Claim from a Car Park Management firm

Umkomaas

You can report it to TS, but don't expect much of an outcome. They have sat on their hands on so many much more crucial parking-related issues in the past that regulars tend to regard them as a mere sideshow.

Other than in Scotland, I cannot recall one single case where TS has produced anything of note.

Other fights to fight once you get your head around this stuff. Keep your powder dry for the time being.

Coupon-mad

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?

I think you are focussing on the most minor thing that TS won't care about.

The major thing is that you can tell the managing agent that the actions of their agent constitute derogation from grant - i.e. the landowner cannot offer peaceful enjoyment of the property under the lease on the one hand, then restrict and/or charge residents and require them to display permits (nothing about any of this being set out in the lease) on the other hand. The actions of the third party UKCPM are unreasonable and the authority for this view is the recent appeal case, 'Jopson v Home Guard Services' at Oxford Court.

Explained in the Prankster's Blog. That argument is your big issue = the primacy of your lease.

I would be sending the parking firm and Managing Agent a Letter before Claim for damages for harassment and for derogation from the grant offered in the lease, along with a Cease & Desist Notice, banning UKCPM from touching any of your family's vehicles and stating that you will sue if they do, including to recover the cost of any emergency injunction to stop the parking firm from trespassing (as was the case in Davey v UKPC).

Also state that UKCPM are expressly forbidden to approach the DVLA for registered keeper data for any of the following vehicles (then list them). And get your neighbours to do exactly the same, listing their vehicles as well (and those of their visitors, family, etc). State that if they do obtain and process that data you will report the parking firm and Managing agents to the Information Commissioner, as they would be jointly liable for misuse of data under the DPA.

You (and anyone else who has already had a PCN) can also insist that all parties cease processing any data already obtained from the DVLA immediately and should consider this a Section 10 Notice under the DPA and must respond accordingly within 21 days.

I would finish by suggesting that they should seek legal advice if unsure as to their position because you will be passing your findings to the other flat owners forthwith and the very presence of UKCPM in the car park is unwelcome, unwarranted and an aggressive attack on the prevailing rights enjoyed by the residents.

I own a leasehold flat (for 16 years) and have a very clear lease with the freeholder that says I have an exclusive right to use an allocated bay and rights to park in the visitors bay on a "first come first served basis" ... however in their wisdom and without warning the Management Company have decided to implement parking restrictions and entered into a contract with a Car Park Management firm ...

safarmuk

@Coupon-mad, fair enough, I was just looking for an early win/success.
I will continue reading through everything for now.

Unbelievably in reading the BPA documentation I came across this:

i) give a phone number where enquiries may be made.
Nongeographic numbers such as those starting 0845
and 0870 are acceptable but premium-rate numbers
such as those starting 09 are not recommended

So the BPA think it is fine!

Saying that I found this a link on the governments website (the site wont let me post it here) that referred to 0845 numbers as a Business Rate number not a Premium Rate number. Does that make a difference? Want to get my terminology spot on when I go to the Management Company (I know this is a minor point)

Umkomaas

I think that paragraph in the CoP was probably written when 0845 numbers were 'local' numbers and subsequent CoP updates have passed by the change of status.

The_Deep

OP, CM's excellent post above sets out just how many tricks you hold. You can damage the PPC and make your MA behave responsibly.

Do not just view that as an ill conceived scam about a fre quid, this is part pf a country wide assault on the leasehold rights of all apartment owners and their tenants everywhere who suffer from ill informed Management and letting agents allowing scammers to harass occupants, and you have the means to help put an end to it.

Have you read OFT V Foxtons?

https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/foxtons-hidden-fees-in-lettings-agreements-with-consumer-landlords

Ian011

0845 numbers ceased to be 'local rate' in 2004. Both Ofcom and ASA issued a note about this in 2005. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20080728101959/http:/www.cap.org.uk/cap/news_events/news/2005/Stop+the+call+confusion.htm Nowadays, all 070, 084, 087, 090, 091, 098 and 118 numbers are premium rate. In the case of all but 070 numbers, the premium is separately declared as the Service Charge. Only a subset of those numbers are designated Controlled Premium Rate Services and subject to additional regulation by the Phone-paid Services Authority.

Ofcom has dropped the 'business rate' and 'special services' terminology for 084 and 087 numbers and the 'premium rate' terminology for 09 numbers. These are all 'non-geographic numbers with an Access Charge and a Service Charge'. That's the clearest description you can give. 03 numbers are 'non-geographic numbers charged at or below geographic rate' and 080 numbers are 'non-geographic numbers that are free-to-caller'.

If you are looking at http://gov.uk/call-charges be aware that it is several years out of date. Changing the 'last updated' date (and nothing else) every few months does not constitute 'current information'. https://bitly.com/2fGwuyt

If you are looking at the BPA Code of Practice, http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Code-of-Practice-and-compliance-monitoring make sure it is Version 6 published October 2015. Google more readily returns several older versions. In version 6, paragraph 18.7 specifies that phone numbers used must be those charged at no more than 'basic rate'. The same wording can also be found in Version 5 published October 2014. This mirrors the requirements of Regulation 41 of the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 which came into force on 13 June 2014. Numbers classed as 'basic rate' start 01, 02, 03 or 080. In the case of a small trader, such as a plumber or window cleaner, standard UK mobile numbers starting 071-075 or 077-079 are also acceptable.

Google also throws up
- http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/BPA_CodeofPractice_v8.pdf, version 8, from 2009 and
- http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/AOS%20Code%20of%20Practice%20v.12%20-%20updated%20August%202011.pdf, version 12, from April 2011 and
- http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/Code_of_Practice_-_November_2011.pdf, version 13, from November 2011
which contain the now defunct references to 0845 and 0870 numbers being acceptable. Ignore these documents. In 2012, they re-started the numbering from 'version 1' again and updated the telephone requirements in the 'new' version 5 onwards.

All of this is a minor sideshow. Don't get too distracted by it.

Coupon-mad

safarmuk wrote: »

@Coupon-mad, fair enough, I was just looking for an early win/success.
I will continue reading through everything for now.

Unbelievably in reading the BPA documentation I came across this:

i) give a phone number where enquiries may be made.
Nongeographic numbers such as those starting 0845
and 0870 are acceptable but premium-rate numbers
such as those starting 09 are not recommended

So the BPA think it is fine!

Saying that I found this a link on the governments website (the site wont let me post it here) that referred to 0845 numbers as a Business Rate number not a Premium Rate number. Does that make a difference? Want to get my terminology spot on when I go to the Management Company (I know this is a minor point)

Too minor to even waste time on. Not a silver bullet; it does not make the parking charge void.

The_Deep

Stop chasing red herrings, concentrate on the assault on your leasehold rights.

safarmuk

Understand all your points and agree with them, we are just checking the lease for any other clauses (e.g. as advised by the Parking Prankster in his article). This is tricky because we are not solicitors so need one to confirm all is in order as we suspect it is.

In the meantime I have now seen an example of a parking ticket and from what I can see it makes no reference to the IAS. In fact all it has are three payment methods (internet, phone, postal address headed "Payments & Collections") and then one line that says:

Appeals - All correspondence should be made to the address above


E.G. the "Payments & Collections" address.

I have asked for a scan of the reverse of the ticket to see if anything is there but the Appeals process is stated as basically "write us a letter" and apparently they refuse to discuss over the phone - unsurprisingly.

Coupon-mad

The IAS will be on the back, always is. Another red herring.

This is tricky because we are not solicitors so need one to confirm all is in order as we suspect it is.

We are not solicitors either but you do not need to pay for advice. We can assist. We do this all the time. However, you might find a local solicitor or 'pro bono legal advice service' offers 15 minutes free consultation for minor queries. You could try that just for an opinion about the lease but don't pay for advice, you can't claim it back.

You should check your home or car insurance policy, in case you have a free legal advice helpline. That can be worth trying but we deal with these issues every day and we always worry that legal advice might be badly swayed by the largely irrelevant ParkingEye v Beavis (Supreme Court) and not know about the Jopson case (Oxford court only) but an appeal heard by Charles Harris QC so it is a persuasive finding on county courts and was all about the primacy of contract of a resident - the principle of 'derogation from grant'.

Which means a landowner can't offer a lease on the one hand yet take away the quiet enjoyment/rights and easements the residents have, with the other hand.

Do not reply to any private message from a poster here offering to 'help' off forum. You never know their agenda.

We'll help you here. This is very defendable.