Windscreen ticket on hire vehicle in own spot

Fruitcake

A couple of suggestions.

Mr_Stroopwafel wrote: »

2. Permission was granted by tenant and landowner

... I also point to the enclosed photos of the permit itself (Appendix item 13 & 14) which makes no mention of the requirement to display it or any mention of the £100 parking charge on neither the front nor back side. Neither the tenant, the driver nor keeper have signed or made any agreement with Minster Baywatch to display a permit so this parking charge remains completely unenforceable, the displaying of a permit is [STRIKE]done so out of courtesy.
[/STRIKE] not a contractual requirement of the tenancy agreement but is done so out of courtesy that has since been abused by the issuing of this PCN.

3. No contract exists in a Trespass case - (ParkingEye vs Beavis Case is not relevant)

... In the case under appeal here, if the vehicle was parked without a permit or was “not an authorised user” as alleged by Minster Baywatch, they were in fact a trespasser and it is the landowner who has the right to pursue for damages, not the Parking Operator. Such damages would be exactly that – the amount of damage created in the act of trespass. Considering this parking bay was paid for by the tenant and aside from the alleged lack of permit on display, would otherwise be considered to be parked correctly in their allocated bay, the amount of damages would be [STRIKE]negligible[/STRIKE] zero.

[/I]

Coupon-mad

Nice POPLA appeal. I like the fact you've bombarded them with 10 points, which might make MB not bother to contest it, takes too long/too much time/money in man hours to reply well to this sort of appeal.

Mr_Stroopwafel

Thanks very much for the responses, I've edited and will give it a few days until it's closer to the deadline before sending to POPLA.

In the meantime I have also been speaking to the Managing Agent that appointed this PPC.

Pointed out that Minster Baywatch shouldn't be charging genuine residents/permit holders in their own bay regardless of whether there is a permit, and the AST makes no mention of one.

Unfortunately they weren't helpful at all and seem to not want to get involved:

First response was as follows:

It is a requirement of all vehicles at XX to display a valid parking permit. This is a regulation of XXX Residents Association Limited under the terms of the Lease and supersedes the terms of your Tenancy Agreement, however your Agent should have made you aware of the building regulations before you moved. [They didn't and there's no evidence of this] There is also clear signage around the site on all entrances and around the site in order to ensure that parking is not an issue on this development.

I have spoken with Minster Baywatch and been forwarded the photos taken from when the vehicle was ticketed. In these photos, these clearly show the dashboard, etc... And there is no permit on display. These are time and date stamped and I would expect to be available to you on request.

In these circumstances, this will be a matter for you to discuss with Minster Baywatch as you appear to already be doing.


If you are already in contact with Minster Baywatch direct then I am not able to assist. I have seen photos that show there was no permit on display – you have sent me photos showing the permit on the dashboard.

The two photos are clearly different (as attached) and therefore whether or not the permit was there is a matter between the two of you or a judge.

Regards,

I've tried playing the softer approach with the Management Agency but the situation is ridiculous. I have now spent a lot of time on this nonsense and have seen people stating they will invoice for their time at court, holding the MA and PPC responsible.

Any advice on the militant approach? i.e. stating you will be invoicing for time spent on this etc.

Half_way

Under what authority does it supersede?

It is a requirement of all vehicles at XX to display a valid parking permit. This is a regulation of XXX Residents Association Limited under the terms of the Lease and supersedes the terms of your Tenancy Agreement

If they are claiming a so called catch all type clause then you should make them aware in no uncertain terms that allowing a private parking company to operate, which makes a substantial if not all of its income from issuing parking charge notices is far from reasonable.

If, and I'm assuming If your lease agreement is clear and its your space then you should take a read of this http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?377246-UKPC-liable-for-trespass-**SUCCESS**

Upi should mention that to the management company and remind them that they are jointly liable for the actions of their agents.

You should also mention that you have spent X amount of your valuable time in dealing with this mess, and you are holding the management company liable for your costs as it is they who have taken the unreasonable actions of allowing a private parking company ( that makes most if not all of its money from parking charges) to operate a profit making business in your space/on your land, and as such your costs roughly stand at £x ( at upto £19 per hour)

You could also use that toe curling phrase "gesture of goodwill"...
However as a gesture of goodwill, I am prepared to write off my costs on the understanding that you as a management company will instruct your agents ( the parking company) to cancel all demands for money and for both the parking company and yourselves to issue myself with a apology and re-assurances that this situation will not occur again.

And to protect yourself, if you have been displaying a permit which could be read with a little bit of twisting that you accept the PPCs terms.
For the avoidance of any doubt a permit has only been displayed solely at my own discretion as an aid to the parking attendant, I did not consent to nor agree to a parking company operating in such a manner.
I will return the parking permit upon request, either to a nominated address within a reasonable walking distance, or by post upon the receipt of a stamped address envelope.


P.S stroopwaffles are indeed quite tasty - did you know that Sainsburys sell them in the UK as Caramel Wafers? I acquired a taste for them after a few visits to Holland and the Netherlands ( although i never understood the bread sprinkle things)

Mr_Stroopwafel

Half_way wrote: »

Under what authority does it supersede?
If they are claiming a so called catch all type clause then you should make them aware in no uncertain terms that allowing a private parking company to operate, which makes a substantial if not all of its income from issuing parking charge notices is far from reasonable.

If, and I'm assuming If your lease agreement is clear and its your space then you should take a read of this http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?377246-UKPC-liable-for-trespass-**SUCCESS**

A lot does hinge on my lease agreement, actually it's a Tenancy agreement if that makes much difference, it's also in my girlfriend's name I am technically a visitor when I'm there. But she doesn't have a car so the main vehicle that's parked there is in my name.

However we've looked through it and all mentions on car parking is:

“Car Parking:
21.1 To park private vehicle(s) only at the Premises
21.2 To park in the space allocated to the Premises if applicable
21.3 To park in the garage/driveway allocated to the Premises if applicable
21.4 To keep any garage, driveway, or space free from oil and to pay for removal and cleaning if caused by the vehicle of a tenant, his/her family, contractors or visitors
21.5 To remove all vehicles belonging to the tenant, his/her family at the end of the tenancy
21.6 Not to park any vehicle at the premises that is not in road worthy condition and fully taxed”

The only indication it's this bay is "Bay XXX" written on the inventory document, nothing else was said or signed when she got the permit. There is nothing in the inventory that mentions parking either.

I imagine the Landlord may have a deed that he could show but he is in very bad health at the moment and lives overseas, I don't know how easy it would be to get him to dig it out and send, I imagine he does have other priorities.

I am tempted to ask them to show me this agreement, but in a way I don't want the MA to then work with the PPC when it comes to the appeal. I would rather the knuckleheads at MBW sent a shoddy or non existent response to my POPLA appeal.

and yes I am a big fan of them! I didn't know that, I'll keep an eye out...I spotted the Daelmans ones at Tesco in the white box, very easy to get through a few of those especially when they're warmed up on your tea

Umkomaas

Ask the MA for a list of dates when he will be unavailable over the next 6 months as should this proceed to court, you will be calling him as a witness.

I'd also ask him to confirm (and you will use his response in any court case) whether he/the MA receives any form of payment from MBW, either by way of a set fee for being allowed to operate on the premises, or by way of a 'commission' on tickets issued and/or paid.

bod1467

Umkomaas wrote: »

I'd also ask him to confirm (and you will use his response in any court case) whether he/the MA receives any form of payment from MBW, either by way of a set fee for being allowed to operate on the premises, or by way of a 'commission' on tickets issued and/or paid.

Nice. In "how to destroy a circus parlance" ... go for the juggler.

The_Deep

Get on to your landlord and complain. Say that this PPC is interfering with your "quiet enjoyment" of your property and ask him to get the management company to cancel.

Mr_Stroopwafel

The_Deep wrote: »

Get on to your landlord and complain. Say that this PPC is interfering with your "quiet enjoyment" of your property and ask him to get the management company to cancel.

I think the landlord might be sympathetic but he is really in bad health (as in terminally ill) so I don't think this will be a priority for him unfortunately. It would only be an email to him and guess an email from him to the Management agent but I'm a bit reluctant to contact him.

Mr_Stroopwafel

Half_way wrote: »

Under what authority does it supersede?

I would really like to know the answer to this, it would give a rock solid basis to the claim. Will keep searching.