(solved) UKPC parking invoice - but it's my car park!

Coupon-mad

Can I also add that as well as following it up with UKPC - which personally I wouldn't waste a stamp on, and would just do as an email response to that acknowledgement email - you should report them to the BPA Ltd as they responded to a challenge from the driver but didn't include a POPLA code.

You'll find all that explained in the sticky 'newbies, read this now!' near the top of the forum. That info thread has all you need to know (I hope!) plus the BPA email.

Guys_Dad

It's always nice to know POPLA's views on things in advance. The Lead adjudicator's annual report found from POPLA's web site, has the following words of wisdom for your education. There is a very useful last paragraph.

Appellant’s ‘own’ bay

Appeals have been received where the appellant’s case is that the bay in which their vehicle was parked at the time ‘belongs’ to them, or even that they ‘own’ it, for example under the terms of the lease of their apartment.

Such motorists may submit that they can thus park there without any permit needing to be displayed. Some appellants have even sent in copies of their lease.

If the operator’s reason for issuing the parking charge notice is that resident has a permit which contains conditions as to its display, provision for visitors and so forth, this will only be known to the Assessor if the operator explains it and produces such evidence as supports their case. This is equally the case if the car park is signed to this effect.

As with other types of situation, a mere assertion that ‘all residents should be aware of the requirements’, is not evidence. However, a copy of a letter or booklet containing the terms and conditions of parking at the location and sent with the permit to the named resident, may be.

So, they need to produce all th information above, plus the contract with the management company.

But be careful as some POPLA decisions have found in favour of the PPC on this. So make sure good old GPEOL is up there as well.

Should the evidence from the PPC be deficient in the paperwork supplied as above, send a supplementary point in drawing POPLA adjudicator's attention to his boss's annual report.

The_Slithy_Tove

The Lead Adjudicator is still wrong on this, though. He seems to think that if there is a "booklet containing the terms and conditions of parking at the location", then it can somehow override the terms set out in a property's lease.

spacey2012

If you took someone to court for failing to pay a charge you had made on their own property when you did not own it, the defendant did.
I think you would be extremely lucky not to be jailed.

4consumerrights

Nice to see just how many hoops an appellant needs to jump through just to prove that they have a right to park in their own designated parking space!

Adjudictors remit is to consider cases based on the assumption that the driver has entered a contract with the PPC based on terms and conditions given should they see signs and agree, that is. The parking company may be unable to produce evidence of permit arrangements, which are the PPCs own terms and conditions they attempt to impose. PPCs fail to not take into account the fact that many home owners have been parking in their bays for many years before the "services" of a PPC are engaged. The requirement for displaying a permit is flawed in these cases as their designated parking space belongings to them in their lease overrides and subsequent imposed contracts.

The home owner has proprietary interest in the land, if it is leasehold then the freeholder also does. The third party managing agents and the PPC do not.

Adjudicators fail to address any pre-existing contractual obligations that are fundamental in contract law and third party assignments. They also fail to address many other fundamental legislation of the land as we have seen countless times with for example the breach of the Equality Act.

spacey2012

I think people are forgetting one VERY important point.
POPLA are a kangaroo court set up and run by the parking companies, they can be used to some effect to strike out parking charges where there is a chance of a court case.
They do not go beyond this and what the kangaroo fake judges say at POPLA has absolutly nothing to do with our system of law.
Beyond using them when it suits they have all the legal authority of NOTHING.

If this is the OP's land by deed of lease, the parking company can go **** themselves along with POPLA

Guys_Dad

The leaseholder, despite having "bought" the flat and parking space have only bought a lease. The land belongs to the freeholder.

The freeholder that has terms in the lease, one or more of which will relate to a management company.

Flats have service charges, for example. If you don't pay your service charge, you can lose the lease. By the same token, leases can give management companies quite ranging powers to manage the property.

This can allow them to take what measures they deem fit and even though a lease does not specifically mention parking companies, the appointment of PPCs may come under the catch all powers of the management company.

This is fact, both from personal experience with 2 different friends' leases and from my previous working life. Those of you who frequent this forum will know which side of the fence I am on, but nonetheless this is the downside to living in a leasehold property.

However, there are ways to beat the charges being imposed and these are the appeal points we recommend, but do not rely on the mistaken belief that, as a leaseholder, you own the land because you do not. If you try to rely on that in court or POPLA, you will be in error and lose. The freeholder and the management company are themselves bound by the terms of the lease, so see that they are dotting the i's and crossing the t's.

FunnyMunny

Here's an update to let you all know that I have now sent a letter to UKPC based on 4consumerrights's excellent example continuing to dispute their invoice and demanding a POPLA code if they don't drop their demand. I also sent a copy electronically via their eform.

I'll let you all know their reply when I get it.

Thankyou to everyone for helping out here and especially those who took the trouble to PM me with your invaluable help. :beer:

EDIT: Guys Dad: while I haven't found my lease paperwork yet, I think it would be a really illogical and unfortunate circumstance if the management company have the right to appoint a PPC to give me tickets and I doubt it very much.

I will be making that complaint to the management company about this lot soon.

Guys_Dad

I have helped 2 friends who live in leasehold accommodation - 1 a block of flats, another in a smaller unit.

In both cases, the lease gave the management company fairly sweeping powers. If you think about it, the management company are responsible for buildings insurance, neighbour dispute resolution, gardening, all service charges etc and to cover all potential future circumstances, the management company has open ended rights.

Now, if the leaseholders own the freehold through a company they are shareholders of, then lots can be done at an AGM. It is less easy if the leaseholder is a 3rd party.

In one of the situations I dealt with, the management company were, in fact, two leaseholders who were prepared to do the job. The apathy of the other leaseholders allowed them to get away with murder!

So, whereas I agree it is illogical, regrettably there are too many instances reported here where this actually happens.

mysterywoman10

spacey2012 wrote: »

I think people are forgetting one VERY important point.
POPLA are a kangaroo court set up and run by the parking companies, they can be used to some effect to strike out parking charges where there is a chance of a court case.
They do not go beyond this and what the kangaroo fake judges say at POPLA has absolutly nothing to do with our system of law.
Beyond using them when it suits they have all the legal authority of NOTHING.

If this is the OP's land by deed of lease, the parking company can go **** themselves along with POPLA

I have to say I'm coming around to this point of view especially in this case.

You are to all intensive purposes the "landowner" you have purchased a flat with a parking space on a long leasehold (you are not a tenant) who else has rights to that land but you?

I also think you need to raise this matter with your MP. Because it appears that even when someone parks in a parking space they have purchased these charlatans are still pursing them. The BPA are a waste of time as well.

The management company of the flats are there to represent the leaseholders. It normally needs two thirds of the leaseholders at an AGM or a EXM to kick them out. Do you have a share in the freehold? Because many setups do have that and there is often a company that you have a share in that owns the freehold. Seeing your leasehold would help.

Even if you were a tenant it would be your "landlord" i.e. if it was a buy to let for example.