Ticket on Private land outside own flat

Redx

SMarg wrote: »

Thanks for your replies.

I am obviously missing the point as I read that thread many times top to bottom, bottom to top.

I will go through it again to see what I've missed

you may have read the thread but did you read any hyperlinks too ?

like the walk through by umkomaas ?

like the popla template letter by guys-dad ? https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816165

like this post by guys-dad ? https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4835943

that post explains in simple terms what is going on, so what you are trying to do is be judge and jury on the individual circumstances, but that wont wash with popla , as its mitigation which they do not consider

you need to concentrate on winning at popla , that is where the energy is focussed , winning the case by making them prove several legal points, challenging the PPC to prove everything , think of it as like a court case where the CPS has to prove the charges, with the defendant saying "PROVE IT" , not saying , "I am guilty , lock me up"

The_Deep

Leaving aside the matter of parking charges, Popla etc., have you considered whether these people have any right to ticket owners' cars in the first place?

Most under lease holders of flats either own, (i.e. marked on the deeds), or have the right to park in an assigned space. In many cases, they have the right to "quiet enjoyment" of their property, as a term of the lease, and have no need to abide by the T&Cs of PPCs when parked in their own space, although they may need be more circumspect when using visitors' spaces.

I assume by the manner in which your daughter has been treated by the Managing Agent that she is a tenant, she could therefore ask her landlord to go into bat for her, after all they will have both signed an AST which also allows her "quiet enjoyment", and if her landlord is exempt from PPC restrictions, he has passed on that right to her.

In the final analysis, the management company may have signed a contract with the PPC which allows the PPC to commit a trespass by placing a ticket on your daughter's car.

There was a case recently where an owner/occupier took UKPC to court for trespass, won his case, and caned them for his legal costs.

SMarg

Have read all the posts and hyperlinks and gone round and round in circles an think I'm getting there and have pulled a couple of templates together

Looks as if I'm going to question no genuine loss
ask for their contract with landowner
their signage

The Deep
Yes she has been a tenant for about 3 years and landlord is her father which is where I got the landowners name from. This has been contracted to the Managing agent who don't want to get involved

Are you saying that 'quiet enjoyment' in the deeds would always preclude a PPC from passing on a charge for parking?

I will post later the template of what I think I should be sending but at this stage I am not clear if I should still further appeal to the PPC or go straight away (within 28 days)to POPLA

There has also been mentioned that Notice to Keeper should arrive in the post but as it was a ticket on the car I think that wipes that out?

Thanks

Redx

the NTK should arrive between day 29 and 56 after the ticket on the windscreen was issued , to stay within POFA 2012 , but as you already have a popla code it needs to be sent in asap - if not before

the problem was you did not wait for the NTK, but you have a popla code, so need to concentrate on winning at popla, as well as trying to get it cancelled by the landowner or landlord or managing agent

I already gave you links to most of the info that needed to be sent

as you have a popla code it has to be submitted by day 28 to popla, so not arriving late etc, you can check the code using the parking cowboys checker, but you dont have 28 days to submit it, you have 28 days from the date of the code to get it there , in other words it has to be with popla by the 28th day after the code date, not your date or my date or any other date, and certainly not late !

so yes , post your draft appeal here for checking (copy and paste from notepad)

Coupon-mad

SMarg wrote: »

Have read all the posts and hyperlinks and gone round and round in circles an think I'm getting there and have pulled a couple of templates together

Looks as if I'm going to question no genuine loss
ask for their contract with landowner
their signage

Now you are talking!

Edit - and just seen again that the sign says 'failure to comply' which is great for you to argue 'the charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss' as your first point.

The bit about your daughter's lease is a harder one to write, it is relevant that she's entitled to peaceful enjoyment of her property but POPLA haven't been known to care about that issue before. But they do care about the 3 points you've listed above!

SMarg

Thanks - have had computer problems today so not been able to analyse the templates.

Yes I went onto the link to check the date to appeal to POPLA and it is February 15

Still not sure if I am to send a soft appeal to PTL or straight to POPLA?

Redx

as you have a popla code, the PPC will not accept any more appeals and so your popla appeal has to be in poplas hands by the 15th feb

basically , your ppc has said , pay up and shut up , OR go to popla , your choice !

SMarg

I have just re-worked the letter I thought I should be sending but if this is to go to POLA not sure whether it is too much/not enough info.

Dear POPLA
As the registered keeper of (reg) I'm in receipt of parking invoice xxxxxx dated 18 January 2014. I wish to invoke the appeals process as all liability to the company is denied on the following:

My challenge is based on the assertion that the parking charge does not represent a genuine loss.

• The amount being claimed is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss to PTL or the landowner. According to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations, parking charges on private land must not exceed the cost to the landowner during the time the motorist is parked there. As the driver is a resident and the landowner does not impose a parking charge for the area in question, there is no loss to PTL or the landowner. The Office of Fair Trading has stated that a ‘parking charge’ is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists.

• PTL signage does not comply with the BPA Code of Practice and therefore there was no valid contract between PTL and the driver. I believe the signs that PTL rely on were too high or too small for the driver to see, read or understand. PTL needs to show evidence via maps/photos of their situation at the site in question.

• PTL are not the landowner and do not have the capacity to offer contracts or to bring a claim for trespass.

• PTL should provide a full breakdown of their alleged loss, and their full unredacted contract with the landowner

Redx

use this https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816165 as a basis for how it should look , a few numbered bullet points followed by the explanations using the same bullet points below

so more like posts #37 with #38 added here https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4856387

those examples show what a properly worded contract law appeal looks like and contains examples of previous wordings and appeals and court cases that have been won , these are trainee solicitors you are dealing with, so they look at these contract law issues daily

The_Slithy_Tove

SMarg wrote: »

Yes she has been a tenant for about 3 years and landlord is her father which is where I got the landowners name from. This has been contracted to the Managing agent who don't want to get involved

That's jolly convenient for them. The managemnent company need to be made to feel the pain. After all, they contracted the PPC, no-one else. They need to be reminded of that fact, and that they will be held fully responsible for the unlawful, harassing behaviour of their agent. Send them a bill for the time and effort in putting together the appeal, and then withhold that payment from their next round of management fees.