Help - Got PCN from PPC, appeal and got rejected. No POPLA provided.

Coupon-mad

Hmmmm...actually I will change what I said and not 'wait and see'. I would email them back, setting the foundations for your DPA data misuse claim later, warning them that you do not consent to them obtaining the registered keeper's data/address from the DVLA because there is no reasonable cause...then continuing (by email) as shown:

Make this a Section 10 Notice under the DPA, telling them that they are not to obtain further data about this VRN because you have primacy of contract as leaseholder, relying upon the lease which grants prior rights which existed and were enjoyed by residents, long before they infested the car park.

That a right to “use” and access a roadway can reasonably include a right to park was accepted by the court in McClymont v. Primecourt Property Management Limited* [2000] All ER (D) 1871. On the facts, a grant of a right to use a private road included the right to park vehicles.

Tell them that they cannot add a requirement for residents to now display permits (and foist onerous parking charges on people on their own home turf) because access rights and easements allowing vehicles and parking were already granted under the lease.

Such a significantly detrimental change would require a formal and agreed lease variation and that would happen 'over your dead body'...etc...!

As such, it is clear that the landowner/agent who contracted the parking firm have allowed a situation that amounts to 'derogation from grant' which is unlawful, contrary to the lease and has caused distress.

Have all those words in the email and that gives you a very good basis to sue them, if they then run to the DVLA.

crabscoot

Okay, I have edit the letter and hoping for some feedback before sending it.

Credit due to Lynnzer in pepipoo for the template

Am I correct that this should be a reply to UKPPO and not IAS?

For UKPPO


To: UKPPO

Dear Sir/Madam,

Your PCN draws to my attention that you are using my designated car parking area for your own business purposes. My lease allows unfettered occupational rights to the parking areas, which means you are operating a predatory business on land which you have no legitimate interest in, and have not sought approval for the use of from the actual landholder, ie myself. You have trespass on my leased land.

Your involvement on this land will have supposedly been to prevent parking by uninvited persons, for the benefit of the actual leaseholders and their invited guests. Instead you carry out a predatory operation on those very people whose interests you are purportedly there to uphold. In any case, my lease makes no restrictions to the use of the parking facilities, let alone a penalty regime for some trumped up charge you have designed to fill your coffers.

My lease remains the same as it was when it was originally signed which means you are acting unlawfully and without landholder consent. If you feel that you have been misled by the Managing Agents insofar as they have contracted with you to operate here, then that is something you must take up with them directly. It is of little interest to me as I have unequivocal unfettered right of peaceful enjoyment on the land.

I may draw your attention to the following cases. That a right to “use” and access a roadway can reasonably include a right to park was accepted by the court in McClymont v. Primecourt Property Management Limited* [2000] All ER (D) 1871. On the facts, a grant of a right to use a private road included the right to park vehicles.

And case of Jopson v Homeguard , case 2906J in Oxford County Court where the appeal heard by his honour Judge Harris QC. This was an appeal against a previous hearing which was awarded in favour of Homeguard, in similar circumstances as those addressed in my dispute with you.The Judge allowed the appeal in favour of Mrs Jopson.

Your involvement in your supposed parking management arrangements place on you an obligation to ensure that proper consideration is given to all the facts. Lax contractual assessment is not an excuse for a derogation of your duty.

You will know that you cannot add a requirement for residents to now display permits (and foist onerous parking charges on my ground) because access rights and easements allowing vehicle and parking were already granted under the lease.

Supposition is insufficient as to how you arrange these matters with the landowner's agent. Careful scrutiny of an actual lease would be required to confirm or refute your legitimacy in even taking on a contract for parking management, or as it turns out, mismanagement.

As you have seen fit to attempt to charge me the sum of £100 as a legitimate amount for the use of my own leased property, I hereby claim the exact same amount from you for your trespass and business use on my allocated parking spaces.

In addition, I would also like to draw your attention to Section 10 Notice under DPA, that you should not obtain further data about this VRN because I have the primacy of contract as leaseholder.

I now demand that you desist from further ticketing of vehicles that are associated with my leaseholder rights.

To prevent this matter being taken to court I require payment within 14 working days from 2 days of the date of this letter. Failure of this will result in a court claim being instigated and consequential separate costs being added for the added expense.

Yours sincerely


Following for the managing agent


Name
date

Ref parking at the above address.

On the XXX I became resident in the above property and a lease to that effect was signed by myself and Manchester Ship Canal Development.

My lease allows me unfettered access and use of the whole car park as shown on the lease. There are no conditions placed on myself by way of a clause in the lease so I expect the use of the parking facility to be unhindered and free of interferance by a third party, namely UKPPO Ltd.

On XXXX a Parking Charge Notice made out by UKPPO Ltd was attached to the windscreen of my car, the reason for this being Non display of a permit. An amount of £100 was claimed from me. I have no need to display a permit as there is no such condition placed on me by way of the lease.

Your response to this matter being emailed for you to sort out was less than satisfactory. You responded that you have agreement with UKPPO Ltd that you cannot cancel a valid tickets, despite there being primacy of contract by way of the original lease.

The effect of this is that you are complicit in placing restrictions on the lease I am already a signatory to.

The net effect of this is that your action in contracting with UKPPO Ltd may well be construed as Tortious Interference liable to court action for a claim of damages.

I now seek redress to this situation and claim an amount of the same sum from yourself by way of damages. Failure to make payment within 14 days, may result in a small claims action being taken without further notification at which time other costs for the expenses incurred will be added.

I also require conformation from you that no further ticketing will take place on my vehicle.

Sincerely,
XXX

Umkomaas

I now seek redress to this situation and claim an amount of the same sum from yourself by way of damages. Failure to make payment within 14 days, may result in a small claims action being taken without further notification at which time other costs for the expenses incurred will be added.

From your letter to the MA - you will need to quote a £ figure, otherwise they won't know how much to send you.

Why not add a sentence to the effect that you will be encouraging every other leaseholder who has fallen foul of UKPPO to make similar claims. Might make them sit up even more!

Otherwise looks good.

The_Deep

You have them bang to rights, if they do not pay up, take them to court, it will cost them £££s.

Fruitcake

A few minor suggestions.

crabscoot wrote: »

Okay, I have edit the letter and hoping for some feedback before sending it.

Credit due to Lynnzer in pepipoo for the template

Am I correct that this should be a reply to UKPPO and not IAS? Yes.

For UKPPO


To: UKPPO

Dear Sir/Madam,

Your PCN draws to my attention that you are using my designated car parking area for your own business purposes. My lease allows unfettered occupational rights to the parking areas, which means you are operating a predatory business on land which you have no legitimate interest in, and have not sought approval for the use of from the actual landholder, ie myself. You have trespassed on my leased land.

Your involvement on this land will have supposedly been to prevent parking by uninvited persons, for the benefit of the actual leaseholders and their invited guests. Instead you carry out a predatory operation on those very people whose interests you are purportedly there to uphold. In any case, my lease makes no restrictions to the use of the parking facilities, let alone a penalty regime for some trumped up charge you have designed to fill your coffers.

My lease remains the same as it was when it was originally signed which means you are acting unlawfully and without landholder consent. If you feel that you have been misled by the Managing Agents insofar as they have contracted with you to operate here, then that is something you must take up with them directly. It is of little interest to me as I have unequivocal unfettered right of peaceful enjoyment on [STRIKE]the[/STRIKE] my land.

I may draw your attention to the following cases. That a right to “use” and access a roadway can reasonably include a right to park was accepted by the court in McClymont v. Primecourt Property Management Limited* [2000] All ER (D) 1871. On the facts, a grant of a right to use a private road included the right to park vehicles.

And case of Jopson v Homeguard , case 2906J in Oxford County Court where the appeal heard by his honour Judge Harris QC. This was an appeal against a previous hearing which was awarded in favour of Homeguard, in similar circumstances as those addressed in my dispute with you.The Judge allowed the appeal in favour of Mrs Jopson.

Your involvement in your supposed parking management arrangements place on you an obligation to ensure that proper consideration is given to all the facts. Lax contractual assessment is not an excuse for a derogation of your duty.

You will know that you cannot add a requirement for residents to now display permits (and foist onerous parking charges on my ground) because access rights and easements allowing vehicle and parking were already granted under the lease.

Supposition is insufficient as to how you arrange these matters with the landowner's agent. Careful scrutiny of an actual lease would be required to confirm or refute your legitimacy in even taking on a contract for parking management, or as it turns out, mismanagement.

As you have seen fit to attempt to charge me the sum of £100 as a legitimate amount for the use of my own leased property, I hereby claim the exact same amount from you for your trespass and business use on my allocated parking spaces.

In addition, I would also like to draw your attention to Section 10 Notice under DPA, that you should not obtain further data about this VRN because I have the primacy of contract as leaseholder.

I now demand that you desist from further ticketing of vehicles that are associated with my leaseholder rights.

To prevent this matter being taken to court I require payment within 14 working days from 2 days of the date of this letter. Failure of this will result in a court claim being instigated and consequential separate costs being added for the added expense.

Yours sincerely


Following for the managing agent


Name
date

Ref parking at the above address.

On the XXX I became resident in the above property and a lease to that effect was signed by myself and Manchester Ship Canal Development.

My lease allows me unfettered access and use of the whole car park as shown on [STRIKE]the[/STRIKE] my lease. There are no conditions placed on myself by way of a clause in the lease so I expect the use of the parking facility to be unhindered and free of [STRIKE]interferance[/STRIKE] interference by a third party, namely UKPPO Ltd.

On XXXX a Parking Charge Notice made out by UKPPO Ltd was attached to the windscreen of my car, the reason for this being Non display of a permit. An amount of £100 was claimed from me. I have no need to display a permit as there is no such condition placed on me by way of [STRIKE]the[/STRIKE] my lease.

Your response to this matter being emailed for you to sort out was less than satisfactory. You responded that you have agreement with UKPPO Ltd that you cannot cancel a valid tickets, despite there being primacy of contract by way of the original lease.

The effect of this is that you are complicit in placing restrictions on the lease I am already a signatory to.

The net effect of this is that your action in contracting with UKPPO Ltd may well be construed as Tortious Interference liable to court action for a claim of damages.

I now seek redress to this situation and claim an amount of the same sum from yourself by way of damages. Failure to make payment within 14 days, may result in a small claims action being taken without further notification at which time other costs for the expenses incurred will be added.

I also require conformation from you that no further ticketing will take place on my vehicle, or any other vehicles where the vehicle keeper has a similar lease.

Sincerely,
XXX

Coupon-mad

Good stuff, this will be interesting!

crabscoot

Both email sent. Let's wait for the reply.

Thanks for everyone that responded.

crabscoot

Hi all,

So, my management company have reply as below. I am planning to reply him in short, have a look on my draft and comments. he totally ignored my claims of charges, should I mention that in my reply?

Hi XXX,

The landlord has agreed to the parking patrol hence the tickets can be issued, as a leaseholder you are hold a long term lease and don’t own the space.

The ticketing isn’t there to make money or catch people out, I have asked the ticketing company to wave the ticket on this occasion.

Can you please ensure your permit is in place in the future

Thanks

My draft,

Dear XXX,

Thank you for your explanation. You are correct that I hold a long lease and do not own the space. However, I would like to make you aware that the landlord can have agreement with anyone he wants but this does not have any effect on my lease with the landlord. As I have mention that there are no condition placed on me within the clause in the lease mentioning that a permit have to be displayed while I am not my lease land or I will be fined by 3rd party.

Replying to this email does not mean that I am accepting the condition that I have to place the permit when I am park in my lease-land in the future.

Regards,
XXX

Coupon-mad

I think I would wait until the PCN is cancelled, get that first in writing from the parking firm. THEN you can reply about your lease and you could use case law and the Law itself to argue your point that you believe you have acquired an easement implied within the lease:

http://www.landmarkchambers.co.uk/userfiles/documents/resources/Rights_of_Way_to_Park_Creation_-and-_Extent_-_DMH.pdf

Section 62 of the LPA 1925
19. Section 62(1) of the 1925 Act provides that a conveyance of land shall be deemed to include and
shall operate to convey, with the land:
“all buildings, erections, fixtures, commons, hedges, ditches, fences, ways, waters, watercourses,
liberties, privileges, easements, rights, and advantages whatsoever, appertaining or
reputed to appertain to the land, or any part thereof, or, at the time of conveyance, demised, occupied,
or enjoyed with, or reputed or known as part or parcel of or appurtenant to the land or any part thereof.”


Whilst section 62 (2) provides:
“A conveyance of land, having houses or other buildings thereon, shall be deemed to include
and shall by virtue of this Act operate to convey, with the land, houses, or other buildings, all
outhouses, erections, fixtures, cellars, areas, courts, courtyards, cisterns, sewers, gutters,
drains, ways, passages, lights, watercourses, liberties, privileges, easements, rights, and
advantages whatsoever, appertaining or reputed to appertain to the land, houses, or other
buildings conveyed, or any of them, or any part thereof, or, at the time of conveyance,
demised, occupied, or enjoyed with, or reputed or known as part or parcel of or appurtenant
to, the land, houses, or other buildings conveyed, or any of them, or any part thereof.

22. The point about section 62 is that it is capable of converting what have hitherto been merely precarious benefits or mere informal licences into permanent property rights.

Take the facts of HAIR V GILMAN (2000) 80 P&CR 108. In that case L allowed T, her tenant, to park her car anywhere on the forecourt owned by L in front of the demised property, although there was no express term to this effect in the tenancy agreement. Subsequently, T purchased the freehold of the property she had leased (but not the forecourt) from L.

The conveyance of the house was silent on parking rights, but it did not expressly exclude the operation of section 62. T was held to have acquired an easement to park on the forecourt retained by L for the same duration as the freehold estate which T has obtained. It was irrelevant that neither L nor T contemplated that L allowing T to park during the term of the lease would have this result on the conveyance of the freehold.

23. In general terms, it is easier to succeed under section 62 than the rule in Wheeldon v Burrows as there is no need to prove either that the right was continuous and apparent or that it was necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of the property conveyed. However, as a counsel of prudence, it is often sensible to base a claim on both methods of implication in the alternative. Moreover, in the absence of a “conveyance” triggering section 62, the rule in Wheeldon v Burrows may be the only recourse available to the person claiming an easement.

crabscoot

I dont think UKPPO will reply and let me know that the PCN have been cancelled. I will wait until Wednesday and maybe send them an email to ask what is the status of my PCN.

I read about the cases you post above. I think for those there are no clear lease that the parking space are lease to T.

For mine, I have 2 lease, 1 for the apartment and 1 for the parking space. The parking space are numbered accordingly.

Thanks again for your reply.