Appealing to IAS regarding ticket in my own space

Coupon-mad

He's right and I too would opt out.

Make it clear to your MA you are objecting and your bay is your demised space and will not be enforced by some third party scumbag - state that you have NEVER agreed to a 'parking charge' because that constitutes derogation from grant on their part. They need to be aware you and other residents can sue or counter-sue for this failure by the MA in allowing an ex-clamper in to harass residents who already have pre-existing rights.

i.e. - the lease grants you the unfettered "right to park a roadworthy, taxed and insured car in the Parking Bay allocated by the Landlord or the Management Company from time to time." The mention of clamping can be wholly disregarded because it doesn't relate to bays anyway and clamping has been a criminal offence for over 4 years. So they are in breach of this covenant: ''That the tenant paying the rent and observing and performing the covenants on the part of the tenant herein contained shall peaceably hold and enjoy the property throughout the term without any interruption by the landlord or any personal lawfully claiming under or in trust for it.''

Opt out of the permit scheme like your neighbour (in writing) refusing to recognise PCM and stating that they must NOT trespass in your demised bay, and the fact they have done so will be subject to a court claim from you if they persist.

And come back as and when PCM try a Gladstones small claim - well worth defending. And get pics of this now before they improve the signs, you will need this evidence including views of the site with no signs in view:

The signage is a laminated piece of paper as you walk through the door into the car park from the basement of the apartment block. There is little or no signage (I thnk no visable) in the car park itself.

safarmuk

The letter I received didn't address me by name even - it just says 'Dear resident'. I have never paid for it nor signed for it.

This is - I suspect - because PCM do not hold your name and full address so everyone is "Dear Resident".
They hold only a flat number, and the permits allocated to that flat number, this is all the (sensible) MA would supply to them.

Guys_Dad

The trouble with legal documents is that they often leave matters to legal interpretation - hence lawyers and judges - and they don't always see things the same way.

I agree with what c-m has written, but I do add a note of caution.

Your post read
"Regulations include:

Not to leave or park (other than temporarily for the purposes or deliveries to and from the property) on any part of the estate any motor vehicles and to observe all regulations made by the landlord from time to time relating to the parking of the vehicles (and the tenant acknowledges the right of the landlord or its agents to apply wheel clamps to vehicles parked in contravention of such regulations and to charge a fee for removal)"

Now, clearly, this predated POFA because of the reference to clamping, but the PPC might very well argue that apart from the clamping bit, your lease does grant the landlord to introduce subsequent regulations relating to parking "from time to time" and the intriduction of a permit scheme is covered by that t&c.

Now you would argue that this applies to parking that impinges on the rights of other residents (such as parking a wreck or a commercial vehicle etc) and that parking in your spot without a permit can only be an inconvenience to you and not others and that to relate that clause in the circumstances you are in is a direct conflict with uyour peaceful rights as a leaseholder. Also, with the wording, that it applies to those parts of the estate that are not your parking space.

The mere fact that there is a clause specifically relating to parking in your lease, however, does weaken your case somewhat.

The best way of resolving this is by the MA agreeing that your space is outside the permit scheme.

Coupon-mad

Agreed - but of course the OP for now, cherry picks the parts which support his primacy of contract.

Starlemusique

Thank you everyone for your help.

I have submitted an appeal simply because I'd already started one before realising it was probably better not to bother...

I have based it on incorrect signage as not all people who park in the basement carpark have to display a permit, and that I had not been informed of the possibility of opting out of the scheme.

I have also quoted primacy of contract and contravention of the Unfair Terms.

They may or may not uphold the appeal, but I would be perfectly willing to take this to court.

safarmuk

Not to leave or park (other than temporarily for the purposes or deliveries to and from the property) on any part of the estate any motor vehicles and to observe all regulations made by the landlord from time to time relating to the parking of the vehicles (and the tenant acknowledges the right of the landlord or its agents to apply wheel clamps to vehicles parked in contravention of such regulations and to charge a fee for removal)"

I would say this snippet refers to parking regulations outside of marked/allocated bays (hence the reference to deliveries) with regard parking in obstructive places (e.g. accross a path to stop a mother with a buggy accessing a pavement). I could not see how this clause could apply to an allocated bay (e.g. we have changed the rules, unless you put a bit of paper in your car we can clamp you!). To be sure we would have to see the lease in its entirety.

Starlemusique

Hi everyone,

Thanks again so much for your advice. I submitted the appeal to IAS on Tuesday. This morning, I received an email from IAS...

Thank you for your appeal. Due to further information Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd has confirmed they will no longer be pursuing the matter and the parking charge has been cancelled.


So, in the end, it was PCM who cancelled the ticket...

I am, obviously, thrilled

Umkomaas

Starlemusique wrote: »

Hi everyone,

Thanks again so much for your advice. I submitted the appeal to IAS on Tuesday. This morning, I received an email from IAS...

Thank you for your appeal. Due to further information Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd has confirmed they will no longer be pursuing the matter and the parking charge has been cancelled.


So, in the end, it was PCM who cancelled the ticket...

I am, obviously, thrilled

This cancellation will have been orchestrated by the IAS. This isn't a unilateral action by PCM, it will be the IAS telling them that they will have to uphold your appeal and they don't want one of their operators being defeated at their hands.

Whilst it's a good result for you, just beneath the surface there's a stinking cesspit.

Now go and inform all the other residents that such tickets have no foundation, as you've proved. Also tell the MA the same and ask why they allow PCM to harass and intimidate residents, under their contract with them.

beamerguy

Starlemusique wrote: »

Hi everyone,

Thanks again so much for your advice. I submitted the appeal to IAS on Tuesday. This morning, I received an email from IAS...

Thank you for your appeal. Due to further information Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd has confirmed they will no longer be pursuing the matter and the parking charge has been cancelled.


So, in the end, it was PCM who cancelled the ticket...

I am, obviously, thrilled

Clearly PCM could see they would never win.

This is not to be confused with a win with the IAS who still operate their famous kangaroo court

safarmuk

Thanks again so much for your advice. I submitted the appeal to IAS on Tuesday. This morning, I received an email from IAS...

Thank you for your appeal. Due to further information Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd has confirmed they will no longer be pursuing the matter and the parking charge has been cancelled.


So, in the end, it was PCM who cancelled the ticket...

I am, obviously, thrilled

Excellent - this is good news indeed.
Could I ask a favour, can you post up your final appeal letter here (obviously redacting personal details) please? I might try this with a few of the residents I know who are having issues, just to see if it will work a second time.

My suspicion here is that some PPCs know they are going to get hammered on Residential Parking cases as do the IAS if it goes any further and the correct wording simply might not leave them much choice in these circumstances (e.g. if you present facts that cannot be refuted rejecting the appeal [twice] just makes them look unreasonable).