Secure-A-Space, 5 PCN's in 17 days in allocated parking space.

Coupon-mad

BiscuitMuncher wrote: »

redacted initial appeal to PCN No. 1

Dear Sir,

I am the current tenant of Flat No. xxx, xxxxxxxx, xxxxx along with my (family member) XYZ (both our names appear on the rental agreement).

XYZ is the registered keeper and driver/owner of the vehicle, xxxxxxxx. He purchased the car last week and was unaware of any regulation to show a permit.

BiscuitMuncher

So, who was the rejection letter issued to by name?

You, Biscuit Muncher, the tenant (not the driver)

or

the 'driver/owner' XYZ?

BiscuitMuncher

@patman99.... I've made a list of dates for submissions for initial appeals and PoPLA appeals.
PCN 1 & 2 PoPLA appeals due in a few days time. Day 25 for initial appeal to PCN's 3 & 4 due in a few days too, and for PCN 5 in a bout a week. I'll use the standard template on this forum for these.

I'll email the LL now but as mentioned, he did say he had no idea a permit was needed.

@Coupon-mad....PDF rejection letter is addressed to XYZ, but was emailed to me (BiscuitMuncher)

The_Deep

I very much doubt that one is needed, only if it is specifically mentioned in his lease will it be. Blanket references to MAs being able to impose reasonable conditions can be claffenged on the basis of unreasonable behaviour by the PPCs, who nearly all behave unreasonably.

Coupon-mad

BiscuitMuncher wrote: »

@Coupon-mad....PDF rejection letter is addressed to XYZ, but was emailed to me (BiscuitMuncher)

Oh dear, you appear to have named the driver. POFA arguments in the bin, then.

BiscuitMuncher

Unfortunately, I didn't find this forum until after the first two appeals.

Obviously I have no idea who the driver was for the subsequent PCN's

BiscuitMuncher

First of all, thanks to everybody who has contributed comments and suggestions so far.

Below is a final draft of my PoPLA appeal which I have amended as per the suggestions of Umkomaas.

I need to submit my PoPLA appeals to PCN 1 & PCN 2 tomorrow so the latest time I can do more edits would be tomorrow morning before I go to work.



Dear PoPLA Assessor,

re:PoPLA case verification code xxxxxxxxx

This appeal is made as the legal tenant of the premises who has every right to park in the premises’ allocated parking bay. The Assured Shorthold Tenancy (AST) Agreement, which is signed by the Tenant and the Landlord, is the supreme legal document in all matters relating to the premises including parking requirements.
There are no restrictions in place in the context of displaying parking permits. No third party can can adjust or amend the legal agreement with the landlord.

A summary of the main points of appeal is as follows:

1. No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with motorists.

2. No contract between Secure-A-Space Ltd. and the driver.

3. The Vehicle belongs to a genuine resident with full rights to park in allocated parking space.

4. Signage within the parking area is misleading and ambiguous.

5. No genuine pre-estimate of loss.


1. No standing or authority to pursue charges nor form contracts with motorists.

I believe that this Private Parking Company has no proprietary interest in the land, so they have no standing to make contracts with motorists or tenants in their own right, nor to pursue charges for breach in their own name. In the absence of such title, Secure-A-Space Ltd. must have assignment of rights from the landowner to pursue charges for breach in their own right, including at court level. A commercial site agent for the true landholder has no automatic standing nor authority in their own right which would meet the strict requirements of section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice.

Therefore, Secure-A-Space Ltd. should provide strict proof to PoPLA and the appellant with an un-redacted, contemporaneous copy of the contract between Secure-A-Space Ltd. and the landowner, not just another agent, management company or other non-landholder, because it will still not be clear that the landowner has authorised the necessary rights to Secure-A-Space Ltd.

2. No contract between Secure-A-Space Ltd. and the driver.

As per the Tenancy Agreement signed and agreed to in September 2015, there is no mention of Secure-A-Space Ltd., nor any other parking company or third party to manage the car park in question. There is no mention of requiring to display a permit to park in the space provided with the property. The vehicle was parked while observing the requirements of the property tenancy Agreement, therefore, there is no contract between the keeper and Secure-A-Space Ltd.

The Tenancy Agreement signed between the Landlord and the Tenant did not warn of any parking charges nor drew attention to any further terms which could apply to the contract at the time the tenancy commenced. It is too late to bring other terms into a contract (not even those on a sign) if these terms were not part of the agreement made. They were not. The tenants were not made aware that a Parking Charge or ’fine' of £100 could possibly be levied for any supposed breach of any parking rules.

3. Vehicle belongs to a genuine resident with full rights to park in allocated parking space without the need of a permit.

The appellant is a co-signatory to the Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreement. Clause 15 of the AST, signed and agreed to in September 2015, states:

15. Cars and Parking

15.1 To park a private vehicle only at the Premises.

15.2 To park in the car parking space, garage or driveway allocated to the Premises, if applicable.

15.3 To keep any garage, driveway or parking space free of oil and to pay for the removal and cleaning of any spillage caused
by a vehicle of the Tenant, his family, contractors or visitors.

15.4 To remove all vehicles belonging to the tenant, his family or visitors at the end of the Tenancy.

15.5 Not to park any vehicle at the Premises that is not in road worthy condition and fully taxed.

This extract of the AST is attached with this PoPLA appeal.

The Tenancy Agreement makes no mention of the need for a parking permit being required or the need for a parking permit to be displayed.

No mention was made of a parking permit being required or the need for a parking permit to be displayed by the letting agent or in any welcome pack literature and the appellant did not have sight of any Management Company terms and conditions when the tenancy started.

The Management Company concierge never made it known that a parking permit was required or the need for a parking permit to be displayed until after receipt of the Parking Charge Notice when asked by the registered keeper.

The Landlord stated in an email dated 30/11/15 “There is a parking space for the flat which you should be able to use for free.”

The reason landowners employ parking companies is to stop non-residents abusing the car park in question, that is, to prevent unauthorised parking.
Genuine residents should not be deterred from using the parking spaces provided to their properties. However, in this case where the compound is gated and only accessible with a key fob the need for a parking company is totally redundant as all residents have their own numbered spaces.

4. Signage within the parking area is misleading and ambiguous.

The signage does not comply with the BPA CoP para 18 and Appendix B (please see attached photo no. X)

The registered keeper interpreted the signage to mean that the parking area or zone is constantly patrolled and monitored 24 hours per day for the protection of the residents vehicles and to stop any theft or vandalism occurring. However, this is not true, an attendant who is not site based visits the compound numerous times per week only to check that permits are displayed and to issue so called Penalty Charge Notices if they are not.

In the rejection of appeal letter from Secure-A-Space Ltd. they state that “the vehicle parked without a valid permit in extremely close proximity to one of the numerous contractural agreement signs”. The signage is difficult to read from the location of the registered keeper’s parking bay which is more than 4 metres away from the nearest sign. Only upon close inspection is the sign fully legible. (or.. Only upon close inspection the terms of the sign fully legible?)

5. No genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The charge of £100 is punitive and unreasonable, contravening the BPA Code of Practice section 19. Secure-A-Space Ltd. must, therefore, be required to explain their 'charge' by providing PoPLA with a detailed financial appraisal which evidences the genuine pre-estimated amount of loss in this particular car park for this alleged contravention. However, with or without any 'breach', the cost of parking enforcement would still have been the same and there was no loss or damage caused so Secure-A-Space Ltd. have no cause of action to pursue this charge. The fact that the recommended maximum level in section 19.5 (“we would not expect this amount to be more than £100”) has not been exceeded merely means that the operator does not have to justify the amount in advance. In no way does it absolve the operator of their responsibility to base the figure on a genuine pre-estimate of loss, or to comply with section 19.6 which states that the charge “cannot be punitive or unreasonable”.

Secure-A-Space Ltd. cannot include their operational tax-deductible business running costs - for example, costs of signage, staffing and dealing later with the appeals, or hefty write-off costs. This would not represent a loss resulting from a breach of the alleged parking contract and in any case I believe Secure A Space are likely to be paid by their client, xxxxxxx Property Management - so any such payment income must be balanced within the breakdown Secure-A-Space Ltd. supply and must be shown in the contract.

No comparison can be made between the ParkingEye Ltd. v. Beavis case. There is a clear distinction and difference between the Beavis circumstances of a free retail car park where turnover of vehicles was deemed essential to businesses on the park, plus car park abusing commuters catching trains from the nearby station, and these circumstances where a paying tenant with a duly signed Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreement has unequivocal rights to parking in a private residential car park.

As not all tenants in the 10 storey apartment block own motor cars the parking area is usually approximately 70% occupied. If all of the ‘resident only’ spaces were occupied by valid residents, regardless of whether permits were displayed, Secure-A-Space Ltd. would still have incurred zero loss. When empty, these resident spaces cannot be re-offered in exchange for fees to those who have no association with the buildings, making the charges punitive.

This concludes my PoPLA appeal against Secure-A-Space Ltd.’s Parking Charge Notice No. xxxxxxx, PoPLA verification code xxxxxxxx

Yours Sincerely,


BiscuitMuncher

The_Deep

It is Beavis v PE. Pound to a penny they chicken out.

Coupon-mad

I would suggest the heading of the final point is better headed:

5. No genuine pre-estimate of loss. This case can be distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.

Then wait and see how they argue that in the evidence, if they bother to contest it. We had a PPC (ParkingTicketing Ltd) the other day who argued in an evidence pack 'the charge is for damages and terrorem' (i.e. the complete opposite of how PE won Beavis on the point about damages, which PE argued it wasn't!).

BiscuitMuncher

Points above noted, thank you. I'll amend when I'm back in UK at 1:00!

BiscuitMuncher

Update:

POPLA appelas for PCN 1 & 2 submitted 5th Jan and status on those two is "operator information and evidence in progress"

Appeals to S-a-S submitted for PCN's 3, 4 & 5 on day 26 after the issue dates using template as per Newbies Sticky.

Today received NtK from PCS for PCN 3. S-a-S did not send a rejection letter or POPLA code for this one.

I've just researched PCS on the Forum and found this thread https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5344656

Do I now send the template appeal to PCS to get a POPLA code and/or complain to BPA?

Thanks.