Parking ticket in own allocated parking space

Redx

at the moment I would have though that they dont know who the driver is (or was)

it would be better if the complaint or appeal was kept ambiguous , so WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO PARK IN OUR SPACE ACCORDING TO OUR LEASE etc

never give them too much info , let them prove who was driving whilst still being the royal "we" in this matter

kaych

Thanks Redx. I have revised those accordingly.

Coupon-mad

MC has appeared to engage PPS to 'manage' the car park in the basement. apparently this was agreed by the directors/RA when I questioned MC about the use of PPS to issue tickets. MC stated that as the use of PPS was agreed by the RA, so by extension 'I' have also agreed to this arrangement and be bound by the terms of using the car park i.e. display a permit.

Have you read the threads by hairray and Daniel san? Very similar to what you describe above.

PPS need kicking out.

A parking firm do not resolve parking issues in a basement car park where residents & their visitors are the only ones parking - any PPC will always make things far, far worse.

IMHO your lease is worded very clearly, and PPS have no business trespassing, so good for you in fighting back and telling them you will sue them for £160:

'The right (to the exclusion of all others) to use the car parking space(s) shaded blue on Plan 3 and numbered or any other parking space(s) allocated by the Developer from time to time with the Development for the purpose of parking one fully taxed and licensed private motor car or motor cycle only'.

Fruitcake

That looks to be a very good response to the scammers. Keep up the pressure on the MC as well telling they will be jointly liable for the breach of DPA.

Get your MP on board as well. Tell them that you have been charged by an unregulated company for parking in your own space and operating a for profit business on it without your permission.
Also tell them that you expect them to support the private members bill concerning these unregulated private parking companies. If it is a Tory MP, tell them to talk to the RH Jacob Rees-Mogg MP who has an exceptional grasp of this disgusting industry.

kaych

Just to give an update on my situation. We have just received a rejection of our informal appeal of the PCN and given the POPLA code. So will be drafting my defence in the next 28 days.

The informal appeal concludes the following:

While I acknowledge your comments, I should note that the new permits have been hand-delivered to all letter boxes (for those flats and commercial units that have parking bays) during the week commencing 17 July 2017. The new permits have holograms on them to prevent counterfeit permits being created, and as before, are linked to specific bay numbers, so that the permits will only be valid if shown on a vehicle within a certain bay number. The new permits have become effective in place of any existing permits in use on 1 August 2017. As such, I conclude that on 08/08/2017, the Parking Charge Notice has been issued correctly.

Within Section 18.1 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice, it states that “A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you. If they park without your permission this will usually be an act of trespass. In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start. You must use signs to make it easy for them to find out what your terms and con1ditions are.” Warning signs are clearly displayed and available to be seen. The signs state,
PRIVATE LAND, PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY
Unauthorised parking by means of not showing a Clearly Displayed Valid Permit in the Windscreen will result in a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) of £100 being issued

In order for the warden to assess if a vehicle is parked correctly, a valid permit would need to be visibly on display. If the operator is not able to confirm that a vehicle is parked correctly, a PCN will be issued. Upon consideration of the photographic evidence provided by the operator, you have failed to display a valid permit at the time of this parking event and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions offered at the site. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to act in accordance with the terms and conditions applicable to the site. Having failed to park the vehicle correctly I uphold the operative’s decision to ticket this vehicle.

Just a question - I am reading through my Lease again, apart from the Lease term that I used in my informal appeal, I have noticed another paragraph in the Lease under the section called Parking. Just want to check whether this Lease has any negative impact in my case.

The terms states the following:
"Not to park or allow to be parked any car van or other vehicle on any part of the Reserved Property or the Development or the Estate (other than in such places (if any) as shall be provided therefore and save only to such extent and subject to such conditions as may be permitted by law and by such other regulations as may be imposed by the Developer or its managing agents."

Does the regulations mentioned above have any implication for us in regard to allowing the managing agent (which is technically 'our' managing agent now rather than the developer's since we kicked the original MA out) to introduce PPS to implement parking permits?

safarmuk

“A driver who uses your private car park with your permission does so under a licence or contract with you. If they park without your permission this will usually be an act of trespass. In all cases, the driver’s use of your land will be governed by your terms and conditions, which the driver should be made aware of from the start."

There is a fundamental issue here ... it is not their car park or their land ... astonishing quote ... just sums up the hilarity of these situations.

Two options - kill this at POPLA
and/or get on top of your MA with a serious complaint about this PPC and the fact that they should not be rejecting an appeal from a resident who has confirmed they were parking in their own bay.

kaych

It is indeed a ridiculous situation. Basically they are allowed to make money on land that they do not own. Following this logic, anyone can basically set up signs anywhere and issue tickets when you don't follow their rules...
Our MA is pathetic too, no use. I will be writing the formal appeal to POPLA and look into the LBC to both PPS and the MA.

The_Deep

it would be better if the complaint or appeal was kept ambiguous

Surely Redx any actions by the leaseholder would have more authority in their own name. POFA/keeper liability is hardly an issue here, it is a PPC trespass/quiet enjoyment/invasion of privacy issue that is the problem.

[Deleted User]

Well obviously the private parking company will have proof of posting the permit, won't it? Or the individual that delivered it will provide evidence to POPLA that he did indeed post it through your letterbox? No?

14 days notice is self-evidently inadequate notice that existing permits were going to be unilaterally withdrawn. What if you had left your car and were on holiday for the entirety of that period - it's mid summer. That is clearly an inappropriate time to affect such a change. 30 days would be more reasonable and would have permitted further correspondence with the parking company about the use of the existing permits (should clarification have been provided).

The terms states the following:
"Not to park or allow to be parked any car van or other vehicle on any part of the Reserved Property or the Development or the Estate (other than in such places (if any) as shall be provided therefore and save only to such extent and subject to such conditions as may be permitted by law and by such other regulations as may be imposed by the Developer or its managing agents."

This may indeed be sufficient to allow a managing agent to impose new parking regulations (although I note that there is no longer a developer or their agent, but rather one appointed on your behalf now involved). The key to this, however, is that you are still referring back to the Leasehold/Freehold. Notice periods under that document will be clearly specified. They will be postal (not by hand delivery) and they will provide for periods longer than 14 days for precisely the reasons set out above.

Thus even if the Claimant parking company is prima facie permitted to issue PCNs under the terms of your property ownership I would argue that inadequate notice was given, by the wrong method, and as such the permit displayed was valid and your ticket should not have been issued. Amen.

I defer to others on this latter point, but as an aside it seems to me that since you are required to submit all material to POPLA in one go, i'd make sure they provide you with their copy contract, copies of the correspondence withdrawing the old permit and photos of your vehicle before completing your appeal. Others more familiar with the POPLA process will advise on whether a time extension is feasible - the code does, as I understand it, expire.

kaych

I have unfortunately thrown the letter that came with the new permit away. When I asked the MA to cancel the ticket and the reason for issuing a new one, their response was this:

The letter sent on 14 July had this paragraph in bold:

The new permits will become effective in place of any existing permits in use on 1 August 2017. Please be sure, therefore, to have changed your permits over by the time this date comes around as any old permits displayed from 1 August will not be valid and the vehicle displaying them will be subject to receiving a Penalty Charge Notice.

Therefore, the old permit was no longer valid, so the situation remains as we discussed unfortunately.

I did ask to see the contract PPS has with the landowner (not the MA) which allow them to operate in our car park, which of course they did not provide. They did send us photos of our car with the PCN and 'old permit' in display. The photos also conveniently omitted the number of the bay (which is our flat number).