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

BiscuitMuncher

I had a look at the Secure-a-Space evidence letter for PCN No. 2 today, it goes into more detail about why Beavis is relevant. I'll post it up later once the first rebuttal is finalised unless otherwise asked to post it now.

Coupon-mad

The first rebuttal looks ready to attach to an email and send to POPLA citing the right POPLA code for PCN #1 only.

So, when you can, what have they added for 'PCN 2' re Beavis? This should be amusing.

BiscuitMuncher

For PCN No. 2 the S-a-S letter is the same as the first one but they do refer to my emails to the Management Company in trying to obtain a permit in the first instance after PCN 1, my handwritten "permit applied for" sign on the dashboard and a few other things which I think I can pick holes in. I'l do this tomorrow.

For now though here is the last part of their letter which refers to Beavis, (the bold text is as per the letter) ......

"We are members of the BPA and are visible, listed, on their website as such for public checks. We have full authority to obtain keeper details from DVLA when necessary but on this occasion it was not necessary due to driver admission so this point is completely irrelevant to the case.
The offer of the contract is if you fail to park within the terms then you pay the sum set out on the sign. In this case they failed to display a valid permit to park.
This charge/fee is not a penalty clause due to the amount charged. In the case of Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis, heard at the Supreme Court recently, you will be aware that the judge ruled that a Parking Charge may be considered a deterrent for overstaying/parking in breach of the terms and conditions of a private car park in general, but the intention to deter was not sufficient to invalid the term of the contract or license with the driver. The Parking Charge made/issued was deemed to be not a penalty and the issue of genuine pre-estimate of loss is therefore not relevant. It was stated that local authorities make similar parking charges and there is no reason why the private parking industry can’t.
Parliament has supported (via the Protection of Freedoms Act) that such parking charges can be made so long as they are brought to the attention of the motorists at the time of use of a car park which we have done by erecting clear signs to inform drivers. Essentially in this case the Parking Charge Notice was issued for a breach of the terms and conditions stated on clear signs at the private site as was the case with this Parking Charge Notice.
No details of loss are therefore needed to be provided as the above is irrelevant to this case. The precedent set by the Beavis case is the most relevant example.
We therefore stand by the parking attendant issuing this Parking Charge Notice for the reasons contained herein."

Coupon-mad

LOL, just says 'Look at the Beavis case!!' Nothing similar about it but never mind it's all parking...

Easy to distinguish your case from Beavis.

BiscuitMuncher

I'll get my rebuttal to this one posted up tomorrow evening.

The_Deep

Beavis v PE and "own space" parking are worlds apart. Even mentioning decreases their chances of a win, use it as a stick with which to beat them.

Guys_Dad

The salient point to emphasise is that unlike the Beavis case, the only person who would have suffered from any unauthorised parking in that designated space would have been the leaseholder himself. You neither asked for nor wish any protection of that space from the PPC and as your vehicle met the lease requirements as to type, legality etc, no one has suffered any loss whatsoever.

BiscuitMuncher

Thanks for your post Guys Dad, I'll certainly add this in.

Also I’ve just updated this paragraph with an addition from windy488’s post #1941today in the POPLA Decisions thread https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/70013156#Comment_70013156

The contract fails to meet the BPA Code of Practice requirement, specifically, to show that the operator is authorised by the landowner to enforce Parking Charges through the courts if necessary. Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice sets out to parking operators that “if you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the land owner (or their appointed agent) … In particular, it must say that the landowner (or their appointed agent) requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges.”

BiscuitMuncher

The Secure-A-Space case letter for PCN 2 refers to emails to the Management Company so I will add the following to my rebuttal. Italic text is from S-a-S. Just wondering if my replies below go against the not saying what happened advice, however, I feel POPLA needs to made aware of this.

"The management company have clearly informed us on our enquiries, at no time was the appellant told he could park without his permit and he has provided no proof that this was the case. The vehicle appeared to have a hand written note displayed however this is not a substitute for a valid permit and still no exemption to park without a valid permit was granted. We were also not contacted regarding this matter. The email chain provided by the appellant does not provide permission for them to park without the permit, It merely informs them to go via their landlord to obtain a permit to avoid further cost for a replacement permit. At this point no payment was offered for the permit in the emails. Therefore the driver still did not have the authorisation necessary to be parked at this private site."

Secure-A-Space refer to my email chain with the Management Company. It is because of the complete incompetence and incalcitrance of the Management Company, who are Secure-A-Space’s client, that I was issued with a further 4 Parking Charge Notices after I contacted them regarding obtaining a permit. In answer to my initial email they responded “your landlord should have one (a permit) he can give you” they did not inform me of the cost of a permit nor did they suggest that to prevent further Parking Charges I should purchase one immediately. I was under the misguided impression that both companies had some integrity and there would be communication between them that I was making all reasonable efforts to obtain a permit, unfortunately this was not the case.

"At the in house appeal stage we were sent an email to appeal several tickets (including this one) with an admission of driver liability and name provided. With that full driver admission provided, we would not have any reasonable cause to obtain further details from DVLA on this occasion."

The parking space belongs to the apartment I rent and the car belongs to me, why would I have any cause not to say I am the driver. This comment also refers to “appeal to several tickets”. At this stage this is not true as I had been issued with two Parking Charge Notices which I made initial appeals against to Secure-A-Space and which are now at the POPLA appeal stage. As mentioned above, despite repeatedly chasing up the issue of the permit, which the landlord paid for on 8th December, I was issued with a further three Parking Charge Notices after this date because the Management Company did not issue the permit to me until the 17th December. I have appealed these three charges separately to Secure-A-Space and will take each one to a POPLA appeal on its own merits.

bod1467

Were S-a-S copied in on YOUR emails to the managing agent? If no, how do they have them?

Did S-a-S include a copy of these emails in their evidence pack?

(I'm not sure, but an angle to consider may be a breach of data protection by the MA and/or S-a-S by disclosing such communications without your prior permission).