Parking charges for parking in my own space

Coupon-mad

Fantastic - unfettered right to park - primacy of contract.

You should look at hairray's thread and tell your Managing agents to get stuffed, basically! You have no more obligation or reason to display a permit, or pay a scammer £100 for parking, than I do at my house.

But win at POPLA first. Show us your draft.

CEBJ

Thank you. I have read through that letter and it looks adaptable to my case. The tenets hold: bad signage, incompatible with the lease and there is no evidence of landowner authority. Unfortunately, I have revealed that I am the driver but I am hoping that the strength of the arguments will hold nonetheless. I will share a draft of my appeal tomorrow.

Loadsofchildren123

I think in residential cases you are better saying you are the driver - the rights to park are yours.
What else does that document say about your rights and their rights? Does it say they have any rights to introduce further conditions/regulations about the use of the parking space?


If you don't win at POPLA and proceedings follow, you need to counterclaim for trespass to your car and space.


You can threaten to join the freeholder/Association etc but unfortunately that costs a court fee of £255. But threaten it anyway in the LBCs which you can adapt from hairray's thread. The cheaper option is to sue them afterwards, which is a much smaller court fee.

The_Deep

I think in residential cases you are better saying you are the driver - the rights to park are yours

I agree. What say you Quentin?

You can threaten to join the freeholder/Association etc but unfortunately that costs a court fee of £255.

That's steep, I only pay a tenner

Loadsofchildren123

The_Deep wrote: »

You can threaten to join the freeholder/Association etc but unfortunately that costs a court fee of £255.

That's steep, I only pay a tenner

How, Deep? Under the court rules, you have to apply to join a party to proceedings and the application fee is £255. Happy to be corrected, could you elaborate?

CEBJ

1. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and there is insufficient notice of the sum of the parking charge itself

From the BPA CoP section B – Operational Requirements in England and Wales
From 18.1
“You must use signs to make it easy for them (drivers) to find out what your terms and conditions are.”

In the BPA CoP 18.3
“Signs must be conspicuous and legible, and written in intelligible language, so that they are easy to see, read and understand.”

LINK

The signs in this car park are small, inconspicuous and illegible from a driver’s seat.

CEBJ

What do you think of the above letter taken from the recent win against Spring Parking. Grateful for your thoughts and the assessment of my chances

Coupon-mad

Yes, looks like it is getting there.

Personally I would add the extra point about 'no keeper liability', pointing that the NTK is not compliant, plus add the template appeal point from post #3 of the NEWBIES thread that the operators has not shown that the appellant is the individual liable (make sure your POPLA appeal doesn't include any words like 'I parked'). As already mentioned earlier, this is a winning appeal point for POPLA:

hope you never said who was driving? ...if you never said who was driving then I doubt the NTK was POFA compliant.

Upload the appeal as a PDF, plus the transcripts of the case law, plus a scan of the right page of your lease, and the front page, to prove it's yours/about this residence, not a random other lease. And quote the bit you quoted to us, showing an unfettered, pre-existing contractual RIGHT under the lease, to park.

bargepole

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Personally I would add the extra point about 'no keeper liability', pointing that the NTK is not compliant, plus add the template appeal point from post #3 of the NEWBIES thread that the operators has not shown that the appellant is the individual liable (make sure your POPLA appeal doesn't include any words like 'I parked'). As already mentioned earlier, this is a winning appeal point for POPLA:


Upload the appeal as a PDF, plus the transcripts of the case law, plus a scan of the right page of your lease, and the front page, to prove it's yours/about this residence, not a random other lease. And quote the bit you quoted to us, showing an unfettered, pre-existing contractual RIGHT under the lease, to park.

I must disagree here.

There is no point in trying to hide behind non-compliant NTKs or POFA in a residential case, the whole point of this is primacy of contract (which should be the first and strongest point).

I parked MY car in MY space which is granted to me by MY lease, which is a contract that the operator is not a party to. They cannot, through permits or signage, vary the terms of my lease, or grant a right to park which I already have.

All the other stuff about Codes of Practice, legibility of signs, etc., are basically secondary to the main issue.

Fruitcake

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes, looks like it is getting there.

Personally I would add the extra point about 'no keeper liability', pointing that the NTK is not compliant, plus add the template appeal point from post #3 of the NEWBIES thread that the operators has not shown that the appellant is the individual liable (make sure your POPLA appeal doesn't include any words like 'I parked'). As already mentioned earlier, this is a winning appeal point for POPLA:


Upload the appeal as a PDF, plus the transcripts of the case law, plus a scan of the right page of your lease, and the front page, to prove it's yours/about this residence, not a random other lease. And quote the bit you quoted to us, showing an unfettered, pre-existing contractual RIGHT under the lease, to park.

Surely this is not relevant since the OP has admitted to the PPC that they are the driver?