2 PCNs issued in own car park

matthruba

Yep! I am now the lucky owner of two parking notices! That's 3 tickets from the same company in the 18 months that I have been living here. FUN... Not.

I'm obviously appealing them so thought I'd share my journey with you in a bid to try and combat these pathetic cowboys!

SO. Bit of background. I live within a large apartment block. As part of my tenancy, I have access to the underground resident car park which is accessed by key fobbed electric gates. The parking bays are unallocated so operate on a first come first served basis and a permit must be displayed in the windscreen. Obviously a private parking company (I won't mention who they are just yet) are in place to combat mis parking/try and scam people out of money.

I approached my vehicle on Saturday morning to be greeted by two lovely bright yellow notices on the windscreen. One ticket was issued 7th October, the other on the 10th. I don't use my car during the week hence not realising there was an issue and fixing it before getting the second ticket issued.

The issue/reason: Permit Not On Full Display

My permit was on show, but only partly as it must've slipped down when I closed the door or something. It's the EXACT same scenario as BritishBeef talks about here: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5003031

On the basis that I have had a previous PCN cancelled by the same company and BritishBeef
was successful with their appeal, I am confident that I will have both tickets overturned.

I've already sent an assertively worded letter to the management company but if my experience last time is anything to go by, this won't come to anything much and on that basis I will continue to appeal in the normal way.

First step is to wait for the 'notice to keeper'. I'll be expecting two of these, one for each ticket. I'll then respond separately to each ticket with a 'soft appeal' as the registered keeper, not the driver. I'll be using the template in the first post of the 'newbie' thread here: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822

I'll add something along the lines of 'I've had POPLA cancel my previous ticket that you issued so save yourself the time and embarrassment and cancel it now'. (This will obviously fall on deaf ears).

They'll deny my appeal, issue me with 2 POPLA codes and I'll then devise 2 separate appeals to POPLA using this template: (which I'll need to tweak a bit) https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/65788210#Comment_65788210

Might get you guys to check it first if that's cool.

If all goes to plan, we should then all be raising our glasses and celebrating another couple of wins!!

I then plan on devising a one page document outlining the case from start to finish and posting it through everybody's letterbox. I'm also tempted to remove my permit permanently and keep wasting the rogue traders time and money.

Please let me know if I've missed anything or should be considering anything else.

It's early days but will provide updates as and when for those interested

marywooyeah

sounds like you've got it all planned out to a T!

I've found Coupon Mad to be very helpful on these boards, I'm sure she'll be online soon to help you out x

Fruitcake

First, check your lease to determine whether you have to display a permit. Usually it won't but will say something along the lines that you are entitled to quiet enjoyment of your (leased) property. Assuming this is the case you can withdraw your implied right of access to the PPC and management agency, telling them repeat occurrences will be considered tresspass which is a criminal offence. You could then take the PPC and management agency to court if you were so inclined.

If it were me, and there was nothing in my lease about a permit, I would never have used one in the first place let alone be thinking about not displaying it now.

You have covered everythingn in your thread about the correct process to get this beaten and cost the PPC money. By all means tell the PPC you have won at PoPLA before if all you want to do is stop getting tickets, but again, if it were me, I wouldn't tell them I had successfully had a PoPLA win. Let them find out the hard way.

4consumerrights

Hi Mattruba



back again I see ...

Premier Park up to their old tricks again

I know who the parking company is and of course where it was issued

IIRC you are renting the property which can bring in another dimension if you want to issue cease and desist letters. However as you do not own the lease rights but have them conveyed as a tenancy - special letters and/or care would need to be included.

matthruba

If I was staying here I'd consider it.

Coupon-mad

I am liking your plans of attack and your thread will be a great example for Newbies too.

Nick_C

Fruitcake wrote: »

First, check your lease to determine whether you have to display a permit. Usually it won't but will say something along the lines that you are entitled to quiet enjoyment of your (leased) property. Assuming this is the case you can withdraw your implied right of access to the PPC and management agency, telling them repeat occurrences will be considered tresspass which is a criminal offence. You could then take the PPC and management agency to court if you were so inclined.

If it were me, and there was nothing in my lease about a permit, I would never have used one in the first place let alone be thinking about not displaying it now

The OP appears to be a tenant and not a Leaseholder.

In the case of leaseholders, there is often provision for the landlord to make additional rules for the benefit of the tenants.

The parking spaces are shared, not dedicated, so they are part of the common parts. I don't see how a leaseholder can withhold a right of access to property which they do not own or control.

matthruba

Appeals rejected by parking company. POPLA appeals just been sent.

Keep you posted.

matthruba

I have just had my appeal decisions back. Both of my tickets have been cancelled by the parking operator Premier Park Ltd 😁

For those interested below is a copy of the appeal letter I sent:

RE: POPLA CODE- #######
Parking Charge Number (PCN): ###### Vehicle Reg: ######
Operator: Premier Park Ltd

I am the keeper of the vehicle which was issued with a PCN for parking without fully displaying the parking permit. I challenged this notice on a number of issues. I then received a rejection with regards to the alleged contravention. I would like to appeal this notice on the following grounds.
1. Not a genuine contractual fee nor genuine pre-estimate of loss
2. No contract assigning rights to Premier Park Ltd to enforce contracts with drivers 3. No contract formed by the signage
4. No contravention of the terms - the permit was visible through the windscreen

1. Not a genuine contractual fee nor genuine pre-estimate of loss
The demand is a punitive amount that was not a contractually agreed parking tariff and bore no relationship to any loss. The Operator would have been in the same position had the parking charge notice not been issued. Premier Park Ltd notices allege 'breach of terms/failure to comply' and as such, the landowner/occupier (not their agent) can only pursue liquidated damages directly flowing from a parking event.

I require Premier Park Ltd to provide a detailed breakdown of their loss and on what basis this can be their loss at all, when the car was parked with a valid permit in the right bay. The Office of Fair Trading has stated to the BPA Ltd that ''a parking charge is not automatically recoverable simply because it is stated to be a parking charge, as it cannot be used to state a loss where none exists''.

Neither can the charge be 'commercially justified', if Premier Park Ltd attempt that argument. POPLA Assessor Chris Adamson stated in June 2014 that:
''In each case that I have seen from the higher courts,...it is made clear that a charge cannot be commercially justified where the dominant purpose of the charge is to deter the other party from breach. This is most clearly stated in Lordsvale Finance Plc v Bank of Zambia [1996] QB 752, quoted approvingly at paragraph 15 in Cine Bes Filmcilik Ve Yapimcilik & Anor v United International Pictures & Ors [2003] EWHC Civ 1669 when Coleman J states a clause should not be struck down as a penalty, “if the increase could in the circumstances be explained as commercially justifiable, provided always that its dominant purpose was not to deter the other party from breach”.

This supports the principle that the aim of damages is to be compensatory, beginning with the idea that the aim is to put the parties in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed. It also seems that courts have been unwilling to allow clauses designed to deter breach as this undermines the binding nature of the initial promise made. Whilst the courts have reasonably moved away from a strict interpretation of what constitutes a genuine pre-estimate of loss, recognising that in complex commercial situations an accurate pre-estimate will not always be possible, nevertheless it remains that a charge for damages must be compensatory in nature rather than punitive.''

2. No contract assigning rights to Premier Park Ltd to enforce charges in the courts contracts or form their own contracts with drivers
The parking notice states that it has been served on behalf of the landowner. I assert that Premier Park Ltd does not have the legal status nor assigned right to pursue parking charge notices in the courts nor to make contracts with drivers. I therefore require
Premier Park Ltd to supply:
• A copy of the current contract with the landowner (and if their contract is merely with another agent, then proof of the agreement of the landowner)
• A copy of the wording of the current permit scheme and the document where residents were advised which is the 'right way' to display these permits
Furthermore, I require that Premier Park Ltd demonstrate that they have the right to pursue parking charge notices in the courts and to specifically make contracts with drivers in their own right, rather than this remaining the gift of this landowner. I am not merely asking for proof that Premier Park Ltd can 'issue PCNs' of course. Anyone can issue a PCN on a windscreen - a caretaker or cleaner could do that but it would not automatically confer them any locus standi to demand sums of money for alleged breach. Hence I need to see the contract itself, not a witness statement, not a site agreement sheet.

3. No contract formed by the signage
I submit that this signage failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice section 18 and Appendix B. The signs failed to properly warn/inform the driver of the terms and any consequences for breach. Any alleged contract (denied in this case) could only be formed at the entrance to the premises, prior to parking. It is not formed after the vehicle has already been parked, as this is too late. There is a lack of entrance signage and the car park generally is not fully covered by signage at all bays.
Neither do the signs state in clear terms that a driver has to 'continuously display' a permit nor how to display it. There was no breach by leaving it on the dashboard as although it appears to have slipped down, it’s still clear that an official permit was used. If this Operator wanted to impose a requirement to continuously display permits and where exactly to place them, and which way up, then they should have drafted their signage in clear terms to that effect. Although from the photos it appears that only half of the permit is visible, the permit can be seen through the black edging of the windscreen. They did not. Equally they could have marked the permits to show which is the front and the back, so that people could not be accused of displaying the 'wrong side' - but they did not.

4. No contravention of the terms - the permit was visible through the windscreen and was displayed correctly when parking
The car was issued with a PCN for parking without fully displaying a permit. However the car does have a valid permit as was the basis of my first appeal. That permit was also displayed and viewable through the windscreen, there is no defined 'right way' or wrong way' to the permit itself. To draw a comparison with a Council Traffic Order, if the terms state no specific requirement to 'continuously display' a permit then there is no contravention if after parking, there is an alleged case of a 'fluttering ticket' as in this case. Fluttering ticket cases have even been exposed by PATAS adjudicators in Council PCN adjudications as requiring specific terms to 'continuously display' or there is no contravention - and I contend that in a case based on contract law with a private operator this basic requirement is the same. The doctrine of contra proferentem applies and the interpretation of terms which most favours the consumer must prevail.

With all this in mind, I require POPLA to inform Premier Park Ltd to cancel the PCN.

Yours faithfully,
Me


The_Deep

Have you informed your landlord of this harassment? He too has a responsibility to see that his tenants enjoy "quiet enjoyment" under the tenancy agreement, and he should also be kicking up a fuss with the managing agents.

matthruba

I no longer live there so can't be bothered with the agro. Little bit gutted that I won't be able to waste Premier Park's time and money any longer.