Help with what stage and lease wording please!

Coupon-mad

Looks fine. I agree with Ralph-y.

Brundlecat

Thank you both of you!

Brundlecat

So, I'm very confused by the parking companies responses.

To lay it out we are disputing 4 PCNs

26 May
2 June
15 June
19 June

The driver has not been disclosed and the PCNs were issued in the parking bay I own by my flat. The Keeper has only received 3 NTKs, these relate to the charges for

26 May
15 June
19 June

As there has been no NTK for the 2nd June no appeal has been issued. Is this the right tactic? I think my understanding is to only appeal once the NTK has been received as the appeals are from the keeper not the driver but we don't want to be accused of ignoring the notices.

We have also had one debt collector letter relating to the charge on 26 May. We have ignored that entirely.

The keeper issued appeals to all three of the NTKs on 20 August. However only one, the one for the 19 June was acknowledged and was rejected on 26 August.

My questions are:

Are they ignoring the 26 May as it was outside the 28 day period? I did put in the letter that I was appealing anyway as per the new ruling for a year on ADRs but they have not responded. Do I assume that they probably never will and my only route for that is IAS?

Why would they not acknowledge and deal with 19th June? Are they waiting for a certain deadline?

Following this rejection it's clear that as it's the same reason for all PCNs they are likely to all be rejected as and when they respond. So I am faced now with the question of whether to go to IAS.

So far the only action I have taken is to email the management company's agent yet again to advise them of the rejection and inform them that we would not be using IAS for the reasons in this forum and in the case of a court summons we would be involving them as per the above posts. I have also written to the management company themselves to complain but have not yet had a response. The landowner on my lease has sold the land so I am not sure who to write to for land ownership.

This is all getting me down a bit today. I am trying to sell the flat and manage this for the keeper as it's my parking space but it's all a bit much to handle. I wanted to gauge advice now on whether to go to IAS as I thought that was a big no no but on reading the post with the poll it now seems to come out overwhelmingly in favour of doing this?

I have a trail of emails with the managements agent dating back to 14 July (still after all PCNs were issued) regarding the non receipt of the permit and ownership of the parking space, but no proof of the calls my sister made in June requesting a new permit as these were calls. I also have all of the lease info in regards to right of use of the space. What are my chances with the IAS appeal coming out in our favour if the keeper can provide a letter of permission to use the bay from the bays owner (i.e. me)

If we don't go for IAS then should we acknowledge the rejection, advise them we won't use IAS as stated in the initial appeal letter and advise we will now only respond to a LBC?

I'm pretty confused :-(

Coupon-mad

If this is Regent Parking - and the mustard yellow circle logo on the signs will tell you if it is indeed an IPC firm - then yes, wait for NTKs then challenge as the registered keeper each time. It just looks more reasonable that the keeper denies liability at the very least, so as not to be ignoring a demand however spurious. They will always reject and 'offer' the kangaroo court of the IAS. DO NOT take them up on that kind offer(!) and just sit tight after that.

If we don't go for IAS then should we acknowledge the rejection, advise them we won't use IAS as stated in the initial appeal letter and advise we will now only respond to a LBC?

Yes. Concentrate on the complaint againt the managing agent because they can CERTAINLY cancel PCNs. If they've entered into a contract that gives them no power at all to cancel unfair/wrongly issued PCNs for residents, then I would argue they have been negligent in their main duty of care, which is to the residents. They should never have allowed this to happen and as the principal, can certainly TELL their agent to cancel charges (even if it costs the managing agent a fee to cancel them, they MUST be able to do so or they have failed in their due diligence when agreeing to this contract).

Brundlecat

That is really helpful, thank you. It is indeed Regent Parking and they have IPC and IAS badges on the signage.

I will prepare a response to the rejection declining IAS and advising that we will only respond now to an LBC. Do you think I should Cc the Property Management company in on this?

I am still waiting for a further response from the Property Management company. So far they have insisted that all appeals must be direct to the parking company which is why I have had to go regrettably through this route. They have also claimed that we ignored tickets but in fact we notified the management company that we had not received our new permit 14 days after the first ticket and on receipt of a second ticket at which point they said on a phone call that they would cancel them and issue a new permit but instead continued to ticket the car another two times. They now claim we have to appeal all 4 or pay up. It is clear to me that they are refusing to cancel them because this will cost them money, but surely this is money I pay them in service charge as a resident!

Thank you for your help.

Coupon-mad

I would include the Management firm in that email, as long as you explain in a reasonable way why no-one in their right mind who researched the kangaroo court of the IAS, would entertain trying it in a million years! You need the Management co. to see the unreasonable set up they have created here, with NO fair appeals procedure at all.

Brundlecat

Thanks C-M here is my draft, does it seem reasonable to you? I'm not sure about the last paragraph?

Dear Regent Parking

I am in receipt of your rejection of my appeal again PCN ***.

Both myself and the named leaseholder of parking space ** have tried to be as reasonable as possible in regards to the ongoing dispute over this and other PCNs issued in this parking space. The Management Company's agent was notified on 8th June, 13 days after the issue of the first PCN that the leaseholder had not received the new parking permit for residents. On this call the leaseholder was advised that these tickets would be cancelled and a new permit sent out. However, my vehicle continued to be ticketed a further two times.

Please be advised that I will not be proceeding to IAS as I do not consider this to be a completely independent ADR service suited to parking charges. As laid out in my initial appeal, it is my understanding that this service lacks any transparency and possibly any independence from the IPC - unlike the alternative offered by the British Parking Association, POPLA, which is transparent and has been shown to be truly independent.

This will be my last contact with you unless you issue a fully-compliant Letter Before Court document.

I am copying in <property management company> to formally notify you that, should a Letter Before Court be issued, you are jointly and severally liable for the actions of your agents, in this case Regent Parking and you will be required to jointly represent in court.

Coupon-mad

Dear Regent Parking

I am in receipt of your rejection of my appeal against PCN ***.

Both myself and the named leaseholder of parking space ** have tried to be as reasonable as possible in regards to the ongoing dispute over this and other PCNs issued in this parking space. The Management Company's agent was notified on 8th June, 13 days after the issue of the first PCN that the leaseholder had not received the new parking permit for residents.

During this call, the leaseholder was advised that these tickets would be cancelled and a new permit sent out. However, my vehicle continued to be ticketed a further two times and the promised cancellation has not happened yet.

I take it that the Management Company will be familiar with the term 'promissory estoppel' (if not, we suggest you seek legal advice now) and that you are aware that a principal remains jointly and severally liable at all times for the actions of your agents.

Please be advised that I will not be proceeding to 'IAS' as this is known to be anything but an independent ADR service. As laid out in my initial appeal, it is my understanding that this service lacks any transparency and independence from the IPC - unlike the alternative offered by the British Parking Association, POPLA, which is transparent and has been shown to be truly independent. The IAS is a trading name of the IPC, the parking operator's Trade Body, only allows a vanishingly tiny minority of appeals and has no Scrutiny Panel. IAS 'decisions' in the public domain have been seen to favour parking firms, are invariably unfair to the point of being bizarre in their rationale.

The IAS unfairly place the burden of evidence upon the appellant, in flagrant disregard for established law requirements that would be followed fairly in the county court. This is not an 'appeal option' and if Regent have informed <Management company> that it is, then the Management company have been misinformed and have let residents down, in failing to carry out due diligence before agreeing to this 'enforcement' by a member of a particularly notorious industry.

This will be my last contact with you unless you issue a fully-compliant Letter Before Claim document, in which case I will robustly defend our position.

I am copying in <property management company> to formally notify you that, should a Letter Before Claim be issued, you are jointly and severally liable for the actions of your agents, in this case Regent Parking and you will be required to appear as a witness, to be cross-examined by the Defendant, should these proceed to court.

I require <Management Company> to advise me now who that representative will be and any dates in the coming months when you will not be able to attend court. We will be relying upon the clear, unequivocal promise made to cancel these PCNs and will require the Management Company to explain to the Judge:

- why a promise was made and then your position changed, to our detriment.

- why no steps were taken to cancel the PCNs, as clearly promised.

If cancellation was not 'possible' (for whatever spurious reason) we will hold <Management Company> liable for any loss or detriment caused to us, given that you have entered into a contract which is not fit for purpose and then reneged on a promise to cancel these charges. We consider the Management company to have acted negligently if you did not protect residents by ensuring a reasonable 'cancellation clause' was agreed with Regent, to enable you as principal to cancel/maintain an overall right of veto for any unfairly-issued PCNs. If not, why not?

yours sincerely,

The_Deep

Have you seen this


http://www.miltonkeynes.co.uk/news/milton-keynes-woman-secures-landmark-victory-for-flat-tenants-in-parking-dispute-1-7459066

Brundlecat

C-M THANK YOU SO MUCH! You're amazing, I really appreciate your input!

The Deep - I hadn't! Very interesting, thank you!

I will get this response in and then I am off for a much needed long weekend so will update you guys on any outcomes, thanks again for all of your help, I think you are all brilliant and generous people.