Parking charge in my own space by UK Car Park Management Ltd

The_Slithy_Tove

Guys_Dad wrote: »

I am becoming a bit of a bore on this point, but do look at your lease to see if there is a "catch all" paragraph or section that permits the managing agent or land owner bring in unspecified measures for smooth running of the estate.

Even if there were, the ability for a 3rd party to charge you for parking in your own space would be completely outside any such agreement.

Still needs checking, though, so it can be rebutted properly.

And there's always this option: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?377246-UKCPS-liable-for-trespass

Flash34 wrote: »

If they are asking me to pay court charges it implies that they have started the ball rolling?

No it doesn't. It just means they're trying it on and deliberately inflating the claim. Their letter is a nonsense anyway. Why would they forward the IAS decision to the MCOL bulk centre? That's not how it works.

Guys_Dad

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

Even if there were, the ability for a 3rd party to charge you for parking in your own space would be completely outside any such agreement.

Still needs checking, though, so it can be rebutted properly.

That's the point. Whenever you face a potential battle, you need to consider all the strengths and weaknesses of your position so there are no surprises. And the weaknesses need most work done on them.

Flash34

Quentin wrote: »

Is it from UKCPM Ltd? Can you post more of its contents. (Without revealing anything about you/your "offence")


Doesn't sound right (as they are asking you to pay "court charges" when non have been incurred yet)

The letter reads

I am writing in respect to the above parking charge notice

This case has been adjusted by the IAS and a decision to refuse your appeal was made on 21st Jan 2016. You have failed to make the £100 payment within the 14 days as stipulated by IAS, therefore the case has been transferred to our legal dept. An evidence pack has been compiled and is ready to be submitted at the county court. A £49 administrative fee has be added to the above parking charge notice.

If payment of £149 is not received within 14 days of this letter, UK Car Park management will ask to recover all outstanding debt and additional costs through the county court bulk centre, interest will be applied to the outstanding sum. The independent adjudication by IAS will also form part of our claim and evidence against you.

Half_way

The key is your lease, what does it say?
who are the management company?
Is there a so called catch all clause? if so does it mention anything about the management company taking reasonable measures to....

What you need to do: provide answers to the above, so that you can receive the correct advice

Quentin

Flash34 wrote: »

.... A £49 administrative fee has be added to the above parking charge notice.

If payment of £149 is not received within 14 days of this letter, .........

The £49 is not court charges then, but their "administrative fee"??


They would, though, add on the court charge they have to pay when issuing a claim and if they subsequently decide to go to court the court charge for a hearing. (Though you would only have to pay them if you lost in court)

Flash34

It says in my lease to 'comply with and observe any restrictions and regulations which the company may consistent with the provisions of this lease make to govern the use of the estate and any part thereof'

It doesn't make sense quite but kind of fits the 'catch all' statement

catfunt

I think the word "reasonable" is missing there...

What is the situation now? You are still required to display a permit?

A few things to look for in this forum and the Parking Prankster blog - some examples of appeals turned down by the IAS where they have clearly ignored / ran roughshod over the law, and the fact that they require you to "prove your innocence" which goes against natural justice where the prosecution has to prove their case.

What was in the appeal, and the IAS "adjudication"?

Marktheshark

The management agents are your agents, they work for you, not the other way around.
Do not let the tail wag the dog !

Flash34

catfunt wrote: »

I think the word "reasonable" is missing there...

What is the situation now? You are still required to display a permit?

A few things to look for in this forum and the Parking Prankster blog - some examples of appeals turned down by the IAS where they have clearly ignored / ran roughshod over the law, and the fact that they require you to "prove your innocence" which goes against natural justice where the prosecution has to prove their case.

What was in the appeal, and the IAS "adjudication"?

Yes still required to display permits

The IAS said this


"It is important that the Appellant understands that the adjudicator is not in a position to give his legal advice. The adjudicator's role is to look at whether the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each particular case. The adjudicator's decision is not legally binding on the appellant (it is intended to be a guide) and they are free to obtain independent legal advice if they so wish. However, the adjudicator is legally qualified (a barrister or solicitor) and decides the appeal according to their understanding of the law and legal principles.rnrnThe terms of this appeal are that I am only allowed to consider the charge being appealed and not the circumstances of other drivers or other parking events. rnrnI note that the Appellant claims to own the land parked on but provides no evidence of this. Having considered the evidence provided by the Operator I am satisfied that the Appellant parked in an area managed by the Operator and that the Operator has the authority to both issue and enforce Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) in this location. This site has been audited by the IPC and a copy of the freeholder’s authority has been provided to them as part of the audit process. This authority has also been provided to me as part of the appeals procedure. rnrnIt is accepted that the Appellant may have been entitled to a permit but that no valid permit was displayed in the vehicle at the time of the parking event. From the 5 images provided by the Operator it appears that the driver did not display a valid permit. As no valid permit was on display, in breach of the displayed terms of parking, I am satisfied that the Operator has proved their prima facie case. rnrnAs stated above, I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the Appellant was parked in an area managed by the Operator. The signage at the site makes it clear that the land in question is private, that parking is reserved for valid permit holders only and that valid permits must be displayed at all times. The Operator’s signage, which is clearly visible on the wall to the driver’s side of the Appellant’s vehicle, makes it clear that these regulations are in force at all times and that a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) will be issued to vehicles who fail to comply with the terms and conditions of parking. By parking without clearly displaying a valid permit the Appellant failed to comply with the terms and conditions of parking. rnrnI am satisfied that the vehicle was secure, stationary and unoccupied with no valid permit correctly on display and therefore, in accordance with the advertised terms, the driver is liable to pay a charge. I have been provided with examples of signage stating the terms and conditions of parking which exist at the site. If the Appellant claimed that they were not aware of the need to display a valid permit, this signage is sufficient to have brought the terms of parking to the driver’s attention. The signage is neither misleading nor unclear. It is the driver’s (rather than a third party’s) responsibility to ensure that these terms are complied with. Whether a driver feels that they have permission to park or not, the contractual terms require the driver to display a valid permit, otherwise by parking they agree to pay the charge. If the driver cannot correctly display a valid permit they can either park elsewhere, or remain parked and agree to pay the charge. The Appellant did not ensure that a valid permit was correctly displayed while parked and therefore agreed to pay the charge.rnrnOnce liability has been established, only the Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge based on mitigating circumstances.rnrnFor the reasons explained above, the appeal must be dismissed.rn"

As your appeal has been dismissed, the Independent Adjudicator has found, upon the evidence provided, that the parking charge was lawfully incurred.

As this appeal has not been resolved in your favour, the IAS is unable to intervene further in this matter.

The Operator must now allow you 14 days to make payment before they commence any action to enforce the charge.

Should you continue to contest the charge then you should consider obtaining independent legal advice.

Yours Sincerely,
The Independent Appeals Service

Flash34

Also just to check

When my original appeal was dismissed they didn't give me an option to pursue POPLA only IAS.. Is this correct?