New parking regulations at home...

safarmuk

And of course you have that clause about 3rd parties which means that this is not a breach that the PPC can enforce, but only the landowner.

And the landowner is neither the RTM Company, nor the Management Agent, nor the PPC.

It is Theowal LTD, represented by Estates & Management, a standard set up for many blocks of flats across the country (except the land owning company will be different - but with the same directors). I am 99.9% certain that Theowal LTD don't have a contract with the PPC or even know they are operating there ...

I also doubt that Theowal LTD have ceded any land owning rights to the RTM company either. Earlier in this thread Dan posted the incorporation document from the RTM company ... we were going to look at that but got waylaid by the LBC coming in.

Loadsofchildren123

The landowner cannot introduce new regulations under clause 5.4 without giving any sort of notification of them.


My problem here is that you weren't in your space. If you had been you've got a solid defence that the new regs were not validly introduced, and are themselves invalid because they seek to impose on you a contractual arrangement with, and liability to, a 3rd party.


I'm just unsure now because you were parked in a communal area and not in any sort of marked communal bay so technically in breach of your obligation not to use the common areas for such purposes.


Has the PPC produced a copy of its contract with the landowner? Or with the RTM, with evidence of the RTM's right to contract rights to it relating to the land?


It is their burden of proof, not yours.

buglawton

Some flats that I know have had this type of 3rd party enforcement forever. And it does help the residents as there are opportunists (not all have parking allocations) who will park in corners that obstruct emergency vehicles, park in other peoples allocated spaces, and even dump cars.
You win some you lose some.

safarmuk

Your own space tickets are highly likely to be won in court.

My problem here is that you weren't in your space. If you had been you've got a solid defence that the new regs were not validly introduced, and are themselves invalid because they seek to impose on you a contractual arrangement with, and liability to, a 3rd party.

From your thread, you have always also parked outside your bay and have never received a complaint about it. However as LOC123 says this is not as strong a case for you as your allocated bay tickets.

Some flats that I know have had this type of 3rd party enforcement forever. And it does help the residents as there are opportunists (not all have parking allocations) who will park in corners that obstruct emergency vehicles, park in other peoples allocated spaces, and even dump cars.

I know of flats where these schemes are used by residents to nab visitors spaces as their own personal allocated space for their 2nd and 3rd cars ... I also know of blocks of flats where the PPCs ticket residents in their own allocated bays and do not listen to reason ...

park in other peoples allocated spaces, and even dump cars.

The simplest solution to this is to install a fold down lockable bollard on your allocated parking space with a combination pad lock. I know someone who did this for about £50 (less than a parking ticket). He's never had a problem since.

Daniel_san

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

Has the PPC produced a copy of its contract with the landowner? Or with the RTM, with evidence of the RTM's right to contract rights to it relating to the land?

It is their burden of proof, not yours.

The PPC hasn't produced anything at all so far. I still need to send the reply to LBC to them, and then see if they bother replying for starters, and then what they provide. I got a copy of the contract from the MA, I pm'd you the dropbox link as I cannot redact it from this pc (only Adobe reader, not acrobat X). The contract is between the MA and PPC only, and is dated 22nd March - my PCN's are 23,24,28 and 31st March.

safarmuk

The contract is between the MA and PPC only, and is dated 22nd March - my PCN's are 23,24,28 and 31st March.

So its not between the landowner and the PPC. You need to challenge the locus standi then surely?

Loadsofchildren123

1. The contract is 24 hours before your first ticket: did they have signs up?


2. A term of the contract is that the PPC must adhere to the IPC CoP. Did it?


3. Did you receive any sort of notification from the landowner or the management company of a) any PPC prior to this one and its t&cs? and b) the appointment of THIS PPC and its t&cs?

Daniel_san

safarmuk wrote: »

So its not between the landowner and the PPC. You need to challenge the locus standi then surely?

That's been my understanding until LOC's post which indicates the MA as the land owners agent, would have authority to do this.

Daniel_san

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

1. The contract is 24 hours before your first ticket: did they have signs up?


2. A term of the contract is that the PPC must adhere to the IPC CoP. Did it?


3. Did you receive any sort of notification from the landowner or the management company of a) any PPC prior to this one and its t&cs? and b) the appointment of THIS PPC and its t&cs?

1. Yes (but my vehicle was already parked there before they put signs up)

2. No contract with land owner, only MA... IPC CoP B1.1 requires contract with land owner

3. First PPC sent this, attempting to amend the terms of the lease.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/s3hfkl6jv4oecvp/ucs-parking-letter.jpg?dl=0
Latest PPC sent me nothing. I am aware through speaking to another resident at a later time, that a letter existed and enclosed a permit, but this letter was never sent/received by me. Given that I've previously opted out of the scheme and my parking space was supposed to be exempt (as stated by the MA to me), I can only assume this letter was not sent to me, rather than Mr Postman lost it.
The land owner has not communicated anything to me, whatsoever.

Thank you all!

safarmuk

That's been my understanding until LOC's post which indicates the MA as the land owners agent, would have authority to do this.

But the MA is not the landowners agent, the MA is the RTM Co's agent and the RTM company do not own the land ... the freeholder company "Theowal LTD" own the land.

@LOC123 unless the RTM incorporation document contains something that shows that the land or rights over the land has been ceded to them then its clear that there is no link between the PPC and the landowner surely?

RTM Co's are generally companies set up to allow a group of residents to manage the estate and appoint their own MA's should they wish to do so (instead of the Freeholder doing it) as opposed to taking control of the land itself.