NTK stage - wrong postcode on notice

simon_hzero

Hi,

UKPC recently started to patrol our estate on the behest of the management company and i followed the "rules" by displaying the permit on my dash except on one night when i was tired after a trip. I left the permit on the visor and trundled off to bed at 1pm. 4 hours later a "PPC love letter" appeared on my windscreen.

Now, I've read the newbies guide, and some posts on UKPC on residential car parks but i was wondering on the opinion of people if i was to use a wrong post code as an appeal point as well as "no genuine pre-estimate of loss'.?

Parking is unallocated and "common" and I have parked my car outside my block of flats since 2000 so i can't see where there would be a consequence of loss.

Any help would be appreciated.

simon_hzero

My text for the letter is:

xx C...... Close
London
XXX 6BT
Dear Sir/Madam,
Ref: Parking Charge ref no. xxxxxxxxxxx

You issued me with a parking ticket on 09/08/2014 but I believe it was unlawfully issued. I decline your invitation to name the driver, which is not required of me as the keeper of the vehicle. I will not be paying your demand for payment for the reasons:

• The alleged contravention did not occur
Quite simply, the vehicle was not parked inappropriately at the time the ticket was issued. This is due to the vehicle being not at the location stated on the ticket.

The location is given as C........ Close, Ch......... Way, C........ Close, London, XXX 6BQ which is incorrect

Please see the points below as proof of my claim.
• C............... Close, London, XXX 6BQ, is the postal code for flat numbers 1-64.
• My vehicle was parked outside my block of flats (79-82 C........ Close) for which the postcode is XXX 6BT.


• The charge is disproportionate and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss
The amount you have charged is not based upon any genuine pre-estimate of loss to your company or the landowner.

According to the Unfair Consumer Contract Regulations, parking charges on private land must not exceed the cost to the landowner during the period the motorist is parked there. In my case, the £100 charge you are asking for far exceeds the cost to the landowner which is zero, as my vehicle belongs to me as a owner of property in the estate with the provision in my leasehold to park a private vehicle on common parking space within the estate, which I have done since I purchased my property in 2000. If you look at my block of flats on Google Streetview, you can see my vehicle parked there.
If you choose to pursue me please be aware that I will not enter into any correspondence and this will be the only letter you will receive from me until you answer the specific points raised in my letter.
Yours faithfully,

Is there anything else I need to add to this?

HO87

Why on earth are you providing them with an early heads up to a situation that one might reasonably use at a later stage to show that the PPC in question are inefficient or are sloppy?

Delete all reference to the address/mis-address issue

With the greatest of respect your appeal to the PPC is over worked. There is no necessity whatsoever to include reference to the UTCCR at this stage.

The sole objective in making an appeal to the PPC is for it to be rejected necessitating the issue of a POPLA reference number. From that perspective - in these circumstances you appeal could be reduced to the following:

Bloggs PPC
Anystreet
Anytown

Dear Sirs

Re: PCN No. XZXZXZXZX

I refer to the above notice issued on [insert date] which I wish to appeal against on the following grounds:

a). The sum sought does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of yours or your principal's loss.
b). The signage on site is deficient and fails to comply with the British Parking Association's Code of Practice, Annexe B.
c). In the absence of any evidence it is my case that you lack any or sufficient proprietary interest in the land.
d). Your notice was deficient and fails to comply with Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act.

Please unhold this appeal or in the alternative promptly issue me with a POPLA reference so that I might escalate matters to them.

Yours faithfully

simon_hzero

Keep it simple - basically - but don't send any of this off unless and until you receive a Notice to Keeper.

This will be rejected and you can ace them at POPLA and cost them into the bargain.

In the meantime you might weant to remind you management company that your lease entitles you to use of a common parking space and that any further such conduct by UKPC will be deemed as a trespass to your property (the vehicle not the space, as such).

Coupon-mad

Thanks HO87, I am going to refresh the Newbies thread appeal to that simple version. I might get rid of 'insert date' to save any terminally stupid person from copying 'insert date'!

simon_hzero

Thanks for this, guys.

I've lodged an appeal.

The_Deep

Do you own your property, or rent it? If the former, why do you need the permission of a PPC to park? Your parking has either been included in the rent you pay, or was part of the price you paid when you bought the property.

Why should you even think of appealing to knuckle dragging ex-clampers who want a large sum of money off you because you forgot to show a bit of paper. How has your "crime" cost them ot the MA any money, Did you sign a contract with the PPC?

If your lease or AST grants you "quiet enjoyment" complain like mad to your landlord if you are a tenant, or the Management Company if you are a leaseholder. If your landlord is an HA complain to the Ombudsmen. If they are a charity complain to the Charity Commissioners. In any case, complain to the trading Standards Department that the PPC are attempting to obtain monies by misrepresentation.

Such interference by the PPC conflicts with your statutory rights and may constitute a criminal offence under The Landlord and Tenant Act.

Read this

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...pass-**SUCCESS**

and see what can happen when knuckle draggers upset residents,

Guys_Dad

The_Deep wrote: »

Do you own your property, or rent it? If the former, why do you need the permission of a PPC to park? Your parking has either been included in the rent you pay, or was part of the price you paid when you bought the property.

Why should you even think of appealing to knuckle dragging ex-clampers who want a large sum of money off you because you forgot to show a bit of paper. How has your "crime" cost them ot the MA any money, Did you sign a contract with the PPC?

If your lease or AST grants you "quiet enjoyment" complain like mad to your landlord if you are a tenant, or the Management Company if you are a leaseholder. If your landlord is an HA complain to the Ombudsmen. If they are a charity complain to the Charity Commissioners. In any case, complain to the trading Standards Department that the PPC are attempting to obtain monies by misrepresentation.

Such interference by the PPC conflicts with your statutory rights and may constitute a criminal offence under The Landlord and Tenant Act.

Read this

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...pass-**SUCCESS**

and see what can happen when knuckle draggers upset residents,

You are correct - technically. However, some PPCs will take this to court - see just one recent example here http://www.falmouthpacket.co.uk/news/10926750.Fury_over___130_fine_and_court_summons_for_parking_in_own_space/?ref=mr

So, if the Deep is willing to underwrite financially an "ignore" strategy if it gets to court, then use the information/advice in his post.

If not, then follow the bulk of the regulars' advice and use the appeal process as explained in the NEWBIES sticky thread.

I must say, however, that I share much of the sentiment the the Deep's post but leases usually give wide ranging authority to the management companies and they, in turn, do not always act in the leaseholders' best interests.

The_Deep

GD, I see that this article is eight months old. Has it got to court or did the PPC agree to drop it if Mr Leggett kept quiet?

In any case, Mr Leggett agreed to use a permit. and therefore may be said to have signed up to the PPC's T&C.

Can you point me to one case where a judge has sided with a PPC against a landowner's "quiet enjoyment" rights? I suspect that you cannot.

You state that leases "usually" give wide ranging powers to managing agents, but, in my experience, the reverse is often the case.

I own a property in a block infested by riff raff, but the MA is almost powerless to deal with anti-social behaviour, which is probably why so many absentee landlords tolerate PPCs.

Guys_Dad

The_Deep wrote: »

GD, I see that this article is eight months old. Has it got to court or did the PPC agree to drop it if Mr Leggett kept quiet?

In any case, Mr Leggett agreed to use a permit. and therefore may be said to have signed up to the PPC's T&C.

Can you point me to one case where a judge has sided with a PPC against a landowner's "quiet enjoyment" rights? I suspect that you cannot.

You state that leases "usually" give wide ranging powers to managing agents, but, in my experience, the reverse is often the case.

I own a property in a block infested by riff raff, but the MA is almost powerless to deal with anti-social behaviour, which is probably why so many absentee landlords tolerate PPCs.

To deal with the point in your second paragraph, if you read the Opening Post again, you will see that OP also uses a permit but it was not left on the dash on the night in question, so can't see difference in this case.

Regrettably, I can't find the other article I was originally thinking about. Obviously my knowledge of such cases going to court are from what I have read either on line or in the news.

Certainly POPLA have found in favour of the PPCs when a poor appeal was entered, but I appreciate that this would strengthen your view on avoiding them.

My own experience of Management companies is limited locally to a couple of friends who live in flats and whose leases and management company terms of reference I have seen, although previously when I did live in flats, my recollections are that the management companies had wide ranging powers.

Where a landowner is an absent one, they don't want the hassle of dealing with leaseholders and that is why they are more than willing to delegate powers to management companies to take operational decisions.