Parking ticket at new apartment

Coupon-mad

krishna87 wrote: »

Cheers 'The Deep'!! And coupon-mad....I work full time so don't really have time to be browsing through a maze of data overload!!

So do I work full-time, it's good to keep busy! And I have a husband and four children - but I do know everyone has to start somewhere...believe me it's better if you can use the forum and can nip around doing searches or finding 'sticky' notices. Once you know how forums work you can use any, pretty much.

krishna87

I realised that as soon as I clicked send!! Oh well... here it is...open to comments and suggestions...
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]- [/FONT][FONT=&quot]There was also no valid contract between the parking company and the driver. I put PCM to strict proof that they have the proper legal authorisation from the landowner to contract with drivers and to enforce charges in their own name as creditor in the courts for breach of contract. To show compliance with the BPA CoP section 7, I require CPM to produce the landowner contract - not just an inadmissible 'witness statement' saying such a contract exists - since they do not own the land. I contend that any business arrangement for parking services (if it exists) is merely an agency matter between the landowner and PCM and cannot impact upon drivers or keepers whose tenancy grants them the overriding legal right to peaceful enjoyment of their property (including parking spaces).[/FONT]

krishna87

I also want to include more on entrance signs as I dont think I have noticed anything obvious....I will look carefully and take pics tomorrow...

Coupon-mad

There's a paragraph about entrance signage in the POPLA appeal I called ''BASIC ONE FOR RESIDENTS PERMIT CAR PARK'' in the 'How to win at POPLA' link.

Guys_Dad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816165

Pick the bones from this one as short cut.

krishna87

Take 3....

[FONT=&quot]I am the registered Keeper of the above vehicle and I am appealing against above charge. I contend that I am not liable for the parking charge on the following grounds and would ask that they are all considered.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]1) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The parking charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and Parking Control Management (PCM) has not provided a breakdown of costs.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]According to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations – parking charges on private land must not exceed the cost to the landowner during the period the motorist is parked there. In my case it is free to park at all times and so the charge of £100 that they are asking for far exceeds the cost to the landowner.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Normal expenditure the company incurs to carry on their business (e.g. provision of parking, parking enforcement or signage erection) should not be included in the breakdown, as these operational costs would have been suffered irrespective of the car being parked at that car park.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Parking Control Management are not the landowner and have provided no evidence that they have the right to issue parking charges and pursue charges to court in their own name.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The signage at the car park was not compliant with the British Parking Association standards as it is too high and practically not visible at night. Please also find attached a picture of the signage at the entrance. The sign as pictured clearly states “Private Estate-Residents Parking Only”, this sign coming direct from the land owner overrides the sign from a third party car park management company and is of more direct indication to me as a tenant. This sign states that under the point that I am a resident I have the right to park. Regardless and immune to any third party car park management. I am a tenant; I have the right to use. This sign direct from the landowner has no mention of contractual car parking. And so having this sign alongside PCM’S sign is misleading, confusing and contradicting. One sign should be present, not both.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]4) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]As a resident I pay rent for both the property and car parking from the same day that I moved in i.e. 9th November 2013. Please see attached evidence in the form of my tenancy contract that states the same. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]5) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]There was also no valid contract between the parking company and the driver. I put PCM to strict proof that they have the proper legal authorisation from the landowner to contract with drivers and to enforce charges in their own name as creditor in the courts for breach of contract. To show compliance with the BPA CoP section 7, I require PCM to produce the landowner contract - not just an inadmissible 'witness statement' saying such a contract exists - since they do not own the land. I contend that any business arrangement for parking services (if it exists) is merely an agency matter between the landowner and PCM and cannot impact upon drivers or keepers whose tenancy grants them the overriding legal right to peaceful enjoyment of their property (including parking spaces).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]6) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]No Creditor identified on the PCN[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
Failing to include specific identification as to who ‘the Creditor’ may be is misleading and not compliant in regard to paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Whilst the Notice has indicated that the operator requires a payment to Parking Control Management, there is no specific identification of the Creditor who may, in law, be Parking Control Management or some other party. The Protection of Freedoms Act requires a Notice to Appellant to have words to the effect that ‘The Creditor is…’ and the Notice does not.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]7) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Parking Control Management have also failed to identify the procedure to make an appeal to POPLA.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]8) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Moreover, the driver was parked in an unallocated bay and hence did not cause any inconvenience to any of the residents/tenants.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]In light of the above it is clear that I am not liable for the parking charge and request that the parking charge notice is cancelled accordingly[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Regards[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

Coupon-mad

It is indeed getting there!


But you seem to have confused point 2 and point 5 (about contracts). This bit should follow after point 2:


I put PCM to strict proof that they have the proper legal authorisation from the landowner to contract with drivers and to enforce charges in their own name as creditor in the courts for breach of contract. To show compliance with the BPA CoP section 7, I require PCM to produce the landowner contract - not just an inadmissible 'witness statement' saying such a contract exists - since they do not own the land. I contend that any business arrangement for parking services (if it exists) is merely an agency matter between the landowner and PCM and cannot impact upon drivers or keepers whose tenancy grants them the overriding legal right to peaceful enjoyment of their property (including parking spaces).






Then point 5 could be:


There was also no valid contract between the parking company and the driver. A contract cannot be formed when the driver does not see unclear/unlit signage - and in this case there was no meeting of minds, no offer, no consideration nor acceptance between the parties. The driver was relying upon the tenancy contract and express invitation to park in the entrance sign ''Private Estate-Residents Parking Only” which was not a matter involving PCM.

Guest101

Mmm not sure, but if ur landlord owns the parking bay u will gain sole and exclusive rights to use, so there is no financial losd

Coupon-mad

You could also add more to this paragraph, so I have added a bit about a POPLA Assessor's previous decision:


6) No Creditor identified on the PCN
Failing to include specific identification as to who ‘the Creditor’ may be is misleading and not compliant in regard to paragraph 9(2)(h) of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Whilst the Notice has indicated that the operator requires a payment to Parking Control Management, there is no specific identification of the Creditor who may, in law, be Parking Control Management or some other party. The Protection of Freedoms Act requires a Notice to Appellant to have words to the effect that ‘The Creditor is…’ and the Notice does not. This is a failure in law and so PCM have no right to reclaim parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. In a previous ruling, POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the validity of a Notice to Keeper is fundamental to establishing liability for a parking charge. Where a Notice is to be relied upon to establish liability under Paragraph 8 or 9 it must, as with any statutory provision, comply with the Act. POPLA must be consistent when this issue is raised in an appeal and as the Notice was not compliant with the Act, it was not properly issued.

krishna87

Hi Guys,

I apologise for the looong and quite period. I was away for over a month and only just got back. I had sent 3 separate POPLA appeals for each of our tickets so 1 for my aunts car, one for my uncles car and one for myself. I sent them all at the same time with a few mins space between each one of them on the 27th November 2013. I made the POPLA appeals online and also attached some night view pictures of the signage in the car park (these were just black cus of the lack of lighting!). All three appeals were more or less the same except mine had an extra bit about my right to park as a resident. My uncles reply came through on the 26th Jan 2014 saying the following:

The Operator has informed us that they have cancelled parking charge notice number Pxxxxxxx, issued in respect of a vehicle with the registration mark XXXXXX.

Your appeal has therefore been allowed by order of the Lead Adjudicator.
You are not liable for the parking charge and, where appropriate, any amounts already paid in respect of this parking charge notice will be refunded by the Operator.

Yours sincerely,

My aunt recieved her reply just last week and even her charges were dropped. Although I havent seen the letter she recieved, I am guessing its along the same lines as above.

I have yet to hear the decision on my own POPLA appeal!!

Thank you so much guys for all your help through some really frustrating hours!!