parking permit taken away

Herzlos

rr2 wrote: »

It's a guy in a van giving out the tickets; maybe someone should give him a ticket for stopping on the road!

Ah it's a parking womble. If no-one pays (or at least enough people appeal to cause them to lose money) up they'll stop sending him after a while as they've still got his salary to pay even if he generates them no money.

You can always stop and ask him what to do and see if he trips himself up.

MothballsWallet

Or get the van's reg number and report it to the police as a suspicious vehicle?

bazster

Seems to me that the permits in your possession are pretty compelling evidence of the existence of a contract between you and the builder permitting you to park on the road. I'd write to the builder stating that you expect this contract to be complied with, and should they breach it you will hold them liable for your losses i.e. You will expect them to pay these invoices from the PPC.

DandelionPatrol

bazster wrote: »

Seems to me that the permits in your possession are pretty compelling evidence of the existence of a contract between you and the builder permitting you to park on the road. I'd write to the builder stating that you expect this contract to be complied with, and should they breach it you will hold them liable for your losses i.e. You will expect them to pay these invoices from the PPC.

Hmm. That is potentially a long and difficult road.

Unless OP paid for the permits, they are far from evidence of a contract.

What might be useful is if OP, on hearing from the solicitor that parking was not permitted was then induced to complete the purchase of the property by the offer of permits.

Perhaps OP would tell us how he came by the permits?

Marktheshark

Trouble is we are on the corner of what could be a turning point in parking invoices.
Beavis goes against him and you can bet your wallet it will be applied by all county courts to all parking cases with a huge rubber stamp.
capita are in on this and a lot of very important people have a lot of money to make in shares if this goes their way.

The OP needs a solution that stops the tickets and quickly, they could soon be on the end of a court case for many thousands of pounds.
making extra parking spot might not "look nice" but fighting a £100 ticket each day 7 days a week will not be nice either.

Sacking the agents for bringing the scam upon residents would be second on my list, it is their fault people are having to dig up gardens to park on, not to mention the drop in value, who is going to want to buy in to that ?

rr2

Marktheshark wrote: »

Trouble is we are on the corner of what could be a turning point in parking invoices.
Beavis goes against him and you can bet your wallet it will be applied by all county courts to all parking cases with a huge rubber stamp.
capita are in on this and a lot of very important people have a lot of money to make in shares if this goes their way.

The OP needs a solution that stops the tickets and quickly, they could soon be on the end of a court case for many thousands of pounds.
making extra parking spot might not "look nice" but fighting a £100 ticket each day 7 days a week will not be nice either.

Sacking the agents for bringing the scam upon residents would be second on my list, it is their fault people are having to dig up gardens to park on, not to mention the drop in value, who is going to want to buy in to that ?

The original permits were handed to myself by a member of the builders sales team. For this year they sent a new set through the post.

I've spoken to a few neighbours this morning and they are also very annoyed by this situation.

I'm going to call the management company tomorrow and express our thoughts on the situation. I'll let them know, if they don't do anything about it we will be voting to get rid of them.

I've also heard that some of the residents in the apartments have been left with no parking. Some apartments come with a numbered space, some residents were only given permits for road parking (not on our road) so i'm sure they would like to see the back of this company.

bazster

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

Hmm. That is potentially a long and difficult road.

Unless OP paid for the permits, they are far from evidence of a contract.

Yes they are. Doesn't need to be evidence beyond reasonable doubt. The OP can state that the the vendor or his agent or solicitor or whoever it was told him that he could park on the road, thereby entering into a contract for the same, and as evidence of this here are the permits I was given. The OP might also be able to get neighbours to write statements that they were told the same thing.

So the OP has evidence beyond his own word for the existence of this contract. The vendor has nothing but a flat denial. Balance of probabilities...

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

What might be useful is if OP, on hearing from the solicitor that parking was not permitted was then induced to complete the purchase of the property by the offer of permits.

Perhaps OP would tell us how he came by the permits?

That would be useful.

bazster

rr2 wrote: »

The original permits were handed to myself by a member of the builders sales team. For this year they sent a new set through the post.

Bingo.

rr2 wrote: »

I've spoken to a few neighbours this morning and they are also very annoyed by this situation.

Bingo again. So you each write a witness statement saying that you were told by the vendor that you could park on the road and were given permits by the vendor. You each give all the other concerned neighbours a copy of your witness statement, so you each finish up with a full set. Then you do as I suggested: write to the vendor stating that he entered into a contract whereby you are permitted to park on the road, that you have ample evidence for this, that you expect the contract to be adhered to, and you will hold him liable for your losses if the contract is breached (as indeed appears to be the case).

rr2 wrote: »

I'm going to call the management company tomorrow and express our thoughts on the situation. I'll let them know, if they don't do anything about it we will be voting to get rid of them.

I've also heard that some of the residents in the apartments have been left with no parking. Some apartments come with a numbered space, some residents were only given permits for road parking (not on our road) so i'm sure they would like to see the back of this company.

See above re all of you writing witness statements describing what you were promised, and all of you demanding that the promise (i.e. the contract) be adhered to.

DandelionPatrol

bazster wrote: »

Unless OP paid for the permits, they are far from evidence of a contract.

Yes they are.

On their own, they are nothing. If the builder claims that they were a good will gesture, then there is no contract. Surely you know that for a contract there must be 'consideration'.

bazster wrote: »

Doesn't need to be evidence beyond reasonable doubt. The OP can state that the the vendor or his agent or solicitor or whoever it was told him that he could park on the road, thereby entering into a contract for the same, and as evidence of this here are the permits I was given. The OP might also be able to get neighbours to write statements that they were told the same thing.

So the OP has evidence beyond his own word for the existence of this contract. The vendor has nothing but a flat denial. Balance of probabilities...

.... And even then, if OP paid an amount, they are only a contract for a licence for however long - it looks like a year from OP's latest post. So that contract is fulfilled, nothing left to sue on. In fact, a time limited licence is often a device used to prevent the licensee gaining a property right, which is what OP really needs.

I'll say it again What might be useful is if OP, on hearing from the solicitor that parking was not permitted was then induced to complete the purchase of the property by the offer of permits.

OP says
The original permits were handed to myself by a member of the builders sales team. For this year they sent a new set through the post.
It could be useful to know what negotiations led to the permits and why they were issued rather than sticking to the 'No Parking; conditions in the deeds.

The useful avenues as far as I can see at this point are

• Evidence that parking was promised as an inducement to buy - or to overcome reluctance because of the solicitor's advice
• Challenge to the legitimacy or the count of the poll whereby the residents voted for no parking [a rejection of the poll signed by 50% plus 1 of the residents would be quite definitive]
• A viable threat to throw the management company out

Any research which can show a link between the parking company and the management company would be good to discredit the poll, unless this was conducted independently

Herzlos

Surely if the permits were known about in advance (were they?) then buying the property in the first place would constitute consideration? Admittedly, they might not be a legal expectation for it to be permanent without some sort of upkeep fee.