Parking Ticketing Limited

Coupon-mad

I recommend searching again for 'Permit POPLA' and finding a newer one - that one is ancient!

With regards to "1: The notice to keeper is not compliant with the POFA 2012 – no keeper liability", is it worth mentioning at all (and giving proof) that the keep at the time the PCN was received was out of the country and could not have driven the car themselves?

Yes that could be included but TBH as long as the keeper states they were not driving and show the issues with keeper liability, that appeal point will be solid (but I haven't checked your appeal at all...just saw 'GPEOL' and thought, oh no, an old one').

mrsunnybunny

Alright then, I have updated everything based on a newer appeal and taking into account comments. I like to think my case is slightly different in that a valid permit was displayed. I have a picture showing the permit had slipped half-way out of view, but all relevant information still visible in the windscreen. This surely must count for something!

Edited appeal on first page

leeda84

What does your lease say?
Is the bay you parked in marked on your lease as your property or is it a bay you have been allocated by the management company?
If the bay is part of your property, what does it say about "quiet enjoyment"? If not, what does your lease say about car parking?
Does your lease mention anything about the requirement to display a permit?
Is there a clause in your lease that states something along the lines of "the managing agent can put in to place anything reasonable for the purpose of running the development" ?

mrsunnybunny

leeda84 wrote: »

What does your lease say?
Is the bay you parked in marked on your lease as your property or is it a bay you have been allocated by the management company?
If the bay is part of your property, what does it say about "quiet enjoyment"? If not, what does your lease say about car parking?
Does your lease mention anything about the requirement to display a permit?
Is there a clause in your lease that states something along the lines of "the managing agent can put in to place, anything reasonable for the purpose of running the development" ?

When you say lease, do you mean the "lease" of the apartment + parking space with the developer (as it is a leasehold), or the lease with the landlord?

The apartment is rented from a landlord who owns the place. The parking bay is rented from another landlord who owns the parking bay. Both are private leases. The parking bay lease is just a short document with bay number, dates and monthly amounts.

- Is the bay you parked in marked on your lease as your property or is it a bay you have been allocated by the management company?
The bay number is marked on the private lease. The bay is leased directly from the owner. The permit also shows the bay number. The bay number was just visible on the windscreen.

If the bay is part of your property, what does it say about "quiet enjoyment"? If not, what does your lease say about car parking?
Says nothing. Car parking is only implied as it is a parking bay. However guidelines circulated by the management company exist which say these are for car parking only. I would need to get hold the documents somehow.

Does your lease mention anything about the requirement to display a permit?
No, but as above. Guidelines exist

Is there a clause in your lease that states something along the lines of "the managing agent can put in to place, anything reasonable for the purpose of running the development" ?
No, however this was decided by the residents association so I can only assume that minutes and a decision exist. Also, this may exist in the agreement between landlord and the development

mrsunnybunny

Note, edited the draft appeal (see first page) and highlighted in red my key edits compared to other cases

Fruitcake

With regard to signage, it is always better to include your own pictures so a PoPLA assessor can see they are rubbish. You can then point out all the BPA non compliance bits.

Post a pic here if you want others to look at it.

dazster

mrsunnybunny wrote: »

The parking bay lease is just a short document with bay number, dates and monthly amounts.

So there you have it. You rent the parking space from its owner, therefore you are the lawful occupier of the land. PTL is both trespassing and committing a private nuisance (by interfering with your rights over the space) so that's two torts for which you could sue them (and the managing agent). Anything else is froth.

If you want to ponce about with a PoPLA appeal then personally I'd stick with this:

Please see the agreement by which I rent this parking bay. It is clear from this that I am the lawful occupier of the land and I need no third party's permission to park a vehicle there or to permit a vehicle to be so parked. PTL's signs therefore offer nothing of value to me or to anyone to whom I give permission to park in the bay: such a driver already has the right to park there. Accordingly PTL has offered no consideration, no contract can exist between PTL and such a driver, and this charge is utterly baseless.

Ian011

The usage of a premium rate 084 or 087 number is a breach of the industry Code of Practice published by the BPA.

Additionally, failure to declare the Service Charge in close proximity to the number is a breach of the Ofcom regulations effective 1 July 2015.

Coupon-mad

As shown in the picture, [STRIKE]the permit had slipped half-way out of view, but[/STRIKE] all relevant information was still visible. Please compare this to an evidence picture I downloaded from Parking Ticketing Ltd's website which is purposely taken from such an angle as to create the impression that permit number and bay number were not visible, also shown below.

mrsunnybunny

Coupon-mad wrote: »

As shown in the picture, [STRIKE]the permit had slipped half-way out of view, but[/STRIKE] all relevant information was still visible. Please compare this to an evidence picture I downloaded from Parking Ticketing Ltd's website which is purposely taken from such an angle as to create the impression that permit number and bay number were not visible, also shown below.

Thanks for this; I have edited my appeal accordingly.

dazster wrote: »

So there you have it. You rent the parking space from its owner, therefore you are the lawful occupier of the land. PTL is both trespassing and committing a private nuisance (by interfering with your rights over the space) so that's two torts for which you could sue them (and the managing agent). Anything else is froth.

If you want to ponce about with a PoPLA appeal then personally I'd stick with this:

Please see the agreement by which I rent this parking bay. It is clear from this that I am the lawful occupier of the land and I need no third party's permission to park a vehicle there or to permit a vehicle to be so parked. PTL's signs therefore offer nothing of value to me or to anyone to whom I give permission to park in the bay: such a driver already has the right to park there. Accordingly PTL has offered no consideration, no contract can exist between PTL and such a driver, and this charge is utterly baseless.

Thanks, I have replaced the wording with the one you suggested on the first page.

Fruitcake wrote: »

With regard to signage, it is always better to include your own pictures so a PoPLA assessor can see they are rubbish. You can then point out all the BPA non compliance bits.

Post a pic here if you want others to look at it.

Ian011 wrote: »

The usage of a premium rate 084 or 087 number is a breach of the industry Code of Practice published by the BPA.

Additionally, failure to declare the Service Charge in close proximity to the number is a breach of the Ofcom regulations effective 1 July 2015.

Thanks, really useful. I have posted pictures of the signs below. As suspected, they are using a 084 number. I will do a search for some wording and include this in my appeal.

Sign as you enter the garage.


Signs on all the posts in the garage.