PCN - parking in my own space

Coupon-mad

And what have any of you done to deserve this harassment? PPCs have no place in residents' car parks.

nasescoba1985

@ coupon, tell me about it. Like I said previously, the property manager implemented this silly parking company purely out of spite. He was annoyed that us residents decided to form an association and complain about his companies services, or shall I say lack of them. This prompted him to introduce this parking scheme as a form to “punish “ us.

beamerguy

nasescoba1985 wrote: »

I emailed him basically stating my case and to see if he could intervene as he knows this space is allocated to me. His response was that his managemt company don’t profit or make any money from uk CPM, so he advises me to go to court if I feel I could win and that he couldn’t influence anything. Basically he’s about as useful as a chocolate teapot.

It's time to play devil's advocate.... with the MA

"One who argues against a cause or position either for the sake of argument or to help determine its validity"

IE: If CPM take you to court, you will call upon the MA
to appear in court to explain to the judge why he/she
allows your rights to be abused.
The MA must tell the truth in front of a judge

Doubt he/she wants that and the best action
is cancellation.

You really need a residents action plan to get
CPM terminated

nasescoba1985

@beamerguy, the residents association are currently in the process of taking over the management of the complex. It’s possibly going to court. If we do win this case and take over management, then UK CPM will be told to !!!!!! off immediately. Until that happens though, we just have to be patient.

beamerguy

nasescoba1985 wrote: »

@beamerguy, the residents association are currently in the process of taking over the management of the complex. It’s possibly going to court. If we do win this case and take over management, then UK CPM will be told to !!!!!! off immediately. Until that happens though, we just have to be patient.

OK, well as your story unfolds, we wish you luck on this

nasescoba1985

Thank you. There is 2 days before the ISA case expires. So according to my case, UK CPM have 2 days to respond. If not then supposedly they forfeit the ticket and I obviously win my case. Let’s see if this happens or not.

KeithP

Just a reminder... it's IAS not ISA.

logician

Coupon-mad wrote: »

And what you said about your lease today, and the information letter from 2015 confirming that the car park was not restricted and no permit was necessary, adds up to a nice little set of evidence IMHO, now we know all that.

IamEmanresu was just keen to warn you of the difference between Link v Blaney (a loss, where a lay rep was used, something I consider - normally - pointless, expensive and possibly even detrimental to a case, but that's another story) and a win with Link v Parkinson. Have you gone to the BMPA website or the Parking Prankster's case law pages and read the actual Transcripts of the Judge's decisions and why each one went in opposite directions?

You should read both, carefully. It will help you and the fellow residents in your fight. You need to kick the PPC out.

What is ironic is that in both the Blaney case (heard at Cardiff) and Parkinson case (heard at Wrexham) , was that both cases were for Overstone Court - same head lease, same landowner contract, signs etc.

The Blaneys however had two cars and frequently used a neighbour's space with her permission.

DJ Pratt formed the opinion in the Blaney's case that the AST only covered the flat and not the associated parking space and there was nothing in the tenancy granting rights to park.

Coupon-mad

'Ironic', I will agree - not lost on any regulars. Link v Blaney is a cautionary tale in itself.

drh90

It didn't help that Mr. Blaney was quite uncooperative and seemed borderline obstructive towards the judge regarding the permits. And that they were merely tenants and actually had no claim of 'leasehold ownership' of the space.

Robinson is interesting in that Judge Metcalf decided that the Management Company must provide evidence that a lease has been varied, before they can engage a Parking Company. He warned that letters regarding the need to display a permit are not sufficient evidence of a lease being varied. "A mere letter regarding permits would not, in my judgment, suffice in this regard."

Would we assume therefore that for a letter to be considered evidence of a variation, it would need to explicitly state that they are altering the parking arrangements originally agreed in the lease, under term xyz which allows them to do so?