Dandarra Lettings Manchester

wolleyowl

My daughter rents an apartment through above company
She took out initial 6 month lease which came with 6 month parking permit and allocated parking slot. After 6 months lease was up we subsequently rolled this on a month by month agreement but we were not given or advised that the parking permit needed renewing
We have subsequently received a £100.00 PCN for invalid permit after failed to pay when we were ticketed with PCN on windscreen

I have appealed to the letting agent but not interested. There stance is it is our responsibility to ensure permit is up to date.
I have reviewed letting agreement and section on parking is vague but certainly nothing that states renewing permit is tenants responsibility.
Have read many topics on similar situations and have drafted standard letter from this site to go back to Care Parking (see below). Should I leave it as that right now or is it worth adding anything regarding failure of letting agent to update permit once we extended lease agreement

Look forward to your comments

Dear {companyname of this member of ''PPC World''},

PCN number xxxxxxx
I have received your parking 'invoice' impersonating a parking ticket. Idecline your invitation to pay or name the driver, neither of which arerequired of me as the keeper of the vehicle. This is my appeal and allliability to your company is denied on the following basis:

A) The amount is neither a genuine tariff/fee for parking, nor is itbased upon any genuine pre-estimate of loss to your company or the landowner.
You are not the landowner and do not have the standing to offercontracts to drivers nor to bring a claim in your own right.
C) Your signage was not sufficiently prominent nor clearly worded andconsideration did not flow from both parties, so there was no contract formed.This is a non-negotiated and totally unexpected third party 'charge' foistedupon legitimate motorists who are not your customers and are not parties ofequal bargaining power. Therefore ALL terms are required to be so prominent andthe risk of a charge so transparent that the information in its entirety musthave been seen/accepted by the driver. No reasonable person would haveaccepted such onerous parking terms and I contend the extortionate charge wasnot 'drawn to his attention in the most explicit way' (Lord Denning,Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1971] 2 QB 163, Court of Appeal): 'Thecustomer is bound by those terms as long as they are sufficiently brought tohis notice beforehand, but not otherwise. In {ticket cases of former times} theissue...was regarded as an offer by the company. That theory was, of course, afiction. No customer in a thousand ever read the conditions. In order to givesufficient notice, it would need to be printed in red ink with a red handpointing to it - or something equally startling.'

As you have failed to create any enforceable contract I suggest that you cancelthis unjustified 'ticket'. If not, under your Trade Body's current Code ofPractice you must issue a rejection letter which, in order to answer my appeal,must include:

1. The legal basis of your charge, which is not clear (i.e. breach,trespass or contractual fee?). As keeper, I cannot be expected to guess thebasis of your allegation.
(i) if alleging breach of contract, please supply a breakdown of your alleged'loss' and state the intention of your enforcement (i.e. deterrent orrevenue?).
(ii) if alleging trespass, enclose evidence of the perpetrator, proof of theliquidated damages alleged and the calculation of this sum by the landholder.
(iii) if alleging 'contractual fee' I request a VAT invoice by return and yourexplanation of how you can allow drivers to park 'in breach' for a fee whenyour client originally contracted you in order to disallow and deter - notallow and profit from - unauthorised parking. I contend this charge is merely apenalty which is not recoverable in contract law (as found by Mr RecorderGibson QC in the case of Civil Enforcement v McCafferty 3YK50188 (AP476)21/2/2014 Appeal). Should you try to rely upon ParkingEye v Beavis &Wardley at independent appeal stage, I will of course point out that it wasa flawed decision at small claim level so is not binding, and Mr Beavis iscontinuing his defence to the Court of Appeal. There is clearly no commercialjustification for this punitive charge and no case law to support it.

2. Proof of your locus standi to offer contracts to drivers at this siteand to bring a claim in your own right for this particular contravention. Ifyou are not the landowner, I will need to see a copy of your contract, showingthe restrictions, the charges, the dates and terms of business including anypayments between yourself and your client and the definition of your status asagents or contractors and your assigned rights (if any). Such detail isnecessary for me to make an informed decision. Failure to divulge yourlandowner contract (or heavily redacting it) will be deemed as withholdingpertinent information and, of course, I will require it to be shown at independentappeal stage anyway. A witness statement will not suffice, nor a site agreementwith a managing agent or other party who is not the landowner.

3. Your explanation of the consideration that you believe flowed fromthe driver, and from yourselves. Consideration from both sides is required fora contract.

4. A copy of the signage site map and close-up pictures of the signs insitu at the time, taken at a comparable time of day in similar lightconditions.

5. The means to make an appeal to POPLA or the IAS. This must not bewithheld or delayed, which would be a breach of the Code of Practice.

If you fail to simply cancel the charge or supply the means to independentappeal in your first reply you will also be reported to your applicable ATA andthe DVLA. A certificate of posting will be obtained for all writtencommunications for this appeal and complaint and I intend to claim my costswhen I prevail.

Yours,

Hot_Bring

Looks very good.

I'd add a section on the lease trumping any made up rules of ( Don't ) Care Parking and that your daughter for legal purposes is the owner and as such rejects their authority to issue charges.

I'd also go after the Managing Agents rather than the Letting Agents.

Umkomaas

One or two interesting statements from their website!

Care Parking in the top 5% of AOS members in POPLA Annual Report

Alphabetic order?

The first car park operator offering on the spot cancellations for disabled drivers who forgot to display their badge

Only if the car park operative hasn't already scarpered after achieving his target for the day?

Care Parking is proud to not only offer this service free of charge but subject to site survey arrange a revenue rebate for the client.

Possibly why your Letting Agents aren't being helpful?

By combining the latest technology and experienced team members Care Parking can provide a solution to a vast array of parking needs including vehicle overstay, Non Patron parking, Disabled bay abuse, parking on double yellow lines, parking out of a marked bay, unauthorised parking and a range of permit parking contraventions.

Useful should they start quoting 'Contractual Charge'

wolleyowl

Thanks for response

So I'm good to go with letter to Care Parking???????

Umkomaas

Good to go, with Hot Bring's additional paragraph. Don't forget to get that free Certificate of Posting from your Post Office.

Keep us informed of progress.

The_Deep

Or she could ignore it. Her tenancy has now lapsed into a periodic tenancy with all the rights and privileges of an AST but with modified end dates.

She should contact her landlord and get him to lean of the Management Agents. If they are taking kickbacks from the PPC for harassing tenants, they are acting contrary to the best interests of the tenants.

It is most unlikely that she needs the permission of the PPC to park in her space, allotted or not, and, if she does not, then the PPC and the MA may well be in breach of her leasehold rights under The Landlord and Tenant Act.

wolleyowl

Once again thanks everyone for your help

wolleyowl

see opening thread
Appeal now rejected and got popla code
Couple of points to come out of rejection letter

1- they accept I do not have to name driver but they will pursue charge if name not given under protection of freedoms act 2012.

2- point A of my appeal they state is covered in recent case law in the county courts by HHJ Moloney QC which shows it is acceptable for parking companies to make a profit

3- Point B they claim is not based on fact and is incorrect

4- Point C they state that within the head lease for all properties in the development it is stated that parking is offered as long as the conditions of the current parking scheme are met, the vehicle was not parked within the conditions of the parking scheme.

5- Point D. In fairness there are numerous signs in around the complex re permit parking

Would appreciate feedback on above and suggested wording for my appeal to popla.
If someone can advise how I could upload rejection letter in full if it would be useful then feel free to let me know

Stroma

No point going on about they have written , it's just a pile of crap! Just construct your popla appeal and place the wording here so we can go over it before you send it to them.

The_Deep

4- Point C they state that within the head lease for all properties in the development it is stated that parking is offered as long as the conditions of the current parking scheme are met, the vehicle was not parked within the conditions of the parking scheme.


This is almost certainly likely to be a lie. As your daughter is bound by it, ask the LA for a copy.

Also, are the LA engaged on full management terms or finders only. If the latter she should contact the landlord.

Coupon-mad

Choose a POPLA appeal template with a Beavis (HHJ Moloney decision) rebuttal. Such as the VCS windscreen ticket case here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/62180281#Comment_62180281

Of course you must proof read and amend where appropriate and miss out whole paragraphs about VCS actual letters - such as the one starting 'VCS’ appeal rejection letter of 5th June 2014 states..'' and the one starting ''Thereby VCS asserts...'' But in other places just change VCS to Care Parking and see if what remains still makes sense for your case (basically all the rest of point #1 applies as do the other points except the 'No Creditor identified on the Notice to Keeper' if you appealed too early as soon as the PCN was received, and never waited for any NTK!).

You should also add in your point about 'no standing/authority' that in Care Parking's rejection letter they state that ''within the head lease for all properties in the development it is stated that parking is offered as long as the conditions of the current parking scheme are met, the vehicle was not parked within the conditions of the parking scheme.'' I disagree and the head lease has not been produced as evidence - I believe there is no such mention of a 'current parking scheme' and put Care Parking to strict proof otherwise.