Two tickets in my own space

tincombe

Not at all. Common-sense dictates that the best way to avoid these events is to comply with reasonable requirements. To do otherwise can lead to these circumstances. Is the OP trying to make a point about not being required to display a permit in any circumstances (despite this not being their parking place or lease) and if so for what purpose - life is too short.

But the OP is where they are and will no doubt enjoy immersing themselves in procedural minutiae.

I'm grounded in another forum where one starts with evidence, not procedure. So, no permit was displayed and none was displayed even after the first event. Perhaps they like tilting at windmills, just make sure it's their windmill and that if it collapses it's not on someone else's foot.

catfunt

But the PPCs are not interested (in the main) in evidence.

They are only interested in your money and will indulge in all sorts of smoke-and-mirrors, fudge and smudge and obfuscation, and b@stardisation of contract law, in order to get it.

Awooll

Thank you Guys Dad for the help.

To be clear, not displaying the permit was a mistake and I was unaware of any tickets until the following week when a neighbour alerted me.
I don't use the car often and don't pass by my car when leaving the building.
I was not trying to prove any point. I just hope I can avoid paying the charges.

Coupon-mad

Don't feel you have to answer a question from an unknown newbie with a handful of posts which read as if they are from the dark side.

tincombe wrote: »

Did you not return to your vehicle between the 2 notices? If you did, why not display the permit as you have one given that the first notice gave you warning of what was happening?
Is your permit displayed now?

Far, far too many nosy questions which do not assist the OP.

tincombe

OP, thank you. Now we know the starting point which is that a permit was not displayed. Whether it should have been and if so the remedies available to another party are now relevant.

No dark side, just method. Sorry if these questions have ruffled what appears to be a procedure-led mindset, but the answers should not be presumed and the facts need to be established.

Coupon-mad

tincombe wrote: »

No dark side, just method. Sorry if these questions have ruffled what appears to be a procedure-led mindset, but the answers should not be presumed and the facts need to be established.

No, they do not. Most cases are easily won by a simple script which newbies can find and adapt. The story of what happened has never needed to feature and is best NOT posted on an open forum.

yotmon

tincombe wrote: »

Not at all. Common-sense dictates that the best way to avoid these events is to comply with reasonable requirements. To do otherwise can lead to these circumstances. Is the OP trying to make a point about not being required to display a permit in any circumstances (despite this not being their parking place or lease) and if so for what purpose - life is too short. /QUOTE]

Yes, and life is too short to play the silly games that the parking company wants everyone to engage in. Why should a resident who has the right to park in his own allotted space have to jump through hoops just to pacify a third party, who's only interest is to take money from them - period !

I have said it on other posts - PPC's brought in to 'police' residents parking should NOT have the right to demand money from the actual folk that they have been brought in to protect. Their 'job' is to prevent fly parking and not harass the residents. Once the ticketed proves they are a resident, that should be the end of the matter, not debt letters and threats of court.

BiscuitMuncher

Well said Yotmon!

System

I have said it on other posts - PPC's brought in to 'police' residents parking should NOT have the right to demand money from the actual folk that they have been brought in to protect. Their 'job' is to prevent fly parking and not harass the residents. Once the ticketed proves they are a resident, that should be the end of the matter, not debt letters and threats of court.

The logic seems sound except....they can also be used to moderate the behaviour of residents themselves (the covenants). A breach of a covenant is also a breach of contract which is why it is best to check your lease.

In your case, there does not appear to be any breach of a covenant so there is no contract with the PPC but breaches of covenants are two way. The MA has now interfered with your rights and you can claim damages from them which will be minimal.

If you had sent them a large 600*800 sign beforehand with £100 on it and they agreed to the terms by not rejecting them, you'd be in a different position.

Stupid isn't it.

Guys_Dad

If a lease has a catch all clause allowing a landlord the right to take unspecified but unrestricted measures for the running of the site, then this leaves a clash between other lease clauses that convey other rights on the lessee.

The result is a dispute between the parties. Who ultimately sorts this out? Probably lawyers. Who writes leases in the first place? Lawyers! And we say PPC are scammers!