Pcn

vandiemen86

Hi all,

I visitor to my block of flats received a PCN earlier in the summer. I don't have any parking rights under the lease. However, the PCN is being contested on grounds of poor visibility, failing to comply with the IPC CoP (entrance requirements, colour contrast, being obvious to the motorist etc) as well as on relevant case law which has flagged up the signs in question as failing to form a contract. I am also using Jopson v Homeguard because it was a visit to unload heavy items.


I'm corresponding with Gladstone's at the moment - - they sent a non-compliant letter before claim that I have disputed, and they replied saying that I was wrong and that it was fully compliant. I replied to that detailing where they have fallen short. I'm now waiting for the court papers to come through.

In the meantime, I've been trying to get the managing agent to cancel the PCN on behalf of the landlord. I've made my argument to the MA which I think was very clear. After a lot of back and forth (which also included input from the IPC PPC in question) they have told me that the only party able to cancel the PCN is the PPC - unless the MA can prove breach of contract, which they said they can't. They concluded by saying they can't use service charge money to reimburse the PCN. Which is weird because nothing has been paid.

I have two questions based on this:

- Is it true that the MA cannot rescind the PCN? I thought the landlord had the power to instruct the PPC to rescind? I don't understand how the PPC is the only party with the power to cancel the PCN.

- Is it more likely that Gladstone's will issue court proceedings imminently rather than wait a good period of time before doing so? I ask this because I want this whole thing cleared up and a court date to settle it would be preferable in this situation. Over the next year the visitor to my flat is likely to change address, so I'm curious to know if Gladstone's / PPCs ever go quiet after initiating contact and catch people out that way?


Thank you so much.

Redx

the entity that employed the PPC should have wordings in their contract with said PPC that allow for cancellations when requested

the MA (or landowner , or both) are jointly and severally liable for the actions of their contractors

I would think if gladrags sent an LBC they are close to issuing an MCOL

bear in mind the new protocols that came in 3 weeks ago, so check those out and ensure the paperwork meets them

vandiemen86

Many thanks Redx.

They issued their initial LBC just prior to October 1. That did not comply with the Practice Direction for a number of reasons. I have also argued that as court proceedings have not been issued, they must also comply with the debt protocol (as our correspondence crossed into October)

I'm not quite sure if they have to when the initial LBC was issued before the protocol came into force but hopefully they do.

Redx

they certainly WILL have to do so with the MCOL

so in a way its a moot point now