pcn parking in my own space- lease wording advice plse

sfa1

hi so a couple of days ago originally posted the thread 'PCN for parking in bay i own- help please on legal position'.

started new thread as ive checked the lease now..

in short, bought a leashold flat 8 years ago. ppc borught in requirements to show permit badges displayed 2 years ago. ppc is secureaspace.

I got a ticket as my badge fell off the windscreen.

appeal currently in with ppc, no reply at day 24.

if rejected, will appeal to POPLA based on this not being a requirement of the original lease...

so, firstly, I checked the lease and the 'property' refers to the apartment and the 'parking space.. only edged red'.. so I definitely own the lease on my parking bay.

secondly only wording I could find which may be relevant is as follows:

'to obey such traffic regulations as the landlord may from time to time impose (including without limitation the designation of roads as one way streets and parking restrictions) for the orderly of management of the estate

to observe all further or other rules and regulations made at any time and from time to time by the landlord in addition to or in substitution for the foregoing rules and regulation or any of them which the landlord may reasonably deem necessary for the safety care or cleanliness of the estate or any part thereof or for securing the comfort and convenience of all tenants with the estate including (without limitation) and rules and regulations imposed in relation to the use of the leisure centre and the other amenity areas.'

firstl paragraph is regarding traffic not specifically parked vehicle within designated areas so I don't think its of relevance.

second, permit badges don't effect safety, care, cleanliness, or comfort and convenience..apart from my own!!

so based on the above I would say I have strong grounds for appeal

1. as there is no such requirement defined in the original lease and I haven't agreed to the new terms set out by the ppc

2. this references the landlord, so there is no transfer of duty to the ppc- or which they will be able to prove.

any views?

bod1467

Please PM a board guide (e.g. Crabman) to get this thread merged with your original. You should not have started a new thread - merely added this to your original.

The_Deep

... to observe all further or other rules and regulations made at any time and from time to time by the landlord in addition to or in substitution for the foregoing rules and regulation or any of them which the landlord may reasonably deem necessary for the safety care or cleanliness of the estate ...

Inflicting a PPC who wants £100 when your permit falls off the windscreen, and no-one has lost a penny, is not, in my opinion reasonable behaviour, especially if your lease grants you "quiet enjoyment" of your demised property. They may well be breaching your leasehold right under the Landlord and Tenant Acts.

Guys_Dad

Typical catch all landlord rights, perhaps not the best wording. Why did the landlord bring in a PPC 2 years ago? Was there an AGM where leaseholders made complaints about fly parkers?

Of course it is worth appealing and certainly not one to be paid. Regrettably, when words like "reasonable" enter t&c, lawyers make money in court.

But well done for providing the lease t&c.

Who are the managing agents and is the landowner a 3rd party or det up by the residents?

The_Deep

My understanding of the concept of reasonability is that which a reasonable man would understand or expect. Does anyone think it is reasonable for a PPC to demand £100 mwhen a permit slips from a windscreen?

sfa1

thanks for replies.

to clarify, I think the ppc has been on site for a number of years, but 2 years ago (and I think as a result of not be able to clamp anymore), they put up new signage and sent permit badges to displayed in cars.

the managing agent is comer property management. and comer are the free holders.

having seen others responses to POPLA, I would think I have a strong appeal, if not for what the landlord can amend, then for the fact that there is no transfer of rights or agreement between the freeholder and the PPC. the PPC have a contract which was awarded to them by the management company..or am I wrong?

Guys_Dad

sfa1 wrote: »

thanks for replies.

to clarify, I think the ppc has been on site for a number of years, but 2 years ago (and I think as a result of not be able to clamp anymore), they put up new signage and sent permit badges to displayed in cars.

the managing agent is comer property management. and comer are the free holders.

having seen others responses to POPLA, I would think I have a strong appeal, if not for what the landlord can amend, then for the fact that there is no transfer of rights or agreement between the freeholder and the PPC. the PPC have a contract which was awarded to them by the management company..or am I wrong?

You might like to look here http://www.popla.org.uk/AnnualReport.htm Look at the 2014 report, bottom of page 23. I think you will find that the adjudicators come down on the PPCs' side more often than not on cases such as yours. I believe that there are some in the POPLA DECISIONS thread going back some months.

sfa1

ok so im at day 28. as per the automated email from the ppc, I should have received a reply by now if they needed more time they would have contacted me..

what can I do if I don't receive a reply within 35 days?

legally, is there a stature of limitations?

Umkomaas

sfa1 wrote: »

ok so im at day 28. as per the automated email from the ppc, I should have received a reply by now if they needed more time they would have contacted me..

1. what can I do if I don't receive a reply within 35 days?

2. legally, is there a stature of limitations?

1. Wait to see what their next move might be, or, you write and state that as they've not replied in time you deem the matter closed, or you write a complaint to the BPA.

2. Yes - 6 years to pursue any alleged civil debt.

sfa1

thanks for the quick response..

6 years wow! no wonder these guys go into this 'business' such a poor framework of regulation.. they must have loved it up until a few years ago, clamping all over the place