40, and see VCS vs HMRC 2012"


http://www.tribunals.gov.uk/financeandtax/Documents/decisions/vehicle_control_services_v_hmrc.pdf

fivegoldstars

LincolnshireYokel wrote: »

Yes, I still think thats the line of attack - using domestic premises to run a business without planning permission or business rates. And I bet he isnt registered for VAT or told the Tax Office.

I can quite categorically say that the LA will not be interested. For me, this would be a last ditch effort.

kev-1977

LincolnshireYokel wrote: »

So write back saying in effect "noi they arent, if you think they are , illsee you in court, otherwise stop harassing me or ill call the police, Administration of Justice Act 1970 S.40, and see VCS vs HMRC 2012"


http://www.tribunals.gov.uk/financeandtax/Documents/decisions/vehicle_control_services_v_hmrc.pdf

Hi Yokel, great suggestion.

Right now I'm thinking how to draft my next letter.
There's been some great varied responses to this and need time which bits to use.

"oh yes they are"
oh "no they aren't"

Could this be the start of a PPC pantomine?

LincolnshireYokel

Plus ofc at a stretch you can argue the repeated sticking of bits of paper on you car windscreen is interference of goods and criminal damage