New Post Advanced Search

Resident Parking

edited 8 January 2018 at 10:50PM in Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking
302 replies 20K views
1356731

Replies

  • beamerguybeamerguy Forumite
    15.2K posts
    Tenth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    markudman wrote: »
    I got to know Chris Grayling quite well during Brexit,
    I have spoke to him about the great GLADSTONES / IPC / IAS SCAM, he is going to look in to it. I also told him about the Parking (Code of Practice) Bill 2017-19. lets see what happens

    Don't hold your breath ?

    The worst MP who was supposed to be doing something
    is Marcus Jones MP, he was famous for his bulls*it letters and
    as it turned out was a complete timewaster.
    I would suggest that with Grayling, it's in one ear and out
    the other, just like the rest
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS
    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
  • The_Deep wrote: »
    I would generally comment that most lease documents and tenancy agreements provide provisions whereby the resident authorises the management company to make decisions on behalf of and for the benefit of all residents.

    The key words here are "for the benefit of". There are hundredsnay thousands of examples on the internet that PPCs provide little to no benefit to the residents, quite the resverse in fact.

    I would also like to note that individual residents do not have the authority to vary the contract between the motorist and the operator.

    In nearly every case, there is no contract.
    I am having fun reading there replies, As Coupon-mad said its court where I will win this. I'm looking forward (with the help of this forum) to my day in court
    We may not win by protesting, but if we don’t protest we will lose.
    If we stand up to them, there is always a chance we will win.
  • edited 15 January 2018 at 2:07PM
    markudmanmarkudman Forumite
    350 posts
    edited 15 January 2018 at 2:07PM
    Here is my reply to IPC, do I need to remove or add anything? The game is in full flow

    The operator does not have to justify the loss incurred. The amount being sought by the operator was clearly communicated to the appellant by way of the signage on the site. If the Appellant considered the charge to be excessive, the Appellant had the choice to reject it by either not parking or parking in accordance with the terms. Second, the amount being claimed is justified given the operator's running costs. It is also in line with industry standards. For further guidance on this point the Appellant may wish to consider the judgment in PARKINGEYE LIMITED and BARRY BEAVIS [2015] EWCA Civ 402

    THE BEAVIS CASE HAS ZERO TO DO WITH RESIDENTIAL PARKING
    IN JOPSON V HOMEGUARD [2016] B9GF0A9E IT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT PARKINGEYE V BEAVIS [2015] UKSC 67 DOES NOT APPLY TO RESIDENTIAL PARKING AND THIS WILL THEREFORE BRING THE PENALTY DOCTRINE BACK IN PLAY. THE CHARGE WILL THEREFORE LIKELY BE A PENALTY AND UNFAIR CONSUMER CHARGE UNLESS IT IS FOUND THE CHARGE IS A PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSS OR THERE IS COMMERCIAL JUSTIFICATION. THE SUPREME COURT FOUND THAT £85 WAS NOT A GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSS IN BEAVIS AS THERE WAS NO DIRECT LOSS TO THE PARKING COMPANY. SIMILARLY, IT WOULD BE HARD TO ESTABLISH COMMERCIAL JUSTIFICATION FOR CHARGING RESIDENTS HUNDREDS OF POUNDS A YEAR TO PARK IN THEIR OWN PARKING SPACES.


    The charge arises out of a contractual relationship, the terms of which are stipulated by the signage. The point has been raised that the wording on the signage is forbidding. This is not accepted. The offer for the use of the land provides a contractual license to enter such land and parking is permitted for those parked wholly within the confines of the marked bays. The contract crystallises (i.e. the user accepts the terms of the licence) at the point they enter the land. The sign then confirms in clear terms when a charge for use of the land becomes due.
    IN THOSE INSTANCES WHERE THERE IS NO PRIMACY OF CONTRACT IT IS LIKELY THE CONTRACT WILL BE FORMED BY SIGNAGE ON SITE. THIS WILL NEED TO BE PLENTIFUL AND EASILY VISIBLE, OTHERWISE NO CONTRACT CAN BE ENTERED BY PERFORMANCE.
    IN LINK PARKING V MR L C9GF5875 [2016] IT WAS FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO ENTRANCE SIGNAGE AT A RESIDENTIAL SITE AND THE OTHER SIGNAGE WAS NOT VISIBLE. THE CLAIM WAS DISMISSED.

    Whether a driver feels that they have permission to park or not, the contractual terms require a driver to park within the marked bays.

    I would generally comment that most lease documents and tenancy agreements provide provisions whereby the resident authorises the management company to make decisions on behalf of and for the benefit of all residents. It is contended that the implementation of parking enforcement falls under this. Also, clauses permitting parking are often restricted or altered by later provisions.
    IN PACE V MR N [2016] C7GF51J1, PACE CAME BACK AGAIN, THIS TIME CLAIMING THAT CLAUSE 6.3 OF THE LEASE ALLOWED THE TERMS OF THE LEASE TO BE VARIED. THE JUDGE RULES THAT THIS CLAUSE REQUIRED A MONTH'S NOTICE TO BE GIVEN, AND AS THIS HAD NOT OCCURRED, THE POINT WAS MOOT. THE CLAIM, AND 7 OTHERS RELYING ON THIS, WAS DISMISSED.

    IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR THE OPERATOR TO SIMPLY POINT TO A CLAUSE WHICH ALLOWS THE LEASE TO BE VARIED. THEY MUST PROVE THAT THE LEASE WAS SO VARIED, AND FURTHERMORE VARIED BY THE LESSOR. THE OPERATOR ISN’T A PARTY TO THE LEASE AND CANNOT VARY IT.

    FURTHERMORE, A CLAUSE OSTENSIBLY PERMITTING VARIATIONS DOES NOT GIVE CARTE BLANCHE TO INTRODUCE ANY TERMS AT WHIM. SUCH VARIATION CLAUSES ARE NORMALLY COUCHED IN TERMS STATING THAT VARIATIONS CAN BE MADE FOR THE GOOD MANAGEMENT OF THE SITE, OR SIMILAR. SO, IF A VARIATION CAN BE SHOWN TO BE TO THE SIGNIFICANT DETRIMENT OF THE LESSEES, IT SHOULD BE CHALLENGED. A VARIATION MIGHT ALSO CONFLICT WITH OTHER TERMS OF THE LEASE E.G. THE RIGHT TO PEACEFUL ENJOYMENT. IF SO THEN, AGAIN, IT SHOULD BE CHALLENGED.

    I would also like to note that individual residents do not have the authority to vary the contract between the motorist and the operator.
    IN LINK PARKING V MR L C9GF5875 [2016] IT WAS FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO ENTRANCE SIGNAGE AT A RESIDENTIAL SITE AND THE OTHER SIGNAGE WAS NOT VISIBLE. THE CLAIM WAS DISMISSED.
    IN NEARLY EVERY CASE, THERE IS NO CONTRACT.

    IT HAS BEEN NOTED THAT YOU STILL HAVE NOT:
    SHOWN WHO IS THE PARTY THAT CONTRACTED WITH YOUR COMPANY AND ARE THEY THE LANDOWNER?
    WHAT IS COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE INFORMATION?
    THERE IS NO CONSENSUS DEFINITION OF “COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE INFORMATION.” THE TERM IS NOT IN THE AUTHORITATIVE LEGAL DICTIONARY, NOR WERE WE ABLE TO FIND A SETTLED DEFINITION IN OTHER LEGAL DOCUMENTS. IT IS GENERALLY UNDERSTOOD TO BE ANY INFORMATION THAT HAS ECONOMIC VALUE OR COULD CAUSE ECONOMIC HARM IF KNOWN. WHAT CONSTITUTES “COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE INFORMATION” VARIES IN DIFFERENT INDUSTRIES AND IN MARKETS WITHIN THOSE INDUSTRIES. IT IS OFTEN DEFINED IN REFERENCE TO TRADE SECRETS, WHICH DO HAVE A SET DEFINITION, A TRADE SECRET MAY CONSIST OF ANY FORMULA, PATTERN, DEVICE, OR COMPILATION OF INFORMATION WHICH IS USED IN ONE’S BUSINESS, AND WHICH GIVES [THE HOLDER] AN OPPORTUNITY TO OBTAIN AN ADVANTAGE OVER COMPETITORS WHO DO NOT KNOW OR USE IT.”
    PLEASE NOTE THE DOCUMENT I ASKED FOR DOES NOT FALL INTO THIS CATEGORY.

    PROVIDED PHOTOS OF THE SIGNS THAT YOU SAY WERE ON SITE, WHICH YOU CONTEND FORMED A CONTRACT WITH THE DRIVER. ESPECIALLY THE ONES ON THE ENTRANCE TO THE SITE ON HAYWARD CLOSE

    PROVIDED PROOF THAT THE TIMING OF ANY CAMERA OR TIMER USED WAS SYNCHRONISED WITH ALL OTHER CAMERAS AND/OR SYSTEMS & MACHINES.
    We may not win by protesting, but if we don’t protest we will lose.
    If we stand up to them, there is always a chance we will win.
  • edited 22 January 2018 at 6:00PM
    markudmanmarkudman Forumite
    350 posts
    edited 22 January 2018 at 6:00PM
    Copy of contact
    We may not win by protesting, but if we don’t protest we will lose.
    If we stand up to them, there is always a chance we will win.
  • Just to keep this alive, I did 2 IPC appeals (one before finding this great forum)
    That first one has been dismissed, surprise surprise, the second one was much more detailed and professional but still expect it to be dismissed, the game continues, am waiting for PCM’s next move.
    Again thanks to everyone, and to you, that have just got a ticket or having problems with a PPC, do not panic, this is long game, and a game of wits, but this forum and all its great helpers will get you through it, Don’t panic and don’t pay it, the only way to stop these parasites is not to pay them.
    We may not win by protesting, but if we don’t protest we will lose.
    If we stand up to them, there is always a chance we will win.
  • beamerguybeamerguy Forumite
    15.2K posts
    Tenth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    markudman wrote: »
    Just to keep this alive, I did 2 IPC appeals (one before finding this great forum)
    That first one has been dismissed, surprise surprise, the second one was much more detailed and professional but still expect it to be dismissed, the game continues, am waiting for PCM’s next move.
    Again thanks to everyone, and to you, that have just got a ticket or having problems with a PPC, do not panic, this is long game, and a game of wits, but this forum and all its great helpers will get you through it, Don’t panic and don’t pay it, the only way to stop these parasites is not to pay them.

    Yes Mark. no doubt the second will be dismissed
    which will be no surprise as its the .....
    GLADSTONES / IPC / IAS SCAM

    It's not too late to tell Sir Greg Knight who
    is heading the new private members bill
    re: parking cowboys

    Sir Greg Knight who is still
    accepting comments, everyone should email him

    [EMAIL="sothcottt@parliament.uk"][email protected][/EMAIL]

    And you tell the Which Magazine about
    this government approved scam
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5765579
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS
    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
  • beamerguy wrote: »
    Yes Mark. no doubt the second will be dismissed
    which will be no surprise as its the .....
    GLADSTONES / IPC / IAS SCAM

    It's not too late to tell Sir Greg Knight who
    is heading the new private members bill
    re: parking cowboys

    Sir Greg Knight who is still
    accepting comments, everyone should email him

    [EMAIL="sothcottt@parliament.uk"][email protected][/EMAIL]

    And you tell the Which Magazine about
    this government approved scam
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5765579

    A quote from Parking Prankster
    what can be done about cowboys like these and the Private parking companies, why can it not be regulated?

    Has the Parking Industry contributed to this problem?

    Undoubtably. The British Motorists Protection Association keeps a tally of the number of parking hearings. Although it is not informed about all of them, there have been at least 6,828 of them (not including set-asides and re-hearings) this year. On this basis, parking companies file about 48,000 claims a year.

    Parking hearings also contribute just over 2% to the total number of hearings.

    Of these, well over half are filed by Gladstones Solicitors, who are owned by Will Hurley and John Davies. These are the same people who run the International Parking Community, a trade association who give members access to the DVLA keeper database. The IPC also run an appeals service which is well known for being run in an unfair manner with a clear bias against motorists





    Will Hurley and John Davies have therefore set themselves up as judge, jury and executioner, with a nice little conveyor belt going.

    They set up a trade association apparently designed to attract the rogues and bottom feeders of the industry. They dismiss motorists appeals on bogus grounds not in line with decisions made by the real courts. They then feed the charges through from the IPC to Gladstones, funding the costs themselves, but adding an estimated £125 per claim for their own pockets (£50 debt collection charge, £50 filing fee, £25 court fee).

    Even though Gladstones have proven themselves to be totally incompetent in court, their approximately 4,000 hearings can be viewed as something of a loss leader. It is the 28,000 cases which never get to court which are the true business model of Gladstones, who are creaming in an estimated £3.5 million from a largely automated process requiring no effort or thought.

    It is interesting that a pair of scoundrels can make themselves rich through a business model which disregards the fact that they are hopeless in court, (as often reported), but instead relies on bullying and intimidation to make motorists pay charges which based on Gladstones record, they would not be liable for if the case went to a hearing
    We may not win by protesting, but if we don’t protest we will lose.
    If we stand up to them, there is always a chance we will win.
  • beamerguybeamerguy Forumite
    15.2K posts
    Tenth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Sums up Laurel and Hardy in a nutshell

    All we can do is keep shouting SCAM to
    government

    We all wait with baited breath to see if
    Sir Greg Knight and the MP's such as
    Jacob William Rees-Mogg MP actually do
    something positive.

    The last MP ... Marcus Jones, DCLG who
    gave a false impression and lied was the biggest
    timewaster ever.
    That is probably why Theresa May promoted
    him in the shuffle as she's probably in her comfort
    zone when surrounded by idiots

    It's no wonder more and more people think
    that someone, somewhere is making hay
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS
    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
  • I want to write to my landlord and ask for the contract between themselves and PCM, as PCM have failed to supply it, on the forum it said ask the landlord under s20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, I have looked this up

    The term major works, or “qualifying works” which is the term used in the Act, means works (whether on a building or any other premises) the cost of which is recoverable from the tenant under the terms of the lease through the service charge.

    is this the right way to go about this?
    We may not win by protesting, but if we don’t protest we will lose.
    If we stand up to them, there is always a chance we will win.
  • How could they possibly dismiss this appeal, :rotfl:

    It is important that the Appellant understands that the adjudicator is not in a position to give his legal advice. The adjudicator's role is to look at whether the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each particular case. The adjudicator's decision is not legally binding on the Appellant (it is intended to be a guide) and they are free to obtain independent legal advice if they so wish. However, the adjudicator is legally qualified (a barrister or solicitor) and decides the appeal according to their understanding of the law and legal principles.

    The terms of this appeal are that I am only allowed to consider the charge being appealed and not the circumstances of other drivers or other parking events. The guidance to this appeal also makes it clear that I am bound by the law of contract and can only consider legal challenges not mistakes or extenuating circumstances.

    For the avoidance of doubt the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) has been issued as the vehicle was parked outside a marked bay, in breach of the terms clearly displayed on signage visible from the position of parking. From the images provided by the Operator it is clear that the driver parked outside a marked bay. As the vehicle was parked outside a bay, in breach of the displayed terms, I am satisfied that the Operator has proved their prima facie case.

    While noting the Appellant's comments, I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the Appellant was parked in an area managed by the Operator. The signage at the site makes it clear that the land in question is private and that all drivers must park in marked bays at all times. The Operator’s signage, which is clearly visible throughout the site, makes it clear that these regulations are in force at all times and that a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) will be issued to vehicles that fail to comply with the terms and conditions of parking. By parking outside a marked bay the Appellant failed to comply with the terms and conditions of parking.

    I am satisfied that the vehicle was secure, stationary and unoccupied whilst being parked outside a marked bay and therefore, in accordance with the advertised terms, the driver is liable to pay a charge. I have been provided with examples of signage stating the terms and conditions of parking which exist at the site. This signage is sufficient to have brought the terms of parking to the driver’s attention. The signage is neither misleading nor unclear. It is the driver’s (rather than a third party’s) responsibility to ensure that these terms are complied with. Whether a driver feels that they have permission to park or not, the contractual terms require the driver to park in a bay, otherwise by parking they agree to pay the charge. If the driver cannot park within a bay they can either park elsewhere, or park outside a bay and agree to pay the charge. The Appellant did not park within a marked bay and therefore agreed to pay the charge.

    Whilst having sympathy with the Appellant, once liability has been established, only the Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge based on mitigating circumstances.

    For the reasons explained above, the appeal must be dismissed.
    We may not win by protesting, but if we don’t protest we will lose.
    If we stand up to them, there is always a chance we will win.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Quick links

Essential Money | Who & Where are you? | Work & Benefits | Household and travel | Shopping & Freebies | About MSE | The MoneySavers Arms | Covid-19 & Coronavirus Support