4 PCNs in 7 days in residential carpark

Umkomaas

I have now been requested to pay £400 to NPM, or a mere £240 if I pay within 14 days. I won't be paying them a penny unless a judge tells me to.

I like your style.

In fact I would like to get NPM in front of a judge for getting my personal details from DVLA without any cause.

There are cases currently being developed to take on the PPC network for breaches of the DPA principles. In your shoes I'd would be too precipitate, let some trailblazer cases go through, keep an eye on this forum, PePiPoo and The Parking Prankster's blog site to check developments.

The beauty of this is you're unlikely to make schoolboy errors doing things off your own bat that haven't been tried and tested, but the main advantage is that you have six years in which to sue your PPC.

You know what they say about serving up the revenge dish.......!

scrib2074

Fruitcake wrote: »

You should most definitely complain to the DVLA about your inability to appeal as keeper.

What does this mean please? Why would I complain to DVLA?

As for regulations there are none.

I am not surprised. A total brush off from the Housing Services Manager of my HA.

Confronting the scam photographer would do no good, but there is nothing stopping you taking pictures of them taking pictures of your car. You could also take pictures of their car if you wished. Taking pictures of people or objects in a public place is not an offence. If they say anything, just walk away.
Perhaps a residents' photographic society group might like to take lots of pictures.

I like the idea but feel I've wasted too much time on these clowns already. I'd rather be in bed.

No variation of contract means they have no case and therefore a breach of DPA has occurred for the applications to the DVLA. If it went to court you would have the option of a counter claim or a separate claim. The advantage of a counter claim is that the scammers can't give up when they realise they aren't going to win.

Does the parking company have to apply to DVLA for each PCN? So there have been 4 breaches so far? They definitely have my details on file now.

Personally I would return the permit stating that there is no requirement in your lease to display one, but you were only showing it as a curtesy to the attendant who is supposed to be preventing abuse of the car park. Since you, a genuine resident with right to park is now being targeted, you are withdrawing that curtesy since none is being shown to you.
Then add that you withdraw any implied right of access to your demised parking space and will treat any contact by them to obtain your details from the DVLA as breach of the Data Protection Act. You reserve the right to issue a court claim for each and every breach. Finding in your favour for a DPA breach is normally in the region of £250 to £750. Copy this to the MA.

I do not have an allocated space but can park anywhere as long as it's within the lines and I'm not in the way. Am I still ok to return the permit? NPM have been sending me these PCNs every couple of days and my landlord just refers me back to them. I think I'm going to have to take action.

scrib2074

Umkomaas wrote: »

There are cases currently being developed to take on the PPC network for breaches of the DPA principles. In your shoes I'd would be too precipitate, let some trailblazer cases go through, keep an eye on this forum, PePiPoo and The Parking Prankster's blog site to check developments.

The beauty of this is you're unlikely to make schoolboy errors doing things off your own bat that haven't been tried and tested, but the main advantage is that you have six years in which to sue your PPC.

You know what they say about serving up the revenge dish.......!

Sorry for multi posts and possibly not quoting correctly, I'm very new to this game.

Thanks for the advice to watch and wait, it makes good sense. I fired off my response to the first PCN in a total rage and made the mistake of confirming driver details. Only drawback is I may need to invest in a folder for all the PCNs I've accumulated by the time the trailblazer cases have been decided. Perhaps I'll be able to add it to my costs?

Revenge would be very sweet indeed.

The_Deep

Admitting to driving is not a biggie in "own space" claims. The main thing is your leasehold rights to quiet enjoyment of your property and primacy of contract.

Fruitcake

The scammers told you that you could not appeal unless you gave them the driver's ID. That is a no-no. You should complain about this to the DVLA. Send a copy of the letter where it says that to them.

Yes the scammers have to apply to the DVLA for keeper details each time. Since you gave them the driver's details the first time it is actually three DPA breaches so far, not four.

You can ask the DVLA who by, and how many times, your data has been requested between x and y dates. If it's less than three, you can complain to the DVLA about that as well as it is a breach of their Kadoe contract with the DVLA and a DPA breach because it means they must have retained the data instead of apply for it again.

scrib2074

The_Deep wrote: »

Admitting to driving is not a biggie in "own space" claims. The main thing is your leasehold rights to quiet enjoyment of your property and primacy of contract.

I found this deep in the bowels of the HA's Neighbourhood Management Scheme
"Parking Schemes
9.6 We may appoint a reputable company to operate a parking scheme, or parking
maintenance, in our neighbourhoods to ensure the effective management/control of
parking spaces, facilities, gates or barriers."

I can see the HA pointing me to this when I escalate the issue. I'm guessing a policy does not trump my right to peaceful enjoyment or the primacy of my tenancy agreement contract? There is also a bit in the tenancy agreement to say they can vary "services" as covered in Appendix A which I don't have, I do get a bill for the service charge every year and don't remember seeing a payment for parking scheme on there.

The HA really do seem to believe that NPM are doing the Lord's work and have nothing but my best interests at heart. It is like talking to a brick wall when I try to explain I am being scammed, that's why I'd like to be really sure of my position before contacting them again. I would love their definition of reputable as it applies to a company who are taking grainy, shadowy photos of my car in order to conceal the fact there is a permit on the windscreen.

Fruitcake wrote: »

The scammers told you that you could not appeal unless you gave them the driver's ID. That is a no-no. You should complain about this to the DVLA. Send a copy of the letter where it says that to them.

Yes the scammers have to apply to the DVLA for keeper details each time. Since you gave them the driver's details the first time it is actually three DPA breaches so far, not four.

You can ask the DVLA who by, and how many times, your data has been requested between x and y dates. If it's less than three, you can complain to the DVLA about that as well as it is a breach of their Kadoe contract with the DVLA and a DPA breach because it means they must have retained the data instead of apply for it again.

Thanks for this. The online appeal form had a drop down menu to confirm keeper was driver. However, I did name the driver myself later as well, lesson learned. I will be asking DVLA how often my details have been accessed.

Coupon-mad

I can see the HA pointing me to this when I escalate the issue.

Probably, but don't point them to it, of course!

I'm guessing a policy does not trump my right to peaceful enjoyment or the primacy of my tenancy agreement contract?

No, it doesn't, and nor does that vague policy mention any charges. You can't ''agree'' to a variation of contract and charges that are not properly communicated and properly varied, with full information about any onerous terms (the £100).

Merely putting up signs does not meet Lord Denning's ''red hand rule'' (Google it). Residents who already have the right to park are not going to have their attention drawn to the £100 risk unless that was written clearly into any info that came with the permits, to make that point clear.

safarmuk

The parking company photographer is coming between 9 and 9.30am each time. I work nights so I'm a sitting duck. The carpark is probably close to empty when s/he visits, was thinking of dropping a note in my neighbour's letterboxes to see if they've had any problems. I would also have thought if the HA were receiving lots of complaints they might take me seriously but maybe other people are paying?

Set up a Facebook page (a closed group you have admin right over) - call it "Residents of XYZ". Then post a note to all residents telling them about this group and inviting them to join. Once you have several people on it you can discuss issues effecting residents effectively and if you find more people are in the same position as you are, well then you can go to the HA "en masse".

As individuals complaining without knowing about each other you will get nowhere, but as a group you will become very effective.

scrib2074

I have just received the reply for my "appeal" for the first PCN. They are not claiming there is no permit, which is what it looks like from the photos. They are claiming it is invalid as it has been altered with Tippex which is against the rules and regulations on the back of the permit. That is not true, I put a sticker on top of my old reg number when I bought a new car in order to write the new one in. No Tippex was involved in the commission of this non crime. There is some junk on the bottom about appealing to IAS, I take it there is no point?

The appeal reply also informed me where my vehicle was parked was private property. I know that, I live there!

I have also been in contact with the parking Mob about getting a new permit. They told me to ring to give details and make payment. I asked how much and why? They said there is a cost for any replacement or additional permits as agreed with the landowner. Does it matter the person making the payment was not involved in the making of that agreement? They finally got back to me with the price which is £10 plus £2 banking fee. £2 banking fee, they are outrageous.

My landlord never entered into any consultation process before imposing these scammers on us. Now I learn about a £12 charge for simply changing my car.

I will post the template reply to IPC PCNs on Friday. I have 3, all for the same "offence".

Does it make any difference to my position as a resident with a tenancy agreement that by the parking company's terms I've invalidated myself? Which is bizarre really. What do I do now? Wait for the parking scammers next move?

Coupon-mad

You should read, use and adapt the humdinger of a LBC that LoadsofChildren123 wrote here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/72557302#Comment_72557302

I would absolutely go on the attack. Even about the £12 'fee' for daring to have to change the VRN on the 'permit' which again was never agreed by you or your landlord, any more than the 'parking charges' were.

You will need to adapt what LoadsOf has written (as linked by hairray in post #103) because your case is different with a different lease granted to your landlord and different status for you as authorised tenant (but you still enjoy rights). Your case is especially helped if your Landlord will show you any points in his/her lease about 'peaceful enjoyment' or the 'right to park a vehicle/use the car park, etc.'

Get researching and read that absolute peach of a LBC. No waiting to be sued.