4 PCNs in 7 days in residential carpark

Fruitcake

scrib2074 wrote: »

The residential carpark where I have been ticketed for "invalid permit" has only one entrance which is through an archway. I noticed on the way out that the PPC has no signage in the archway but the landlord does. They have put a sign which reads "Private Parking, 1-24 KT Flats Only". My flat number is within that range. I am assuming it's the landlord's sign as it is in red with white writing and totally different from those of the PPC. The previous PPC did have one of their signs in the archway but this was removed when the new lot moved in.

I wondered if this sign gives me further permission to park (outside my tenancy agreement) and whether the fact it does not mention permits makes a difference to my case?

That sign helps your case. It effectively states that parking is provided exclusively for you (and other residents). It does not mention a permit scheme or a charge of any kind if you, a resident, park there.
Basically it supports your tenancy agreement.
Upon entering there can be no contract between you and a third party, even if there was such a scheme stated in your tenancy agreement. The only contract formed by that sign is between the tenants and the landowner.

scrib2074

Fruitcake wrote: »

That sign helps your case. It effectively states that parking is provided exclusively for you (and other residents). It does not mention a permit scheme or a charge of any kind if you, a resident, park there.
Basically it supports your tenancy agreement.
Upon entering there can be no contract between you and a third party, even if there was such a scheme stated in your tenancy agreement. The only contract formed by that sign is between the tenants and the landowner.

Thanks, more grist for the mill. It also helps in that while I was out there taking photos of the sign one of my neighbours came out and asked what I was up to. She's also had a PCN from them, I didn't ask what for but she lives there the same as me. Also told me one of the PPC operatives was out there one day recently taking photos of a car which belonged to some workmen who were working on an adjacent property. Not a resident car. The workmen spotted him in the act and came and spoke to him and photographer said it was cool, he wouldn't ticket them. Not sure I believe no ("legitimate" in this case) PCN will have been issued but these PPC guys have some nerve.

Made me more determined to send a copy of the letter I'm going to write to the landlord to all tenants. Who knows what I might be missing?

Coupon-mad

I agree, that sign confirms residents of those named flats have been granted an unfettered right to park. You can't read it any other way.

There's a doctrine we often quote on here in residential cases: 'a grantor shall not derogate from his grant' as was held in Saeed v Plustrade. A landowner, service provider, or anyone in possession of land or something of value, can't offer/grant a right in law (such as a right to park) on the one hand, and take it away with the other.

safarmuk

As well as your letter to the other residents, why don't you set up a Facebook group "Residents of Mickey Housing" and mention to join on your letter, if it takes off you will have an open forum to find out more about what is going on and who is being impacted not just by this parking scam but also other issues.

From there you can operate as a group to get something meaningful and appropriate for your situation.

scrib2074

I've spent the last few days reading through various threads and I've written a letter to the housing association, haven't sent it yet.

I named myself as driver on the appeal to the first NTK I received. Looking at the emailed response to my appeal it has their questions/my responses "Are you the owner of the vehicle" Yes. "Are you the driver/rider of the vehicle" Yes. "Please name the Driver of the vehicle when the PCN was issued?": Scrib2074. It does not say who was driving at the time of the incident.

The NTK has a box at the top with Issued Date: as, say 13 April and Incident Time/Date: 09:00 10 April. So, according to them or rather the "law" on such matters, did I still admit to being the driver? It's an important point as on 10 April, at the time of the incident, I was on the other side of the planet. They have the information from me on who was driving when the PCN was issued but not who was driving when the alleged breach of their made up rules occurred. Does this matter as it just seems that I should have to be driving at the time of the alleged breach and not at the time they issued the PCN which was 3 days later. I do say I'm the driver generally in the second question but obviously not when I'm 11,000 miles away from the car.

I am able to see the lovely photos of my car on the PPC's "pay now" section. The date and time of issue for the PCN is given as 3 days after the incident. Don't worry, I paid them nothing!

Sorry if this is pedantic, but should I not have to be the driver at the time of the incident (impossible) rather than when they issued the PCN? I'm not clutching at straws, just investigating every angle.

Coupon-mad

did I still admit to being the driver?

Sounds like it to me. Sorry. I wouldn't hide behind the POFA, if you parked the car on 10th and admitted that early on, as you describe.

In your case, you should be looking at the LBAs issued by hairray that killed off his PCN.

scrib2074

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Sounds like it to me. Sorry. I wouldn't hide behind the POFA, if you parked the car on 10th and admitted that early on, as you describe.

In your case, you should be looking at the LBAs issued by hairray that killed off his PCN.

Thanks, but perhaps I didn't explain this properly? I didn't park the car on the 10th, what the PPC calls the incident date. I was unable to as I was on the other side of the planet on that date. I had been unable to park the car anywhere for some time previous to that date as well. If I admitted it I admitted a physical impossibility. My appeal was only about the existence of the permit, I said nothing about whether I'd parked the car or when in my defence. The PPC "know" (thanks to a drop down box) I was driving the car 3 days after the alleged breach of contract, the issue date of the PCN, which was equally impossible.

The PPC's NTK may not be POFA compliant as there is no period of parking specified. Just date and time of incident with 4 photos taken in under a minute. The car could have been parked there for 30 days, for example, or 3 minutes. Unless parking attendants wait around taking photos of empty car parks, I've no idea. Wouldn't surprise me if there are no residents' cars to ticket.

I do not have legal advice but I'm sure my landlord does. I have read my tenancy agreement thoroughly but I'm not a lawyer. There may be a loophole in there that allows them to impose these scammers on us. POFA seems pretty straight forward, I'm just considering all options. The PPC working here are not litigious but as I have 4 PCNs they may see me as somebody worth pursuing. I don't want to discount any options for my defence. I really appreciate the help I've been given here, fresh and experienced eyes on a problem are always useful.

Coupon-mad

Ah, OK, so if you are saying that you can show that you can't have parked the car (not just that you were away when the actual PCNs were placed) then evidence that very clearly, that changes things.

It's shame you put your name as driver at first appeal, but that could be explained that the appeals page (quite probably deliberately) doesn't provide many options for a keeper appellant who was abroad, and can't be sure who parked or moved the car in your absence. Prove you were abroad and prove that the car had other insured drivers, from the insurance document if it names more than one person or just by stating as the truth, that the car is driven by other family members who have fully comp insurance.

I think your primacy of contract is your best defence point and the Jopson v Home Guard Appeal case and others like PACE v Noor, Link v Parkinson will assist with that argument.

I think POFA is a decent defence point as well but if they issued 4 x NTKs and the only issue with the wording is a lack of parking period, I would not hang your hat on that. I'd be also saying there can be no keeper liability because the car was legitimately parked with authorisation of a resident and as such, there was no 'relevant obligation nor relevant contract' (the prerequisites right at the start of Sch 4).

scrib2074

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I think your primacy of contract is your best defence point and the Jopson v Home Guard Appeal case and others like PACE v Noor, Link v Parkinson will assist with that argument.

I'm sure you're right and I have now gone back to this. I think I just wanted all my PCNs to be in a row. I thought I had a rogue one but I don't really. My defence is the same. I have a tenancy agreement with the landowner that says nothing about having to display a permit when a tenant's car is in the car park.

I'm going to do some more work on the letter to the landlord today and I'm going to flat out ask them under what theory (clause in tenancy agreement) they can limit my parking to only when displaying a permit and obligate me to pay hefty charges towards a third party if I do not comply. There is nothing in the letter they sent a couple of weeks ago that says why they are allowed to do this, it just says they have!

Coupon-mad

Write the letter in the style of hairray's letters, not in your own words. LoadsofChildren123 nailed the issues in those letters (even if you want to stop short of actually calling your letter a LBA, take tips from her wording, it's open for others to use and is there to be copied from and adapted).