Claim from a Car Park Management firm

The_Deep

I wouldn't suggest using a solicitor as generally they have no idea about parking law,

I disagree, this is not so much about parking, but property rights, about which many solicitors are very well informed.

safarmuk

Hi Fruitcake, Redx, beamerguy, Coupon-mad, The Deep and Umkomaas many thanks for all your replies and advice, it is very much appreciated and I am working through the substantial information you have highlighted - it may take me a while!


To answer a few questions right now, I have not received a ticket yet, but a friend of mine has - he is just receiving letters, I have told him he needs to act and he is looking into it. So far his letters have not moved on from just basic notifications with existing rises in costs. I will attempt to find out more.


If I receive a ticket I will obviously follow all the advice here and consult on this thread for any specifics re the issuing company.


My other issue is more about the validity of the scheme in general and the behaviour of the Management Company. This is important because although you can readily fight these kind of tickets quite easily it seems, residents only have to fight them because the incorrect scheme is implemented in the first place - in my case without consultation. Furthermore although I have seen a presentation from the Car Parking company that was given to the Management Company that says the Client (e.g. the Management Company) has the ability to cancel tickets the Management Company refuse to execute this responsibility and want to wash their hands of any problems - to me this is utterly unacceptable. Also the scheme the Management Company agreed to is utterly excessive compared to the objectives they stated they were trying to solve (e.g. 24/7 monitoring to prevent commuters) - this I believe illustrates the true objectives of the scheme which I am sure we are all aware of.


With regard to engaging solicitors I accept all views on this but I have engaged several - some on a no-win-no-fee basis and some to gather property and contractual legal advice. We will see what they say.


One further question I do have is if the Car Parking company operating (in dispute) on the land are a member of the BPA, why do they say that appeals have to go through the IAS and not POPLA?
I thought if you are a member of the BPA then appeals go through POPLA ... or does the person receiving the ticket have a right to choose which on in this case?
I have read a thread on this and understand the difference (POPLA being better as IAS is anonymous and people have argued not independent etc.) but the thread didn't answer my query above as to how you determine which appeals process you end up going down.


Thanks for all advice to date, I will keep everyone updated although I suspect this will be a long drawn out process.

Umkomaas

They can be members of both organisations, but only an Approved Operator of one, through which membership they have access to the DVLA database.

It would be far easier if you told us who the PPC is then we can give you advice on just how far this might go. It doesn't have to be MI5 - it's only a parking ticket!

safarmuk

Hi All, so I visited the site today and took a photo of the signage at the site:
hxxp://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=9urx8z&s=9
[as instructed I have replaced tt with xx if a regular can make this 'live' as Fruitcake suggests that would be great]

I spent time there speaking to other residents and hearing some bad stories, which I am going to help with.

However what interests me the most is I have an email from the Management Company that (in answering my question asking them "... where is the appeals process documented to the residents ...") says essentially "... the appeals process is explained in full on all the signs ..." but when I look at the sign either I am stupid or that is not the case as I find no such explanation. It's yet another thing to clarify with them again!

Thoughts on the signage?

Umkomaas

Hi All, so I visited the site today and took a photo of the signage at the site:
hxxp://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=9urx8z&s=9

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=9urx8z&s=9

Finally deciphered who the PPC is by checking the photo! UKCPM.

Mildly litigious, just 26 claims from 80,000 tickets in the past couple of years, but have become a little more frisky of late, no doubt encouraged to fritter their money by Gladstones.

safarmuk

Thought you might work it out, its displayed in public all over the estate, looks horrible.
I'm curious - is there no requirement for the signage to include information of the appeal process?

One of the horror stories I heard was a young couple paid a £60 fine (the reduced fee) for parking in their allocated underground space because the permit had slipped off the dashboard and they knew no better. But interestingly I have an email from the Management Company where they say (during my initial complaints) that they had instructed the Car Parking Company to "... no longer include monitoring the underground garages ..."
I have asked the couple to check the date of the PCN to see if it is after this email - if so I will take them to task on this as it is inappropriate in the extreme. I noted today that the signage is still up in the underground garages.

With regard to UKCPM, when you say "mildly litigious" is it right to assume they prefer just sending letters over and over again hoping for the above outcome and rarely take it further?

If I am honest I am pretty disgusted with the whole shenanigans that has occurred here.

"The Deep" suggested a residents association and in fact I have heard people are starting to get interested in this idea - I will participate in this if others do - alongside the other avenues I am pursuing - to get this to a reasonable conclusion,

I am also trying to get hold of the parking prankster as if he can help I will accept this help so that people like the young couple above don't get screwed like they have been.

Umkomaas

No requirement to spell out the appeals procedure on signage; it should be outlined on the windscreen ticket and the NtK.

With regard to UKCPM, when you say "mildly litigious" is it right to assume they prefer just sending letters over and over again hoping for the above outcome and rarely take it further?

It's the MO of all PPCs to send harassing letters. Court cases are (relatively speaking) rare, given the number of tickets issued, fewer than 1% end up in front of a small claims court judge.

http://www.bmpa.eu/crt_contact.html

Some PPCs are more litigious than others, ParkingEye leading the pack, their motive not necessarily about recovering a £100 one-off PCN (as it costs far more than that to pursue) but more for the purpose to encourager les autres.

Fruitcake

Cribbed from C-M.

The charge of £100 plus £1.50 for card payment exceeds the appropriate amount specified in law

The sign informs residents that any card payment costs an extra £1.50. Arbitrary extra charges are banned under the POFA 2012, the Consumer Contracts(Information, Cancellation & Additional Payments) Regs 2013 and the Consumer Rights (Payment Surcharges) Regulations 2012.

POFA 2012 states:
Right to claim unpaid parking charges from keeper of vehicle:4 (5) ''The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper...(less any payments towards the unpaid parking charges which are received after the time so specified).''

The CC(ICAP) 2013 Regs state:
Additional payments under a contract
(40).—(1) ''Under a contract between a trader and a consumer, no payment is payable in addition to the remuneration agreed for the trader’s main obligation unless, before the consumer became bound by the contract, the trader obtained the consumer’s express consent.''

There was no 'express consent'.

The Consumer Rights (Payment Surcharges) Regs prohibit excessive charges:

(4).A trader must not charge consumers, in respect of the use of a given means of payment, fees that exceed the cost borne by the trader for the use of that means.

£1.50 is not a true cost for accepting a payment by credit or debit card. The cost is much lower and differs based upon the amount paid (£60 or £100 should attract different card payment charges) and differs for debit cards compared to credit cards:

''Banks charge various fees depending on factors like the degree to which you may be subject to credit card fraud and the overall value of card transactions. Expect different charges for debit and credit cards. You will pay a monthly fee to rent the payment terminal. You will also pay a charge for each transaction - this will be anything from a few pence to 6% of each transaction.''

In addition I have cribbed this from Ian011

The 0845 number breaches Regulation 41 of the Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013. These regulations came from BIS, not Ofcom, and took effect on 13 June 2014. This can be reported to Trading Standards (via the Citizen's Advice national Consumer Helpline on 0345 404 0506).

The omission of call costs from the sign breaches Ofcom regulations that took effect 1 July 2015. This can be reported to ASA via their webform


You should inform the MA and the landowner about the unlawful and misleading content of the signs.

The_Deep

Print out all the links I gave you in post 5 and send them to the managing agents.


Tell them that, whether they like it or not, they are responsible jointly and severally, for the actions of their contractor, the PPC, and unless they take ownership, they may well find themselves in court for harassing leaseholders and their tenants.


The tide is rapidly turning against PPCs who target residential car parks.

safarmuk

All - many thanks again. There is so much information to work through here, especially for someone new to this area so please bear with me whilst i get up to speed (however trust me I will get there, I have done so in other areas and I will in this area).

I am still reading through everything but somethings become clearer quicker ... in fact one particular area is Fruitcakes point about the 0845 number - this is astonishing, a quick google and it came up. Its unbelievable that should you ring up to pay your ticket, you are charged at a premium rate to do so! Further research made me realise that this can be reported to Trading Standards ... am I correct? If so this might be a first easy win to achieve whilst I research everything else. Thoughts?