Charge for parking on my own estate

shadowen999

First a little background

I am a leaseholder of a flat on an estate which has a small common area of parking places.

Some years ago the freeholder (who manage the whole estate) contracted PCM to control parking in that area. As far as I’m concerned it’s a contract which brings zero benefit to residents because most of the parking in the street cannot legally be controlled, leaving a very small number of spaces which apparently can, and with every resident receiving two parking permits, there must be around a hundred permits for something like 8 spaces (I’m not even certain of how many spaces), which are at the end of a cul-de-sac. The net result is that it doesn’t free up spaces for residents, but is a sword of damocles hanging over their head should they make a mistake.

Which is what happened to me a couple of months ago, I returned home late, parked in one of those spaces, and didn’t notice that the permit on my dashboard had slipped off out of view (I hadn’t stuck it on the window because last time I did that the permit went with the car when I got rid of it, and they charge ten pounds for a replacement, they really don’t miss a trick to extort money from you).

Anyway, I received a ticket, and foolishly used the “appeal” service, they stated that they didn’t contest that I possessed a permit, but said they were still applying the charge (£100, reduced to £60 for early payment).

Having looked into the law on the matter, and read a few threads on this and other forums, I concluded that the charge was not valid and decided not to pay, I wrote a letter to the freeholder stating that I did not believe ithe amount charged in any way reflected any cost or loss of income to them (bearing in mind that by issuing me with two permits they effectively gave me permission to park two vehicles in that area indefinitely), I invited them to send me an itemised breakdown if they disagreed, I also asked if they intended to give express permission to PCM to pursue the matter through the courts.

The freeholder responded with

“Thank you for your letter regarding the parking ticket.
!
We would not consider revoking this fine, for as per the signage, permits must be displayed in this area of the estate, if you wish to park your vehicle here.
!
If you wish to appeal the fine please contact PCM directly regarding this, as we won’t become involved in any disputes where permits have been displayed incorrectly.”

Now, from my point of view this is an appalling attitude, since in my opinion the freeholder is supposed to be acting for the benefit of the residents, not attempting to extract money from them, but unfortunately whilst it is undoubtedly immoral, it is probably not illegal.

Recently I received a letter from Debt Recovery Plus limited saying the matter had been passed on to them, and demanding £160. Now I know from forum posts that Debt Recovery Plus are a bunch of charlatans, as is the whole industry. I notice that on their webpage advertising their services to parking control companies they say they have ‘a dedicated “appeals service”’…. I think the fact that they choose to quote “appeals service” tells us how much consideration appeals actually get.

So anyway, I was fairly confident of my position, but then I started reading more, and I’m getting a little worried. My position was that I had breached a contract to display a permit, and so they could only charge for incurred losses, however looking at their signage (which I never have before, why would I?.. I have a permit), I would say that they would argue that I entered into a contract to pay them £100 by parking there without a displayed permit I can't find a way to attach a photo of the sign unfortunately.


Having read some of the popla decisions (I left for a pre-arranged holiday not long after receiving the ticket, and didn’t find out about poppa before I returned, so missed the 28 day appeal period with them), I fear this might be upheld in a court, for example #3 on the popla decisions thread on this forum.

Also, reading the template letters on this and other sites, many of the arguments don’t really apply to me. Ironically I might be in a stronger position if I wasn’t a resident with a permit, I can’t claim ignorance of the existence of restrictions (even if I was not aware of the details), nor question whether they have a contract with the landowner.

One thing I have just noticed though, is that the sign refers to “marked bays” and it really isn’t clear which spaces it applies to, there are no clear markings, if I look carefully I see the remains of some white lines, but I’ve lived her for 15 years and I never noticed them before.

So, what do people here think I should do, has anyone got any experience of this particular sort of situation?

Also, whatever the outcome of this particular case, is there any way I can bring pressure on the freeholder to cancel this contract? As I said I see no benefit to residents, only inconvenience and cost.

Fruitcake

shadowen999 wrote: »

First a little background

I am a leaseholder of a flat on an estate which has a small common area of parking places.

Some years ago the freeholder (who manage the whole estate) contracted PCM to control parking in that area. As far as I’m concerned it’s a contract which brings zero benefit to residents because most of the parking in the street cannot legally be controlled, leaving a very small number of spaces which apparently can, and with every resident receiving two parking permits, there must be around a hundred permits for something like 8 spaces (I’m not even certain of how many spaces), which are at the end of a cul-de-sac. The net result is that it doesn’t free up spaces for residents, but is a sword of damocles hanging over their head should they make a mistake.

Which is what happened to me a couple of months ago, I returned home late, parked in one of those spaces, and didn’t notice that the permit on my dashboard had slipped off out of view (I hadn’t stuck it on the window because last time I did that the permit went with the car when I got rid of it, and they charge ten pounds for a replacement, they really don’t miss a trick to extort money from you).

Anyway, I received a ticket, and foolishly used the “appeal” service, they stated that they didn’t contest that I possessed a permit, but said they were still applying the charge (£100, reduced to £60 for early payment).

Having looked into the law on the matter, and read a few threads on this and other forums, I concluded that the charge was not valid and decided not to pay, I wrote a letter to the freeholder stating that I did not believe ithe amount charged in any way reflected any cost or loss of income to them (bearing in mind that by issuing me with two permits they effectively gave me permission to park two vehicles in that area indefinitely), I invited them to send me an itemised breakdown if they disagreed, I also asked if they intended to give express permission to PCM to pursue the matter through the courts.

The freeholder responded with

“Thank you for your letter regarding the parking ticket.
!
We would not consider revoking this fine, for as per the signage, permits must be displayed in this area of the estate, if you wish to park your vehicle here.
!
If you wish to appeal the fine please contact PCM directly regarding this, as we won’t become involved in any disputes where permits have been displayed incorrectly.”

Now, from my point of view this is an appalling attitude, since in my opinion the freeholder is supposed to be acting for the benefit of the residents, not attempting to extract money from them, but unfortunately whilst it is undoubtedly immoral, it is probably not illegal.

Recently I received a letter from Debt Recovery Plus limited saying the matter had been passed on to them, and demanding £160. Now I know from forum posts that Debt Recovery Plus are a bunch of charlatans, as is the whole industry. I notice that on their webpage advertising their services to parking control companies they say they have ‘a dedicated “appeals service”’…. I think the fact that they choose to quote “appeals service” tells us how much consideration appeals actually get.

So anyway, I was fairly confident of my position, but then I started reading more, and I’m getting a little worried. My position was that I had breached a contract to display a permit, and so they could only charge for incurred losses, however looking at their signage (which I never have before, why would I?.. I have a permit), I would say that they would argue that I entered into a contract to pay them £100 by parking there without a displayed permit I can't find a way to attach a photo of the sign unfortunately.


Having read some of the popla decisions (I left for a pre-arranged holiday not long after receiving the ticket, and didn’t find out about poppa before I returned, so missed the 28 day appeal period with them), I fear this might be upheld in a court, for example #3 on the popla decisions thread on this forum.

Also, reading the template letters on this and other sites, many of the arguments don’t really apply to me. Ironically I might be in a stronger position if I wasn’t a resident with a permit, I can’t claim ignorance of the existence of restrictions (even if I was not aware of the details), nor question whether they have a contract with the landowner.

One thing I have just noticed though, is that the sign refers to “marked bays” and it really isn’t clear which spaces it applies to, there are no clear markings, if I look carefully I see the remains of some white lines, but I’ve lived her for 15 years and I never noticed them before.

So, what do people here think I should do, has anyone got any experience of this particular sort of situation?

Also, whatever the outcome of this particular case, is there any way I can bring pressure on the freeholder to cancel this contract? As I said I see no benefit to residents, only inconvenience and cost.

I would suggest you sit tight and do nothing unless you get a LBCCC or real court papers. You missed the silver bullet that is PoPLA which you would have won, but you will win hands down in court if the PPC try it on.

The_Deep

... you will win hands down in court if the PPC try it on.



Indeed, read this

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=88126

and worry no further.

Marktheshark

Does your lease mention parking ?

shadowen999

Marktheshark wrote: »

Does your lease mention parking ?

Not so far as I've found.

It mentions unrestricted access, but not parking.

The only other relevant seeming clause i've found is

The Landlord shall have power at its discretion to alter the arrangement of the communal facilities PROVIDED THAT after such alteration the access to and amenities of the Premises are not substantially less convenient than before

Which is obviously open to interpretation, personally I find the hassle and worry I've gone through extremely inconvenient, but I suspect it's just wishful thinking that it would be grounds for having PCM's contract with the landlord cancelled

shadowen999

Quick update.

I just received a "Notice of intended court action" from Debt Recovery Plus Ltd.

I'm assuming this is just one more thing for me to ignore? It just seems to be another "pay up now or it'll cost you more" letter.

If I also had the morals of a sewage rat I think I'd start up one of these debt recovery companies myself, as far as I can tell from the wording on their own letters, all DRP actually does is send out a couple of official sounding standard letters, and if the person doesn't pay up, they just hand it all back to the Parking company "with a recommendation to commence court action against you"... and charges the PPC sixty odd quid for it.

What a wheeze!

bod1467

Anything from DRP is just bog paper. Only The PPC (or their solicitor) can take you to court - and before doing so there are certain protocols that must be followed (practice direction on pre-action conduct).

shadowen999

bod1467 wrote: »

Anything from DRP is just bog paper.

I wish they'd use thinner paper then, if I use this I'll be sore for a week.

Only The PPC (or their solicitor) can take you to court - and before doing so there are certain protocols that must be followed (practice direction on pre-action conduct).

Thanks, that's what I thought, I'm just double checking stuff so I don't miss anything.

Redx

DRP = Dont Respond - Period