Parking control management charged in my own assigned space

Robbb

Hi guys, looking for some advice here. I recently moved into a new flat with gated underground parking and an assigned space run by parking control management. I was given a beeper for the gate but having no idea about permits I've been slapped with 2 60 pound fines for parking in my own space within my first fortnight here. I now have a permit.

Ive appealed through their website (obviously ignored) and I've used one of the letter templates posted here but they seemed to ignore most of the questions and refuse to tell me who hired them and who the landowner is, claiming this is confidential. I gather that appealing through IPC is a waste of time? Any advice to help my case? Cheers guys

Grimble

What does your lease say about parking?

Guys_Dad

Search for "own space" on this forum. Lots of other similar cases/threads available that will give you instant information. Only look on las 2 months initially.

Half_way

Grimble wrote: »

What does your lease say about parking?

That question is very important here, when you moved in you would have been given details about the parking space and any associated restrictions, these are usually along the lines of taxed/serviceable/roadworthy and so on.
You state the space is assigned, who assigned it, is it part of the property?
Are you a tennant or a leaseholder/owner?

Who is the management company?

But again the question is: What does your lease say about parking?

Guys_Dad

Half_way wrote: »

That question is very important here, when you moved in you would have been given details about the parking space and any associated restrictions, these are usually along the lines of taxed/serviceable/roadworthy and so on.
You state the space is assigned, who assigned it, is it part of the property?
Are you a tennant or a leaseholder/owner?

Who is the management company?

But again the question is: What does your lease say about parking?

But further check for a catch all section giving unspecified or unrestricted powers to the management company or landowner to introduce any measures for the running of the site.

These two sections (parking and catch all) need to be read in conjunction and may I ask the regulars to remember to include looking for both sections of leases to help OPs.

The_Deep

Whether the agents /landlords give themselves carte blanche or not to harass tenants is of little consequence, the only words which matter are "quiet enjoyment". Agents who appoint PPC's who then harass properly parked leaseholders/tenants, demanding silly money for not displaying a permit are interfering with their leasehold rights, possibly a criminal offence under the Landlord and Tenants Act

Half_way

The issue with the catch all section is one of reasonableness, and most of these so called catch all's mention something about reasonable measures.
A private car parking company that makes its income from issuing tickets, in effect running a private business out of someones assigned space is anything but reasonable.

The_Slithy_Tove

Half_way wrote: »

The issue with the catch all section is one of reasonableness, and most of these so called catch all's mention something about reasonable measures.
A private car parking company that makes its income from issuing tickets, in effect running a private business out of someones assigned space is anything but reasonable.

Agreed. However, GD's point is still relevant. If there is a "catch all", then it needs to be robustly countered when it comes to confronting the management company, otherwise they'll just claim it allows them to do as they like.

Half_way

Until Robb gets back with details on the lease, including any clause any further advice is like urinating in the wind with too many ifs buts and maybes

The_Deep

I have found, when in dispute with a company, that when I introduce the concept of reasonability, which often they have never considered before, they invariably back down.

It difficult to claim that PPCs behave in a reasonable manner when it can be so easily proven that they do not.

Guys_Dad

The reason for reading both types of clause is to see what you are up against. It is bad advice to say that only the clauses relating to parking are important and anyone who does not read the other clauses (the ones I call catch all) would be leaving themselves unprepared should legal action ensue.

As far as saying only the parking clause , peaceful enjoyment etc count shows a nativity when it comes the English Legal system and courts, not to mention the ADR appeal services. If you don't agree that court decisions and legal points can be, shall we say, perverse at times, immerse yourself in the various Beavis transcripts.

I will happily reappraise my opinion when someone can point me to a couple of legal cases where a tenant has won on a "not displaying a permit in my own space" in court. Until then, I will continue to advise such threads to read and post both sets of clauses.