Appealing to IAS regarding ticket in my own space

safarmuk

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.

OP - this is really important ... inform all your fellow residents and then speak to the MA. Tell them to put in place safegaurds (in writing) whereby PCM gaurantee to cancel all tickets immediately (e.g. no silly postal appeals), without question, given to people who can prove they are genuine residents or genuine visitors/contractors.

Starlemusique

It's interesting to see your responses. Obviously, you have all seen far darker recesses of this than I have - and I hope to never have to - this was enough for me!!

Below is the information that I entered into the appeals box on the IAS website. For interest, I admitted to being the driver in this case. Didn't see the point of not - my point was that I shouldn't be penalised for being in my own space.

I dispute the PCN, based on the following:

The signage shown in the PCN evidence is incorrect. It states that "Resident permit display will commence 15th October 2013. As from the above date, residents with an allocated bay MUST display a new GREEN bay corresponding (PCM UK Ltd) OCT 2013 issue permit at all times." THIS IS NOT TRUE. Bays including, but not limited to, nos. XX & XX do not have to display permits. I have been told that the owners of these parking bays have been allowed to opt out of the parking scheme. I was not informed that this was a possibility and had I been informed of that right, I would have done so. I will be informing my Managing Company of this immediately.

The parking bay in which my car was parked (no. xx) was allocated to me on the purchase of my apartment in xxxx. The parking bay in question is covered by my lease which is a contract between myself as the owner of the property, the landlord xxxx, and the Management Company, xxxx. I have no written or verbal contract at all with PCM.

This lease predates the engagement of PCM by a year. Therefore, 'primacy of contract' applies. My lease does not state that I need to display any permit while parked in my bay - it states that I have "the 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." This is what I had done.

I did not agree with the engagement of PCM and have never negotiated a formal contract with them. They were engaged by the Landlord and Management Company to ensure residents kept to the terms of the lease. I have not contravened the lease in any way. I have not committed trespass, nor have I impinged upon anybody's right to access their property. I have not committed a crime, so should not be punished or penalised.

If a contract with PCM did exist it would be a civil contract. Civil contracts are not allowed to punish or penalise the consumer - only criminal law can do that. This is backed by common law and statute. The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 provides protection to consumers from unfair contracts. In particular, it defines where a term is considered as unfair:
5.(1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.
(2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.

Schedule 2 of the document gives indicative information about terms which may be considered unfair. In particular:
1. Terms which have the object or effect of-
(e) requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation.

In this case, a £100 fine for parking in my own allocated space, can only be described as disproportionately high.

Further to this, the Office of Fair Trading has issued guidance on its view of this legislation to provide guidance to court about how the law should be interpreted. In this document, they provide guidance for disproportionately high compensation:
5.1 It is unfair to impose disproportionate sanctions for breach of contract. A requirement to pay more in compensation for a breach than a reasonable pre-estimate of the loss caused to the supplier is one kind of excessive penalty. Such a requirement will, in any case, normally be void to the extent that it amounts to a penalty under English common law.

Because it is my allocated space, there cannot be any loss caused to the supplier. PCM are attempting to use genuine residential parking as a revenue stream rather than pursuing those who are actually, regularly contravening the lease issued by their lessor - which is why they were engaged in the first place.


I suspect that the main reason for cancellation was the signage. I don't know that for sure though.

safarmuk

I suspect that the main reason for cancellation was the signage. I don't know that for sure though.

Maybe ... but my feeling is it would have been around your points on "Primacy of Contract". This point is becoming clearer by the day as cases keep going for the leaseholder/tenant in the instances where this ends up in the SCC. Just check out the Parking Pranksters blogs on Residential Parking cases.

Umkomaas

I suspect that the main reason for cancellation was the signage. I don't know that for sure though.

More like primacy of contract. IAS have ruled in favour of PPCs many times where totally rubbish signage has been obvious and exposed in appeals.

Guys_Dad

To avoid further problems, you must write to the MA & PPC (and landowner?) informing them that whilst you acknowledge their right to appoint a PPC to pathrol the communal areas, you are informing them that you are withdrawing your parking space from the PPC's area of control. Post with receipt of postage.

And keep the letters.

The_Deep

In every case where a resident has been unnecessarily inconvenienced by a PPC contrary to their leasehold/AST they should seek compensation from the MA and PPC.


If the MA has fallen short, complain to their trade association, and/or The Property Ombudsman. If the PPC has wasted your time, invoice them, and, if you are made of stern stuff, issue a claim for a couple of hours of your time. The will probably settle befote court to save themselves money.