Am I liable for parking charges for resident car park even if I'm resident?

jimimack

Hi,
Grateful for any advice offered here. I recently moved into an apartment which came with an allocated parking slot in the secure car park. I paid the letting agent £60 'check in fee' although was surprised they did not check me in to the property but told me to collect the keys from their office. They did not have the car park permit ready for me and told me they would post it on to me, giving me a hand written 'temporary permit'. A week later they emailed to say it was ready to collect from their office, when I complained it was inconvenient for me to collect due to work commitments they told me it had to be collected as it needed to be signed for despite telling me they would send it to me initially. I told them I couldn't make it in to their office for a few weeks so would continue using the 'temporary permit' for the time being. I have since been issued with 3 penalty charge notices, for £60 each. I have appealed these of course giving the above explanation. Is it my responsibility to collect the permit even though I paid a £60 check in fee? And if I lose the appeal am I liable to pay for the charges or will it be the agents responsibility for failure to provide me with the permanent car park permit on check in? Any advice given would be appreciated.

Pixie5740

What exactly did the check-in fee cover? What does your tenancy agreement say about the supply of the parking permit?

My feeling is that you will be liable for the penalty charges but this question might get better answers posted on the motoring board.

G_M

You should certainy appeal the charges - go over to the 'parking charges' forum for advice on how.

However you may fail. I suspect the requirement is that you display a valid permit and it is really up to you to ensure you do so. By delaying collection for so long you have laid yourself open.

I don't see how you can shift responsibility onto the agents since they prepared the permit, informed you it was ready, advised you to collect it, and..... you failed to do so.

davidmcn

jimimack wrote: »

Is it my responsibility to collect the permit

I don't see why it would be anybody else's.

stator

The question is, what does it say in your tenancy agreement?

If they want to 'charge' you there has to be a contract between you and the parking company. If you can prove there is no contract (or rather they can't prove there is) then it won't hold up in court.
If your tenancy agreement mentions that you have to display a permit then you may have to pay these 'penalties'
If your tenancy agreement gives you the right to park in those spaces and mentions nothing about a permit then you might not have to pay, but they will probably keep harassing you and possibly even take you to small claims court.
You need to start doing your own research on this issue. Primacy of contract is a key phrase in these cases I believe.

This website has lots of examples, but you do have to do a lot of reading to find examples that might be relevant to you
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/

jimimack

Surely it's the letting agents responsibility to give me the permit with the keys upon moving in. I have left it so long as I have been away on holiday and have work commitments which does not allow me to visit their office during their opening hours. My issue is they blatantly lied about it being posted on to me and I don't see why I should take time off work to collect it from their office. I have actually just received the permit as I requested them to come to me for their precious signature.

jimimack

Thanks for all the input folks.

G_M

stator wrote: »

The question is, what does it say in your tenancy agreement?

If they want to 'charge' you there has to be a contract between you and the parking company. If you can prove there is no contract (or rather they can't prove there is) then it won't hold up in court.

Provided the parking company has complied with the legislation (eg by displaying correct signage etc), then a contract will be deemed to exist by virtue of having parked there.

The company offered parkig, subject to rules, and you accepted the offer (the rules being clearly displayed) by leaving your car on the land in question.

that's how private parking companies operate.

But frequently they fail to follow correct procedure (eg signage, or posting a Notice to Owner within time limits), allowing an appeal to succeed.

Alternatively, write to the land owner (who employs the parking company) and explain. They may instruct the parking company to cancel the charge. The landowner will be the freeholder or management company for the building.

Guest101

G_M wrote: »

Provided the parking company has complied with the legislation (eg by displaying correct signage etc), then a contract will be deemed to exist by virtue of having parked there.

The company offered parkig, subject to rules, and you accepted the offer (the rules being clearly displayed) by leaving your car on the land in question.

that's how private parking companies operate.

But frequently they fail to follow correct procedure (eg signage, or posting a Notice to Owner within time limits), allowing an appeal to succeed.

Alternatively, write to the land owner (who employs the parking company) and explain. They may instruct the parking company to cancel the charge. The landowner will be the freeholder or management company for the building.

There's a strong legal argument over primacy of contract, IE a tenancy agreement is the primary contract for the person in question and cannot be overridden by a 3rd party


OP: Have a look at the parking prankster blog, there's atleast 4 articles on this very topic

tim123456789

Guest101 wrote: »

There's a strong legal argument over primacy of contract, IE a tenancy agreement is the primary contract for the person in question and cannot be overridden by a 3rd party

Even if that primacy of contract were the case I would say that you have it the wrong way around.

The contact originally formed by the owner on the land on which you are parking, cannot be overridden by some 3rd party hobby landlord giving a tenant a back of a fag packet tenancy contract.

tim

Guest101

tim123456789 wrote: »

Even if that primacy of contract were the case I would say that you have it the wrong way around.

The contact originally formed by the owner on the land on which you are parking, cannot be overridden by some 3rd party hobby landlord giving a tenant a back of a fag packet tenancy contract.

tim

I don't have it wrong. As the contract for the driver (ie the tenant) is firstly with the LL.


Just take a look at the blog and the case law.