Please help!! 20+ parking tickets

Herzlos

toddstar wrote: »

yeah, so I wonder why the deeps panties are all twisted up then.

In one of his properties, a family on DSS have more than one car and park in either his tenants allocated (but presumably unused) space or a visitor space, which means he has to park somewhere else when visiting them. Therefore he has an irrational hatred for anyone who has a permit scheme but more than 1 car. People in flats or getting support aren't allowed a car each, apparently.

The_Deep

You already gave us your opinion of the OP, and by contacting her with advice like this amounts to bullying/harassment.



Actually Quentin, she contacted me.


I trust an apology will be forthcoming for your ill-considered assumption.

Quentin

Why do you feel you deserve an apology after sending such ridiculous advice and then wanting us to give you our thoughts on it?


Why even discuss your pm correspondence?

The_Deep

Quentin wrote: »

Why do you feel you deserve an apology after sending such ridiculous advice and then wanting us to give you our thoughts on it?


Because of this ill-considered, inaccurate and insulting post.


by contacting her with advice like this amounts to bullying/harassment ... she should report it to MSE)


Why even discuss your pm correspondence?

there was no pm correspondence, the OP sent me an email, (to which I courteously sreplied).

Why do you not bother to check you posts before pushing the send button Quentin? I believe that others have had cause to admonish you in the past for posting tripe. Time you raised your game my boy.

The_Deep

... No-one has ever reported an issue.


How can you possibly know that?

She's been given 20 invalid invoices due to a petty and invalid infraction.

There is nothing petty about stealing someone else's parking space albeit temporarily

There's no indication here at all that any issue has ever been caused by her parking.


That does not mean that there has not been any

Quote: I have advised her to try to settle out of court with the PPC. I have suggested £500, what do others think?
That's the single most ridiculous suggestion I've ever seen on here,

Really, even more ridiculous than Quentin's recent ill informed rant?

My advice for her is to fight it to court and pay *nothing*.

Fine, you are perfectly entitled to your opinion no matter how dangerous it may be.

Why should she pay £25/ticket?

Because recently Napier took a serial offender to court and he had to pay them circa £800 because his behaviour was deemed to be unreasonable.

What did the parking company do to deserve it?

Absolutely nothing, but a judge may not agree with us.

Apologies OP; The Deep generally gives good advice, but is completely biased when it's related to 'bilking', or anything which offends his rights as a landlord, when then completely blinds him to the fact that the invoices are still utterly unenforceable.

We must agree to differ H, but I thank you for conducting yourself with courtesy and common sense, unlike our friend Quentin, who, unless he apologises, is going to be in for considerable teasing.

Anyway, getting back OT, I was under the mistaken impression that the PPC was PE, as it is not, I think that £500n would be excessive, however, I still think that she should try to settle, she does have 20 parking tickets to her name in a block of flats where she does not appear to have a right to reside.

Guys_Dad

Using someone else's space without permission is not really on. But the person it inconveniences is the party whose space you took. If that person has complained to the MA, then fair enough. I can't see why a PPC or landowner should profit from one tenant using another tenant's space in other circumstances.
But I can not understand why the OP did not knock on a couple of doors to ask permission from other tenants who were not using their spaces. That would seem like common courtesy to me. And if she did and they said "OK", why is she not getting them to back her up with the PPC.

To simply use another's space - they might have been expecting a visitor with a car, for example - without getting the OK is a bit rude.

lyndsay1989

There are approximately 80 apartments in the building and every single one was issued a permit just before the parking restrictions came in to place. Based on the number of cars in the car park, I would estimate around 30 are being used. That leaves 50 apartments who do not use their spaces. I also have no idea which 50 flats do not have a permit and would think that it very inappropriate to knock on every flat and ask people if they use their space and if not can I rent it. I have posted up signs in the communal area (another one just last night) so hopefully I will get a response before the sign is inevitably taken down again.

Herzlos

So it's almost impossible for you to have caused any inconvenience or loss? I mean, it'd take all 50 of them having visitors at once.
I'm also assuming that the spaces aren't numbered, since you don't know who is/isn't using them?

In which case you're pretty well set for arguing no loss - no-one was deprived of a space at any point.

The_Deep

But every time she parks in a space not assigned to her partner she is depriving the rightful owner of its use. It is to prevent that that the MA has brought in a PPC. The fact that they msy not be using it that day is immaterial.


Quentin said that I did not understand the ethos of this board. Once again he could not be more wrong. In most cases I will support the bilker and the trespasser against the PPC, but in this case, my sympathies are very much with the MA.

Herzlos

The_Deep wrote: »

But every time she parks in a space not assigned to her partner she is depriving the rightful owner of its use. It is to prevent that that the MA has brought in a PPC. The fact that they msy not be using it that day is immaterial.

Who is the rightful owner of the 50 empty, unmarked spaces? The landowner or the 50 tenants with passes but no cars?

If it was numbered spaces or near/at capacity I'd agree with you, but in this case it isn't. No-one is being deprived of anything, unless for some reason all 50 permits-without-cars residents have visitors at once, something that is unlikely to happy since the car park is always at under half capacity.

The PPC was brought in to prevent non-residents using the car park all day, and managed to scare them off. They weren't brought in to take a resident to court for parking. In such an under-utilized car park they should at least provide the option for some residents to purchase 2 permits.


Morality aside, focusing purely on the contract law and ignoring the long suffering MA, the invoices are entirely unenforcable. You know that as well as I do.

So whilst we can advice the OP to resolve the parking issue (which she has done by parking elsewhere), we shouldn't be treating the actual invoicing issue any differently to anyone else here. Just because she's technically in the wrong doesn't mean she actually owes these parasites £2000 + costs (20 tickets @ £100 each). Any loss (of which there was none) should be reimbursed to the landowner, and the PPC should have attempted to resolve the issue without issuing invalid invoices like confetti. Do you disagree?