New parking regulations at home...

Daniel_san

CM? Sorry I know you're busy. Please let me know if I went wrong somewhere already and if you've any suggestions, I'd really appreciate it as always, thank you. I have to reply to POPLA by Friday latest.

Coupon-mad

Bumping this so others see it tomorrow - forum has been really busy!

Daniel_san

Thanks CM

Coupon-mad

Daniel_san wrote: »

Following the Beavis decision at the Supreme Court, I would like to add the following observations which distinguish the material case from that one:

1. I am a resident and leaseholder. The lease contract with the land owner does NOT state a requirement to display a parking permit issues by UK Parking Solutions, or any other private parking company. Any changes to these terms would require my express written authorisation. The operator has failed to demonstrate a 'legitimate interest' in performance of the permit 'rules' foisted upon other residents yet expressly rejected by me. Unlike in the Beavis case, I cannot be considered to have accepted the terms.
2. The car park is free to use for residents.
3. The car park can only be accessed with an electronic keyfob, which is required to open to entrance and exit gate. This keyfob is only available to residents so unlike in the Beavis case, there is no reasonable cause nor justification for this permit scheme at all. .
4. There is no offer to park for the general public.
5. There is no expectation of “turnover” of cars.
6. There is no time restriction placed on parking.
7. There is no promise to leave after a given time
8. UK Parking Solutions do not have any legal right to “offer” parking at this location.
9. UK Parking Solutions do not have a valid contract in place with the land owner.
10. The contract UK Parking solutions provide as “evidence” is with the managing agent, who are a 3rd party company and NOT the land owner.
11. UK Parking Solutions are NOT the land owner. They cannot bring charges in a court for the alleged trespass.

12. Unlike in the Beavis case, the signs here cannot be considered 'very prominent' and nor is the parking charge itself in large lettering and in any case I rejected the permit scheme as not fit for purpose, accepting no terms whatsoever. Without a contract being formed and without the £100 charge specifically being consented to by performance, this situation simply is not comparable with the Beavis case. As previously argued in my appeal, the landowner might at best, be able to allege trespass if vehicles are not allowed to be parked without a permit, but a third party without any assigned land rights or title cannot pursue damages for trespass.
13. If they are suggesting this was a 'breach' (rather than trespass) then the operator needed to either show that their disproportionate charge was not a penalty (meaning they would have had to demonstrate clear similarities with the Beavis findings) or alternatively, they had to show that the charge was based upon a GPEOL. They have done neither.

This sort of thing should do.

Daniel_san

Thank you LOADS Coupon-mad! You legend! I shall be writing back to POPLA in a short while and will post again when I have an update

Thanks again! REALLY appreciate your input, and that of everyone else over the last 9 pages!

Daniel_san

Still waiting on POPLA......but.....

In the meantime, I've got a new evidence pack for the latest round of appeals. I'm wondering your thoughts on this section which has been added to the latest pack

"First ground of their appeal is that we have no contract in place to enforce parking restrictions. However we would like to inform you that we have signed contract with the Management Agency at the location mentioned above Please find attached a copy of it in Section F. According to the AOS Code of Practice Clause 7.1 – If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent). The written confirmation must be given before you can start operating on the land in question and give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of car park management for the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges.
However as we have written authorisation from the management company in place, we have the wright to carry out car park management service and patrol the land."

Coupled with a witness statement from my managing agents to say they have the right to pursue charges on the land etc etc, and a contract that states no such thing, says terms are on the reverse side, but that reverse side is not entered as part of the evidence bundle (and it's not for me to assume the terms contain sensitive info about how much of a kickback the management agent gets, oh nooo!)

Would appreciate any thoughts. My lease contract has no requirement for a permit.

dazster

Unfortunately the excerpts from your leasehold that you posted early on this thread are no longer there. Perhaps you could post them up again?

I'm thinking about a case currently running on PePiPoo where a homeowner parked in a communal parking area (i.e.not owned by him) and got a ticket for not displaying a permit.

Examining his transfer deed revealed that not only does he have permission to use the communal area, he appears to have an unconditional easement over it i.e. he has an unconditional right to park there, despite not owning it. Furthermore anyone interfering with someone else's land rights (such as under an easement) is potentially committing a tort (specifically, private nuisance) and can be sued for damages.

It would be good to see your wording again to see if it looks like it might be an easement.

Daniel_san

Hi, thanks Dazster. I'm just running to get my hair cut, but here is the parking terms section from my lease:

dazster

There must be something more that identifies the parking space and sets out your right to use it?

Daniel_san

There is other points I'm sure, elsewhere, but it basically sets out that the space is allocated and may change. It's not part of the deeds to my property as such. In any case, the tickets are on a vehicle not parked in my space anyway, it's parked elsewhere in the car park, where it's been parked for 6-7 years before these PPC firms came along and put signs up.