Parking ticket in own allocated parking space

kaych

Umkomaas wrote: »

POPLA will avoid adjudicating on issues surrounding your lease. That will be a more powerful argument at court level. Leave it in your appeal (more for PPS to have to deal with in their own evidence pack for you and POPLA).

You also need to include specific appeal sections on:

* PoFA and No Keeper Liability
* No proof that the registered keeper was the driver at the time of the parking event
(Both above - provided no identification of the driver has been provided to PPS)
* Signage - I know you’ve included a bit in various parts of your draft, but it is weak and needs its own detailed demolition of the on-site signage (including photos to back up your points).

I don’t think residential signage needs advertising consent, you could check whether it does or not with your local council, but I’ve never seen POPLA adjudicate on it. If it does need consent, leave it in your appeal, again more for PPS to deal with, then report them to the council if you find they don’t have it. Hassle is a two-way street!

For all and each of the above appeal points there are ready-written (winning) templates for you to copy and paste to bulk out your appeal, and with the correct wording to avoid making any inadvertent errors, and which POPLA have accepted many times previously. Go to the NEWBIES FAQ sticky, post #3 for the templates.

As PPS have sent you a NtK and as this isn’t a railways/dock/airport bylaws case there is no reason to delay sending in your POPLA appeal - other than to say, give time for regulars to have the chance to comment on your next draft.

To summarise, I don’t think your current draft is strong enough for a slam dunk. Adjust the current draft, add in the points I’ve given you, and subject to drafting, it will put you in a much stronger position to knock back PPS.

Thanks Umkomaas. I will stick to the templates and will revise my response accordingly. Thanks

safarmuk

Our RA is a RTM company, does it weaken my case and I can't use my lease to appeal?

IMO, no. Your lease is still the binding contract. However:
What Umkomaas is saying is that POPLA won't understand the lease points that well so you need all the other relevant POPLA appeal points as well and;
What LOC123 means is the RTM company, if it is as she infers, may have assumed the rights of the freeholder and therefore do have the ability to appoint agents and enforce terms in the lease. This however does not negate your lease in any way in my opinion, it still stands as the prime agreement.

This is another discussion but for me a RTM company have only really assumed the "rights to manage the estate" rather like a Managing Agent. The RTM company can appoint their own chosen MA if they choose to do so (as opposed to have to put up with the one the freeholder appoints). I don't 100% yet believe a RTM company obtains all rights to the land (although I could be wrong), however the way to find out would be to check the incorporation documents (like I told Daniel San on his thread) for the RTM company - these will be freely available on the Companies House website (you just need the name or company number of the RTM company to find it).

Loadsofchildren123

Agree with safarmuk's first para.


I'm not a land lawyer and don't fully understand RTMs and their legal status insofar as taking over rights/obligatons of the freeholder is concerned.


Your lease arguments remain. The only argument that may go is authority (that the PPC has no contract with the landowner but only with the RTM - if the RTM acquires the landowner's rights then it does have authority to contract with a PPC - the arguments about their right to impose a PPC on you remain regardless)

safarmuk

Your lease arguments remain.The only argument that may go is authority (that the PPC has no contract with the landowner but only with the RTM - if the RTM acquires the landowner's rights then it does have authority to contract with a PPC - the arguments about their right to impose a PPC on you remain regardless)

Spot on, this is the open point. But as LOC123 says it doesn't effect your lease arguments. If the lease doesn't allow for the imposition of this parking scheme on you then it matters not whether the RTM company have the right to appoint them or not (if they don't as they haven't obtained the land rights then this is just a further additional point you can use).

kaych

Ah !!!!!!, just searched the incorporation document of our RTM company. In there the RTM is allowed to 'to enter into contracts with builders, cleaners, contractors, gardeners, tenants, or any other person" and "to employ any staff and managing or other agents"

kaych

safarmuk wrote: »

Spot on, this is the open point. But as LOC123 says it doesn't effect your lease arguments. If the lease doesn't allow for the imposition of this parking scheme on you then it matters not whether the RTM company have the right to appoint them or not (if they don't as they haven't obtained the land rights then this is just a further additional point you can use).

OK that's good to know. so RTM has the right to appoint but not RTM nor PPS has the right to issue tickets. unless of course the issuing of tickets falls under 'other regulations' in our lease...

safarmuk

Ah !!!!!!, just searched the incorporation document of our RTM company. In there the RTM is allowed to 'to enter into contracts with builders, cleaners, contractors, gardeners, tenants, or any other person" and "to employ any staff and managing or other agents"

Just like a lease you need to read the incorporation document in its entirety not just individual sections unfortunately. The document won't give it Carte Blanche to override the lease ...

Plus it will also lay out its obligations that will allow you access to information that you may be able to use to your advantage ...

The problem with RTM companies is when they are set up everyone is all in favour mainly because they are annoyed with the current MA. Then people lose interest and only a few residents remain involved making lots of decisions that eventually start offending those residents who lost interest! RTM is a double edged sword.

Your RTM company should have directors ... do you know them?

safarmuk

OK that's good to know. so RTM has the right to appoint but not RTM nor PPS has the right to issue tickets. unless of course the issuing of tickets falls under 'other regulations' in our lease...

That's what we need to establish, does your lease support what has been going on. If not then they can't do it ...

Ultimately there is nothing stopping someone putting a ticket on your car (apart from trespass and harassment laws) but claiming they have the authority to enforce the purported debt and taking it all the way to court ... that is another matter.

kaych

OK thanks Safarmuk and LOC123, I will read through the RTM document.

Regulations is defined in our lease as "means any reasonable regulations made by the Developer from time to time for the proper management and and use of the Development and/or the Reserved Property and do not unnecessarily restrict the enjoyment of the Premises". Obviously they have destroyed my enjoyment by issuing me a PCN!

Anyhow, will be drafting a new appeal in due course. Many thanks all for the comments and help so far!

Loadsofchildren123

That wording is of course good for you.
How is "Development" and "Reserved Property" defined?
Do you own the space as part of the "Demised Premises" (or however the latter is defined)?