PCN on my own land

Iceweasel

Yup - it looks like they could have taken on a viscous hungry 'guard dog' that has bitten one of it's owners.

krryd9

You are absolutely correct Guysdad,they have all brought it on themselves, but, as she had not even seen the contract, let alone signed it, would she have agreed to a scheme that would actually charge her £100 if a draught blew the permit from her dash?

Guys_Dad

krryd9 wrote: »

You are absolutely correct Guysdad,they have all brought it on themselves, but, as she had not even seen the contract, let alone signed it, would she have agreed to a scheme that would actually charge her £100 if a draught blew the permit from her dash?

From your posts, one neighbour in particular was the liaison with a PPC. He had a meeting in his garden that your daughter attended and there was some agreement for him to set up an arrangement with a PPC.

He obviously felt there was some agreement with the neighbours as he went out and used his money to set the whole thing up and buy permits.

He issues permits to the neighbours and they start using them.

Now, don't tell me that if your daughter was party to all of that she was unaware of wht was intended. Yes, she may not have seen the contract or been aware of what the consequences might have been, but surely she had a tongue in her head and the time to check things out is before any agreement was put in place with the PPC.

The saving grace seems to be that not only was your daughter behaving amateurishly, but so was the neighbour in not drawing up a written agreement with the neighbours and so was the PPC as they don't seem to have a contract with any one other than the neighbour .

So, yes, your daughter seems to have a get out as there doesn't appear to be any contract with her at present - unless your further enquiries suddenly find out that she did sign anything that the neighbour produced.

So, as recommended, she should write to the PPC saying that she is not a party to any agreement and they have no rights on her land.

She should then see the neighbour and establish who signed the contract and in what capacity for the householders. In fact, probably better you do it as she is clearly out of her depth here.

And, of course, landowners are all for the wonderful, relatively cheap PPC who will rid them of their interloper problems, but then don't consider who they are dealing with and just how it could backfire on them/ Lots of previous evidence on this forum to back that up and caveat emptor and all that.

Guest101

Guys_Dad wrote: »

From your posts, one neighbour in particular was the liaison with a PPC. He had a meeting in his garden that your daughter attended and there was some agreement for him to set up an arrangement with a PPC.

He obviously felt there was some agreement with the neighbours as he went out and used his money to set the whole thing up and buy permits.

He issues permits to the neighbours and they start using them.

Now, don't tell me that if your daughter was party to all of that she was unaware of wht was intended. Yes, she may not have seen the contract or been aware of what the consequences might have been, but surely she had a tongue in her head and the time to check things out is before any agreement was put in place with the PPC.

The saving grace seems to be that not only was your daughter behaving amateurishly, but so was the neighbour in not drawing up a written agreement with the neighbours and so was the PPC as they don't seem to have a contract with any one other than the neighbour .

So, yes, your daughter seems to have a get out as there doesn't appear to be any contract with her at present - unless your further enquiries suddenly find out that she did sign anything that the neighbour produced.

So, as recommended, she should write to the PPC saying that she is not a party to any agreement and they have no rights on her land.

She should then see the neighbour and establish who signed the contract and in what capacity for the householders. In fact, probably better you do it as she is clearly out of her depth here.

And, of course, landowners are all for the wonderful, relatively cheap PPC who will rid them of their interloper problems, but then don't consider who they are dealing with and just how it could backfire on them/ Lots of previous evidence on this forum to back that up and caveat emptor and all that.

Even if she did sign a contract, she still wouldnt have to pay the ticket, as she has suffered no loss.

The_Slithy_Tove

krryd9 wrote: »

A new developement has transpired. A contract does exist because the person who instigated this called in PTL after a meeting in his garden, he has paid a fee on eveyone's behalf and an amount for a pile of permits. He has collected money from 5 of the 8 residents but has not asked my daughter for money because her husband has just been made redundant. I guess this changes things slightly as she does not want a war with the neighbours. Should she now pursue the 'losses to the landowner' route, or continue with 'no contract'.

In what capacity did the neighbour sign the contract, i.e. what authority did he allege to have to enable him to do so? Is there a residents' association or other body that makes collective decisions for the development, e.g. any shared areas/landscaping?

You may not want a war with the neighbours, quite rightly, but you do need to educate this one (and all the others) of the PPC modus operandi (which is to make money, no matter who they fleece) and that it's always the residents themselves who get the rough end of this stick.

How long is the contract for? They need booting out a.s.a.p. Even if they can't be evicted, if everyone rejected their scheme, if everybody told them to stop trespassing, if everybody collected fake tickets as much as possible and appealed them all to POPLA, they'll soon give up and go away.

Another question. Have any signs been put up by the PPC about parking "restrictions"? I can't see it, as they'd have to be put on people's property. If no signs, then they have an even weaker case.

If you don't want to go down the "no contract" route, the "no loss to landowner" (or the PPC) is pretty watertight. When it goes to POPLA, "no contract with the landowner" will also see them off, as there is no documented link between you and the alleged contract.

nigelbb

Without signs there can be no claim that a contract for parking was entered into.

krryd9

Thanks for all the advice,the more I have read on this site and pepipoo,
the more i realise just how ludicrous this PCN is. I have draughted out the POPLA appeal and wondered if any of you regulars would be kind enough to have a read through and edit or rewrite as you think fit.

Stroma

Could you post it up for us please

krryd9

ok, be an hour or so, thanks.

krryd9

Here goes, I have used alot of other posters material but it probably needs quite a bit of work.

I am writing to appeal to you to cancel this parking charge against me by PTL for the following reasons.
First of all I would like to point that I am the freeholder of XX, XXXX Rd XXXXXX. As registered with The Land Registry. I have enclosed a copy of my title deeds to show that I own 2 car parking spaces. As the photo's taken by a PTL operative show, my car index No XXXXXX was correctly parked on one of my parking bays.

1.
I do not have and have never had a contract with anyone to make parking charges on vehicles parked on my land.
In their correspondence with me, PTL have not produced any evidence to demonstrate that they have the necessary legal requirement to charge the driver of a vehicle using my spaces without a displayed permit, nor that they have any propriety interest in this particular piece of land. This is a clear breach of BPA CoP (7.1).
I therefore require PTL to produce an up to date signed copy of any agreement or contract they have with me to impose such charges.
I also require evidence that any contract they do have, overides my freehold of the land.
I require that these are actual copies and not simply a document which claims such an agreement or contract exists. A witness statement will not satisfy this requirement.

2.

In their refusal of appeal letter PTL stated that. "When parking on private land, a motorist freely enters into an agreement to abide by the conditions of parking in return for permission to park". PTL have failed to explain to me, with whom I have freely entered this agreement, and who gives me the permission to park on my own land.
I require this information, so as to make my case.

3.

If any contract does exist, and it is absolutely denied that it does, the charge imposed does not reflect a genuine pre-estimate of loss. As there are no charges made to anyone parking on my parking spaces, there cannot be any loss to myself should I fail to display a permit.
PTL have failed to provide a true pre-estimate of loss as set out in paragraph 19 of the BPA's CoP, V3 of June 2013.
I therefore require that PTL provide a detailed breakdown of the £100 charge to show how the landowner (me) has lost this amount due to a permit not being displayed.
It should be noted that losses cannot include operating costs such as wages, uniforms, signage and general running costs.
This £100 charge is clearly disproportionate and accordingly not in line with, schedule 2 (1) (e) of the unfair terms in consumer contracts regs 1999, nor as described in the BPA code of practice.





It all sounds a bit jumbled now I have typed it but i am hoping you will make some sense of it and iron out the wrinkles.