UKPC - Private Residental Land

The_Deep

Of course the lease does not grant you unrestricted access or even exclusive rights to this space, you cannot for instance set up a whelk stall on it.

What it does grant you is "quiet enjoyment", and this sort of harassment may well be a breach of you leasehold rights, a criminal offence unfder The Landlord and Tenants Acts.

Stop treating this firm of superannuated clampers as if they matter, they do not. Your already pay all that is required to use the car park in your service charges.

Their only remedy if you blank them is to take you to court where you can issue a counter claim and make them pay dearly for their nuisance.

They are trying to con you into paying them for damages breach of a non existent contract. They are not entitled to anything, not one penny as as they have suffered no loss. The only person who has is your good-self, your time for which you can claim £18 an hour.

You really must start treating this company with the contempt which they deserve.

Umkomaas

Rhetorical!

If they turned up on my driveway, they'd be going home with a permanent limp and an automatic entitlement to a Blue Badge!

B-i-B notwithstanding.

neil.net

Hi


Thanks for the replies.


I guess I should have described the full term, the term being exclusive rights to park a private motor vehicle.


Thanks again
Neil

Captain_Leaky

If I were in your position and had as strong a case as you do, I'd continue to park there and accrue as many tickets as possible, and I'd also get my fellow neighbors/tenants involved in doing the same too.

I'd make damned sure that together, we'd cost the PPC an absolute fortune in appeals/court fees, and that's before we even got onto expenses for our time involved in doing so.

Theoretically, based upon previous cases, you could make £180 expenses out of each court case they bring. Now how's that for being a moneysavingexpert!!

neil.net

Feel free to ignore (it's long!), but here's what I plan on submitting to POLA, unfortunately I lack any previous residential cases to refer:




In relation to the above parking charge notice issued by UKPC, I appeal the charge of the following three main points:

• No genuine contract existed as authorisation by the managing agent is not compliant with the terms of my resident’s leasehold
• Due to UKPC’s terms, the charge is sought by way of damages but does not represent actual damages
• The operation in the particular carpark is not BPA Code of Practice compliant and the charge is therefore based on UKPC’s own assertions.

Not a genuine contract - lacks proper intention and consideration, conflicts with leasehold rights and is not entirely within the scope of good estate management:





The Particulars and Part 3, Paragraph 11 of The First Schedule of the leasehold I own grant “exclusive rights/the right to exclusive use of the Parking Space shown” (copy of lease and plan submitted as evidence). Whilst the Lessor or Management Company (XXXX XXXX act as an agent for the Management Company) may allocate another space, the same exclusive rights would still apply, therefore exclusive rights to parking a private motor vehicle are uniformly provided by the lease. Paragraph 8.4 of the Provisos section of the lease does give the Management Company the ability to impose or amend the Regulations of the lease, but only in so far that it is within good estate management and does not conflict with the Lease. The parking enforcement in question is in direct conflict with the mentioned rights. I should note here that the Regulations are a specific part of the leasehold document in addition to the main covenants/terms/conditions of the lease.





The parking enforcement operation aims to create a contract between UKPC and myself. However, if I wish to practice my rights to park a private vehicle I am forced into agreeing to the contractual terms, it therefore lacks intention required under UK contract law. Nothing is offered to me in return for agreeing to the contract (since the right to park is already established and UKPC cannot guarantee a parking space/that the deterrent will work), it therefore also lacks consideration required under UK contract law. If I do not wish to agree to the contract, I can of course choose not to use my parking space, however, this would prevent me from practicing my leasehold rights and therefore conflict with the lease. Also, the scheme itself is based on residents requiring and displaying permits. Since the definition of a permit is to officially allow a course of action and the course of action in this instance is granted by the lease, this aspect of the parking enforcement scheme also conflicts with the rights granted in the lease, as to be without a permit suggests the right does not exist.





The contract itself is not an extension to the Regulations contained in the lease as evidenced by the fact that the agent for the Management Company have already indicated that all terms and related communication are the responsibility of UKPC (email 17/02/2014 submitted as evidence). In addition, this stance in itself represents poor estate management as under the “Covenants of the Lessor” section on page 7 of lease it is the Management Company’s responsibility to ensure compliance of any regulations.





Failure to apply good estate management also relates to the practical operation of the scheme as it is unfair on residents (who it should be benefiting) versus visitors without a permit. This is because a warden only visits at random intervals throughout a twenty-four hour period. Since residents are likely to park for longer periods than someone visiting a resident or making use of the local amenities, a resident who accidentally neglects to display a permit is more likely to be issued a parking charge notice. I myself parked at 18:00 but did not receive the parking charge notice until approximately 12:30 the following day. I have submitted photos of vehicles that have used the car park and not received a parking charge notice. As per their website, UKPC offer a self-ticketing service whereby the site is monitored by those who have the right to the car park (e.g. landowners, residents) and evidence of infringements are forwarded to UKPC who the deal with any infringements. Such a scheme is suggested where sensitivities may exist, it would enable continuous monitoring and would avoid any infringements being missed by the warden due to periodic inspections. No consideration of this was put forward to residents in the initial survey of opinions (email 17/02/2014). This method would have also been a better approach to estate management as it would enable identification of infringements between warden visits (e.g. if a resident should return home to find their allocated space has been occupied for a short period of time).





An additional point of conflict is with paragraph 21 of the Third Schedule of the lease which only permits the Flat for residential use. However, UKPC are a for-profit commercial organisation who have been allowed to establish a site of operation for their business interests that will be used directly to generate revenues for their principle business interest. Since this is private residential land, this is also morally questionable, particularly as it risks damaging residents rights as previously stated. Initial communication (email 17/02/2014) from XXXX XXXX states this is how UKPC make their money.





I appreciate that the managing agent must take actions to enforce proper parking, but that does not give exemption from rights and/or terms of leasehold. Also, the managing agent seems to lack a solid basis for enforcement of the scheme. Their communication with me (email 26/11/2015) states they believe the scheme to be based on the same fundamentals as parking in a council pay and display carpark, even though ticketing of such carparks is based on the Traffic Management Act 2004 for Civil Parking Enforcement and there is no inherent right for anyone to park a vehicle in such a car park. When submitting the initial appeal to UKPC, only the managing agents opinion (UKPC letter 11/03/2015) was taken into account, no evidence was given to establish their actual ability to enforce such a regulation in line with the terms of the lease. No formal consultation was undertaken with residents, only an informal online survey to which the information given differs from the actual regulations (email 17/02/2014) particularly in terms of the charges and number of permits that would be issued. Also, some responders to the survey would have little direct impact as they may be landlords and not residents.





Another point of failure to apply good estate management relates to the fact that the signage of the particular carpark in question does not comply with BPA Code of Practice standards (photos submitted as evidence). Whilst it is fact that non-compliance itself is not grounds for appeal, the only way to ascertain if the signage is appropriate and carried out in line with good estate management would be to refer to an independent third party perspective. Paragraph 18.2 of the BPA Code of Practice requires that a sign be placed at the entrance to the car park indicating that it is controlled and that terms apply. Whilst it does provide for impracticalities of this, such impracticalities do not apply to this car park; the entrance is clearly defined, there is a fence that can and has been used for signage closer to the entrance, the sign currently out of sight of persons who may/do park on the entrance driveway, located within proximity of public footpath lighting but such lighting does not fall on the sign meaning it may go un noticed at night even with car headlights (due to height/field of vision). Paragraph 18.10 requires that at least one sign can be read without need to leave the vehicle. Only two signs have any lighting cast upon them at night; one is two far from the access way to be read from a car in any lighting condition (access is restricted by parking spaces, must be read “on foot”) and the other relies on street lighting that does not cast sufficient light at night. All other signs detailing terms are unlit and access in car would be difficult due to the signs being beyond parking spaces. This requirement is for the benefit of disabled drivers, but applying different standards to different users would be inconsistent and unfair. Appendix B of the BPA Code of Practice suggests reflective materials be use where lighting of signs is an issue. The signs installed are not reflective in nature. The signs also contain information relating to UKPC’s membership of the BPA Code of Practice, this implies increased authority to the terms which may motivate payment of the parking charge. Such credence does not exist since the signs do not comply with BPA Code of Practice standards. All residents were informed of the outline terms of parking by XXXX XXXX (email 17/02/2014 and 26/11/2015) but the specifics are only dealt with on the signs. Also, requiring residents to be held to a different method of notification of the terms would be inconsistent and therefore unfair.





Good estate management would to have allowed for genuine errors by residents, whereby the charge could be cancelled, since this scheme should seek to protect them first. It may be argued by UKPC that this would be impractical in terms of their procedures and costs, however, it is not up to UKPC to dictate how the site should be run and instead XXXX XXXX a should seek to implement a pragmatic approach that will not in any way be to the detriment of residents who own appropriate rights to park a vehicle and pay management charges for its maintenance and continued use. None of the charges go towards to the residential management fees fund (17/02/2014), even though improper parking is an infringement on residents. Whilst the parking charges could be construed as UKPC’s engagement fee, if charges are levied against drivers it would be because the parking enforcement hasn’t fulfilled its objectives and therefore a fee is being paid for a service that has not been successful and the fee only contributes to UKPC’s pursuance of the charge for their own benefit and does not compensate residents. In the initial email to residents (17/02/2014), XXXX XXXX state that it is “not the responsibility of XXXX to police the car parks”, yet they have implemented a service that does just that without considering how to reconcile the positive and negative effects this may have on residents (e.g. in the instance of genuine errors committed by a resident) and their initial email (17/02/2014) regarding opinions states that the adopted method would be intrusive. The previous mentioned self-ticketing scheme would have removed these problems. Also, UKPC do offer (per their website) schemes whereby a rebate can be made and so consideration should also have been given to this with UKPC or other such service providers.





The fee sought is damages yet does not reflect true damages:





A parking “charge” would suggest that anyone may park so long as they are willing to pay a fee. This is not the case since the carpark is private for residents only and each space is allocated within the terms of the lease. Also, as a resident I have purchased the right to park and therefore any additional charge specifically to be able to park a vehicle would be in conflict with my lease. The notices on display (pictures submitted as evidence) and the communication from the managing agent state that a parking charge notice will be issued for failure to comply with the stated terms, a charge levied for breach of terms of a contract constitutes damages, a standard fee of £100 discounted to £60 for early payment is not a true reflection of damages. XXXX XXXX has introduced the scheme to discourage improper parking, the charge can also act as a penalty.





Parking within a marked space without a permit, in any instance, does not cause any damages to UKPC, damages are only caused to the landowner and/or resident. The charge UKPC levy relates to their pursuance of their charge and to generate a commercial return to the organisation. Any initial set up costs (signs, permit printing etc.) would be incurred anyway and in this instance were paid for from the estate service charge funds (email 17/02/2014), even though UKPC stand to gain from such an operation.





The charge of £100/£60 is not a true reflection of costs incurred by UKPC in this instance as the costs they incur are not as a direct result of my parking and/or failure to display a permit. The costs of employing a warden to visit and inspect the carpark would be incurred by UKPC regardless of whether or not I have properly or improperly parked in the carpark. As is the nature of costs of any organisation, other costs associated with operating the scheme (e.g. office administration) will be incurred by UKPC anyway and will not be affected by their parking enforcement activities. Since UKPC is a for-profit organisation, the £100/£60 charge must also include a mark-up to enable the profit to be made. Since every case involving the issue of a parking charge will vary, costs of administering individual parking charge notices and costs of pursuing the person who is liable will also differ. As an example, the charge is reduced to £60 if paid within fourteen days of the parking charge notice being issued. The remaining £40 will be reapplied after fourteen days even though additional charges to UKPC will also vary; if DVLA information is required a fee of £2.50 will be paid, if an appeal is made to POLA and additional charge is also made (£27) yet the fee would revert to £100 whether or not a POPLA appeal was made and remains at £100 if a POPLA appeal is not allowed. Whilst costs could be apportioned evenly across tickets in order for UKPC to recoup their costs and make a profit, this would also indicate that each charge is not in relation to true damages/direct costs incurred. Also, the £100/£60 charge seems to be generic; it conforms to maximum permitted by the BPA Code of Practice, the car park signs are generic (as they include terms of non-relevance to the car par, e.g. blue badge bays).











Non-Compliance with BPA Code of Practice





UKPC has stated that the parking charge notice was issued correctly as there was sufficient signage of the terms and conditions. Non-compliance with the BPA Code of Practice itself is not a ground for appeal, however, the only way to ascertain if the signage was adequate is to refer to an independent third party such as the BPA Code of Practice.





The issues surrounding the signage have already been stated under the first basis of this appeal, to summarise:





- Paragraph 18.2 of the BPA Code of Practice requires a sign be placed at the entrance, there are not reasons why this could not be and the current location is inadequate in terms of visibility





- Paragraph 18.10 of the BPA Code of Practice requires that at least one sign can be read without need to leave the vehicle, this is not the case due to access and/or visibility





- Use of the BPA Code of Practice logo alongside the terms suggests they are sanctioned and enforceable, which is misleading, particularly as Paragraph 18.8 of the BPA Code of Practice states this means the operator is “legitimate” and that the site is “run properly” – something that cannot be guaranteed simply by using the logo





- Residents have been sent details of the terms, but these were only in outline and requiring residents to understand the terms by another method would be inconsistent and unfair



Thanks in advance...

Marktheshark

I would add as POINT 1 as Leasholder I hold a lease granting exclusive rights to park on the land.
As Leaseholder with granted Exclusive rights I retain Locus Standi of my lease and thus decide who parks what, who pays what and who runs their business on my lease holding land not a Parking firm, I have NO CONTRACT with therefore refute any contract they claim to hold as it is not authorised or made with or by the leaseholder, which is ME.

Let them rule on the lease issue first.

neil.net

Hi


Thanks Mark, I'll move it around and add a little.


Thanks

The_Deep

Tracey Kiss v UKPC

worth a read

http://www.tracykiss.com/product-reviews/my-ukpc-parking-charge/

neil.net

Some interesting point, I'm particularly interested in UKPCs tactics to encourage their wardens to issue tickets! Just need to think of a sensible/tactful way to express these issues as poor site management in a manor the assessor will take seriously...

Thanks again

Umkomaas

'Give the sites a good banging' - read here about how UKPC 'motivated' their staff to earn their keep, as reported by an ex-employee.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2711460/Give-sites-good-banging-The-wardens-3k-bonuses-urged-bosses-issue-scores-parking-tickets-day.html

Seemingly rather keen to hit cancer patients undergoing outpatient chemotherapy treatment, where their minds were (rather unsurprisingly) far from concerned about a parking time limit, when they had a much more pressing time limit - that of personal survival and life expectancy.

Scumsters!