Ticket for parking in my own bay?!

bod1467

That's what we advise people to do anyway ... a certificate (proof) of posting gives the evidence that the document was served (delivered) within 2 working days (if sent 1st class), per the Interpretations Act 1978.

Recorded/special/signed-for delivery only provides evidence that an appeal was NOT received, if the recipient declines to sign for it.

The_Deep

Sparsholt, your appeal sucks.

Why are you whining that they did not give you a grace period. Do you think that they are being beastly by not giving you time to nip upstairs to write a note? By including that very point you acknowledge that they have a right to dictate to you how and when you may park.

You Sir are the OWNER of the land, why are you giving these interlopers the time of day? Hot Bring has given you a perfectly acceptable GFY letter, use it man, stand up for your rights.

However, you will NOT win at POPLA based on your ownership and lease of the space.

Guy's Dad, how do you know this? I admit that there were a couple of "own space" Popla losses a year ago, but I am unable to find any recent cases, perhaps you can help.

The fact is that a properly worded appeal, citing the terms of his lease, the Land Registry entries, and the Housing and Tenant Acts, that the landowner, (the Appellant) neither has a contract with the PPC, nor has suffered any loss because of his own actions, must win. A contrary decision would be perverse, and against the Law, the aforementioned Landlord and Tenant Acts.

Why is everyone here is so reluctant to advise landowners and their tenants to stand up against these parasites. Surely you cannot all subcribe to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's warped view of capitalism.

Sparsholt

I put the grace period in as it is in the code of conduct that they must allow a reasonable grace period and felt at this early stage it was worth including as giving as many options as I can for a future POPLA appeal or court action. I am waiting a reply to see if I can be issued with spare parking permits so that they do not have to be removed to pass to others that I allow to park in my bay. If they will not issue spares then it is impossible to display permit at all times. I have read so many threads and tried to incorporate as much of the advice I was given but obviously there are many different viewpoints and I appreciate all the advice I have been given.

Guys_Dad

The_Deep wrote: »

Guy's Dad, how do you know this? I admit that there were a couple of "own space" Popla losses a year ago, but I am unable to find any recent cases, perhaps you can help.

The fact is that a properly worded appeal, citing the terms of his lease, the Land Registry entries, and the Housing and Tenant Acts, that the landowner, (the Appellant) neither has a contract with the PPC, nor has suffered any loss because of his own actions, must win. A contrary decision would be perverse, and against the Law, the aforementioned Landlord and Tenant Acts. .

I am saying that I can find no POPLA decision recorded where anyone has won by saying that it is their space. But as you admit, there are some on here where appellants have lost with this point.

See here where a guy lost at POPLA and it was going to court http://www.falmouthpacket.co.uk/news/fpfalmouth/10926750.Fury_over___130_fine_and_court_summons_for_parking_in_own_space/?ref=rss

Have you an example where a claim based on "ownership" has won at POPLA? Until you do, then you are playing with other people's money. I would contend that the aim is to save the OP's money and the best way to do that is with tried and tested appeal points.

Don't get me wrong - I thoroughly disapprove of any management company who has engaged a PPC without full written support of the leaseholders, but the fact is that the management company actually work for the landowners who actually own the land. A long lease is not ownership and POPLA take the easy way out.

The_Deep

... but the fact is that the management company actually work for the landowners who actually own the land

Not always the case. I own two properties where the management company are appointed by a company in which I, and all the other owners, are shareholders.

Even if the MA is appointed by the Head Leaseholder the MA can, in certain circumstances, be dismissed and owners can manage the property themselves.

Guys_Dad

The_Deep wrote: »

... but the fact is that the management company actually work for the landowners who actually own the land

Not always the case. I own two properties where the management company are appointed by a company in which I, and all the other owners, are shareholders.

Even if the MA is appointed by the Head Leaseholder the MA can, in certain circumstances, be dismissed and owners can manage the property themselves.

In your case, the company that you are a shareholder in, are the landowners. My friend lives in a block where she is a shareholder in the company that owns the land. The other leaseholders are also shareholders. Two of them are directors of the company and have appointed ANPR as a PPC. Unless the AGM votes to overrule the directors, then the PPC stays.

But we are not going to argue over something we agree on. But I still contend that there is no POPLA case I can find that overrules a PPC on missing permit tickets.

Certainly OP should raise merry hell with the management company.

The_Deep

But we are not going to argue over something we agree on. But I still contend that there is no POPLA case I can find that overrules a PPC on missing permit tickets.

But can you find one, properly defended, and where the owner has legal title or leasehold rights, where Popla has found against them?

Remember, I am not talking about parking in a disabled bay, or on communal property but actually on his own patch.

I have as little time as you for those who park inappropriately and would key their bonnets if I was not the trusty and well- beloved person whom Her Maj says that I am.

Coupon-mad

The_Deep wrote: »

But we are not going to argue over something we agree on. But I still contend that there is no POPLA case I can find that overrules a PPC on missing permit tickets.

But can you find one, properly defended, and where the owner has legal title or leasehold rights, where Popla has found against them?

Remember, I am not talking about parking in a disabled bay, or on communal property but actually on his own patch.

I have as little time as you for those who park inappropriately and would key their bonnets if I was not the trusty and well- beloved person whom Her Maj says that I am.

Yep I suspect there are such cases in the POPLA decisions thread, early on, because I have also read several POPLA cases lost a year or so ago on just that issue. I agree with Guys Dad, you don't win a POPLA appeal on this point of argument, even though you should.

Sparsholt

I have sent my first appeal letter to UK CPM from the registered keeper and awaiting their response - I bet it will be turned down. I have taken photos of the entrance to the parking and entrance lobby to flats as no signs displayed to say residents have to display permits at all times. Sign is hidden at back of car park. I have been researching and found UK CPM's website. Sorry as a new user I cannot add the link to the website.
Their clients can buy the signs which are standard with a small area for the client to insert their own words, in my case they added the bit about parking permits must be displayed at all times. Also the client can purchase the kits to self ticket and can waive tickets. It looks like the Director is Mr Lukhbir Singh Gohler from Companies House. Company number 07383860.
The managing agent for my block of flats could not provide me with a copy of the agreement with UK CPM and he told me the owner of the Freehold is Admiral's Wharf Ltd. Well checking out this company on Companies House shows me that the managing agent for the flats purchased the freehold and is the director of Admiral's Wharf Ltd!!! He also told me he could not get involved re the ticket when I now know he can waive tickets as per UK CPM website as he is the client. What I am interested to know is whether he receives a proportion of the ticket money and therefore his reluctance to get involved? He is now really annoyed with me for questioning him, this is his last response:-


The parking arrangements established at Admiral’s Wharf were put in place to ensure your rights of quiet enjoyment and do not interfere with them. Proper notice in writing of the arrangements were notified to every Lessee prior to their introduction and there is no harassment of anyone using their own parking space properly displaying a permit. For the record I resent the assertion regarding the management of the property.


I have still not received my permits for the parking bay I am renting from another flat owner which is suppose to be provided in a timely manor. He said he sent it 2nd class post last Thursday so I am suffering a lost as cannot park in my space for fear of getting another ticket. From the UK CPM website he would have purchased a supply of permits so he may be not sending on purpose!


Any more suggestions?

ColliesCarer

Wow, brilliant detective work!

If there are any links you want to share you can post them as a broken link - just leave off the http:// bit

Well checking out this company on Companies House shows me that the managing agent for the flats purchased the freehold and is the director of Admiral's Wharf Ltd!!! - well done for finding that out

So the situation is the freeholder is also the managing agent, who is also responsible for engaging UKCPM to do the back-office function of sending out PCN's and enforcement actions while he sorts out the initial self-ticketing either directly or via a minion.

I know the parking companies like to talk in terms of clients but he's actually the person that engaged them, he is therefore the principal. So reluctant to get involved or not he is involved, very much so, as he is jointly and severally liable for their actions.

Whether he can cancel the charges may depend on the terms of the contract he has entered into but it would be unusual not to retain the right to do so (at least for a certain number per month say) - but as you've sussed he's also highly likely to be benefiting though without sight of the contract you won't know for sure. If he's not the one actually doing the ticketing there is also likely to be someone at the apartments who is and who is also likely to be getting a backhander.

If the parking arrangements established at Admiral’s Wharf were put in place to ensure your rights of quiet enjoyment they are failing miserably because it is interfering with them and sounds to me like he needs to be informed that is so.

Sounds like a strongly worded letter is needed to this guy regarding the parking charge and if the permit hasn't arrived by say Friday a second one regarding delay of supplying the permit.

I'm sure those more legally minded than myself will be able to help you with the wording of those shortly.

Is there a tenants association?
Have you tried to see whether any of your neighbours are also having problems who may also be willing to get involved?
May at least be worth informing the other flat owners of what you have discovered.