Yet another PCN in a private car park space.

Klaggers

Hello to all of the wonderful clever clogs who populate this forum, and do such a wonderful job of helping when dealing with these bullying contractors. I'm hoping that someone can cast a quick eye over my issue and advise me of my next course of action.

I want to preface this by simply stating that this is a first for both my wife and I, and would have approached things MUCH differently with hindsight; however, we have gone partially down the rabbit hole and now I am worried that I cannot dig myself out.

So, a bit of back story. My wife and I are tenants in a block of flats, and have been for just over 3 years. It was fair to say that the parking around the estate was becoming an increasing problem, and the Estates Management company (Warwick Estates) decided to contract the wonderful Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd. about 18 months ago to help sort this out. I hate to say it, but they have seemingly cleaned up the parking situation a lot, and stopped reckless and awkward parking which impacted on the residents of the area. That being said, my opinion has shifted when they decided to place a PCN on my wife's windscreen overnight, despite it being parked in our allocated bay. The rationale for the PCN was the following:

“Parked without clearly displaying a valid PCM UK Ltd permit (at time of enforcement)”.

In addition to this, the photo's provided in the evidence DID in fact reflect this; however, we rather naively thought this was an actual penalty charge notice, and was legally enforceable and did not do our homework and decided to appeal this that very morning. We argued on the appeal that this photo was disingenuous and did not accurately reflect the full extent of the dashboard. This is because my wife has a car with an overly curved dash, so she places it on a little flat shelf (still on the dash), however due to the curve of the dash, the shelf can be obscured when approached at certain angles, however it is still very much visible from the exterior of the car, it just depends how you approach it. This was very much the case as the permit was indeed sat on her dash (as it has done for over 6 months since she bought this car). This message was quickly composed over a space of about 10 minutes by my wife when she was at work, and she read it out to me over the phone after I had just come home from a rather gruelling night shift working for the emergency services. We both agreed that this was a reasonable case, and that it may have been the result of a genuine oversight, and as we are perfectly respectable residents of this estate, the PCN should be revoked. Nope. The appeal was rejected under as the permit was “Not clearly displayed”, and we had to take it to the IAS for another review should we believe that this decision was unfair.

This led me to do a bit of research as it seemed completely unreasonable to pay £100 (or £60 should we pay in the first 2 weeks) for parking in our allocated bay, and has truly opened up the can of worms when it comes to the highly questionable practice of issuing PCN’s. My wife was more than ready to pay them the £60, as they were using the familiar bully tactics of using scare words such as “debt collectors” and the possibility of going to court. I dug my heels in and ordered her not to, and this is “how they win!” – By preying on innocent people who feel threatened! In light of this she has allowed me to take over the handling of this, and so here I am.

So, after some basic research, this is where I realise we have already unwittingly dropped a couple of clangers by simply appealing (such as stating names, addresses and contact details), and I do not want to further this without using the guidance of someone who knows about it more than me. I am now keen to pursue this by simply highlighting that PCM have no right to issue a PCN as we as tenants have the primacy of contract for the use of this space, and a 3rd party contract cannot change this by simply slapping up a few signs in the area.

I have dug out my tenancy agreement signed and found the section detailing our rights to using the bay. This states:

“The Landlord lets to the Tenant the residential Premises known as (address) and shared use of the common parts as applicable, together with allocated parking bay no. XX as applicable (“the Premises”)”.

As there is no mention of the requirement to park on this bay with the use of a permit, and I have not signed any documentation since the implementation of PCM on this site to allow them to do this, am I right in thinking they do not have a leg to stand on? The rationale for this is primarily derived from the court case "Pace Recovery and Storage v Mr N C6GF14F0 16/09/2016 Croydon", which can be perfectly extrapolated to this situation. In this case, District Judge Coonan ruled in favour of the resident, stating:

"I have to deal with this on the evidence that is before me now. I have before me a tenancy agreement which gives Mr [N. redacted] the right to park on the estate and it does not say “on condition that you display a permit”. It does not say that, so he has that right. What Pace Recovery is seeking to do is, unilaterally outside the contract, restrict that right to only when a permit is displayed. Pace Recovery cannot do that. It has got to be the other contracting party, Affinity Sutton, which amends the terms of the tenancy agreement to restrict the right to park on a place in circumstances in which a permit is displayed but that is not in this tenancy agreement and you as a third party cannot unilaterally alter the terms of the tenancy agreement."

I hasten to add I do not know what the Landlords agreement is in regards to their ownership of this space, and I am not 100% sure on how this is arranged. I have approached my Estate agents but they were no help (but to be honest, I may have been speaking rubbish as I struggle to differentiate between leaseholders, landowners, demising of land etc).

As I currently stand I have sent a couple of pointed emails towards Warwick Estates detailing this, however they are quick to dismiss my issue and state they are not responsible for any parking disputes and I am to liaise with PCM directly. I have sent numerous emails stating that I am holding them jointly responsible with PCM for this issue, as I have the right to peaceful enjoyment of this parking space, and do not permit any 3rd party contractors to enforce their rules on this space whilst I remain a tenant in the development. Furthermore I have also requested a copy of the contract between Warwick Estates and PCM, but have yet to hear anything back from this.

I have also typed a long-winded DRAFT appeal to the IAS which details my evidence suggesting that the parking attendant opted to take the photographs from a vantage point which deliberately obscured the permit [with evidence to show how different viewpoints do in fact show the permit]. In addition to this, I also highlighted that despite the disingenuous photos, PCM still have NO right to issue a PCN for the vehicle in this spot for the reasons I have already highlighted in this post. However, I am incredibly hesitant to submit this appeal as I know the opinion on this “independent” reviewer is not exactly positive, and doing so may actually hinder my case.

So, what do you wonderful people recommend I do next? From what I can make out I have 3 options:

1. Suck it up and pay them (not likely);
2. Appeal to the IAS and await their completely unbiased verdict(!); or
3. Ignore all further correspondence and allow them to take this forward however they see fit.

I will not lie, I feel obliged to take option 2 as I feel I have a pretty solid case. And should it EVER go to small claims, I can demonstrate to a judge that I took reasonable steps to prevent it from getting this far.

Any advice on this matter would be greatly appreciated and I thank anyone who has some input on this.

Klaggers

Redx

use 3)

check what your lease says about parking (or does not say)

read the JOPSON case too

and it seems that arguing as a leaseholder stands a far greater chance of success in court than trying to hide behind POFA2012

THESE COMPANIES DO TARGET THE CAPTIVE AUDIENCE once they have ousted the interlopers

a complaint to the MA may get it cancelled too , so always , always complain to the MA

read some of the other OWN SPACE threads on here too , where leaseholders and tenants etc have fought back

[Deleted User]

1. You did display a permit, so aren't in breach
2. It's your space, so it's highly likely it was you or the O/H that parked it. There's a lot to be said in these cases defending as driver as the arguments become very simple.
3. Unless they produce the actual parking attendant (which they rarely do) evidently they're less well placed than you to prove permit wasn't displayed
4. Even when they do produce statements (usually from back office staff) they rarely send someone to give evidence in support.

Provided you've got the time and are willing, nowt wrong with putting them to proof and generally making yourself as difficult as possible along the way.

If proceedings are issued I'd write to them and put them on notice that you require the parking attendant to attend for the purposes of cross examination.

ampersand

Just want to congratulate op for such a thorough reading/research start, prior to redx's additional advice, trustworthy/sound, as always i.e. your 3rd option.

Warwick Estates chose and appointed a private parking scumpany.
Was there a residents' meeting mooted at any point, before or after?
This scumpany has form.

re:
I hasten to add I do not know what the Landlords agreement is in regards to their ownership of this space, and I am not 100% sure on how this is arranged. I have approached my Estate agents but they were no help (but to be honest, I may have been speaking rubbish as I struggle to differentiate between leaseholders, landowners, demising of land etc).

Warwick Estates are responsible for their appointees' actions, or if thus directed, by whom, with what standing?

Your concern, penult. para. -
Of course you will not be lying, nor would this forum ever suggest you do.
C-m has choice, accurate views on the waste of time, typing, research, anxiety, vain hope that IAS submissions involve.

Welcome to mse, Klaggers - sorry you come to us in these circs.

Klaggers

Thank you for the prompt responses; however a few questions / clarifications on the these..

Redx, can I please get a bit more details to your response. How would I go about seeing the lease? Am I right in thinking that the lease will be held by my landlord? Will the Estates Agent hold a copy? If so can I simply request a copy from either party, and they are obliged to provide it as I am a tenant on this property? Furthermore, is it possible for you to provide a brief outline on how private car park spaces are "owned"?
In regards to PoFA 2012, am I right in thinking that this has been somewhat hampered as when we did appeal to them, my wife provided her name, contact number, email address and residential address (in good faith, I hasten to add)?
Unfortunately I now appreciate how these contractors prey on legitimate residents once the initial problem has been resolved. That being said, I will definitely look into this other court case you recommended - thank you.

Johnersh, in regards to your second point, do you meant that as there is clear evidence to suggest that either my wife (the registered keeper) or myself (a named driver) parked the vehicle there, this can be used as a "defence"? I know I touched on it above when replying to Redx, however I am not 100% sure how PoFA 2012 applies directly to me / us with this dispute? I figured my wife has "accepted liability" when initially appealing.

Also, in reference to your third point, surely the "evidence (the photo's they took)" are the proof they are using to argue the permit was not displayed? But I can simply counter that evidence by showing how it can (and WAS) not shown in the photo. However, they would use the argument that this was not "CLEAR" enough for them? Regardless, it is all twaddle and they will obviously be dishonest / not take my counter evidence in good faith and cancel the ticket.

I know it is impossible to predict, but does anybody have a loose idea on the likelihood of a case like this actually proceeding to a small claims hearing? I'm willing to see it through to the bitter end, but I thought with the evidence mentioned in my OP (especially using the court case as a good example), PCM would not both wasting their time and resources when they see that I will not roll over.

beamerguy

Klaggers

You could appeal to the IPC/IAS but as they are a scam
set up by the incompetent Gladstones Solicitors, your chances
are very slim

PCM are bosom buddies with the IPC and therefore the scammers
stick together.

You need to find out who employed PCM and attack them.

If you appeal to the IAS or not, it's the same pattern

Silly stupid debt collector letters who are powerless to do
anything. YOU IGNORE THEM

Once that silly stage has finished, up pops Gladstones
solicitors on behalf of PCM .... have you spotted the scam yet ?

Nothing to worry about as Gladstones easily make a
pigs ear because they are so incompetent.

An MP has recently referred them to the SRA

So, get it cancelled by the company who took on PCM

Gladstones and their wonder tricks can be read here
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=gladstones

And this one on PCM which you may care to share with
the company who hired PCM
Especially the PCM scam shown on TV
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=pcm

Klaggers

Hello ampersand,

Thank you for your kind words. I tried to research as much as I could before starting my own thread to prevent being bogged down in the details which are already out there (i,e. detailed in the stickies and other dedicated forums).

For your first question, no. I was not made aware of Warwick Estates intention of contracting this company to "manage" and enforce parking in the development, and was only made aware after a letter came in the post with a permit.
Also, I am hoping you can expand a little bit more on a portion of your post:

"C-m has choice, accurate views on the waste of time, typing, research, anxiety, vain hope that IAS submissions involve."

Firstly, who is C-m? and secondly, although I recognise you have said option 3 is my best choice at this point (to ignore any further correspondence), is this because you see appealing via the IAS not worth the time and effort involved? Or could it actually be "damaging" to my case?

As the subsequent posters in my thread have not really touched upon this, am I now right in thinking that my argument re my tenancy agreement is not enough to rescind this completely? Rather, I need to see the actual lease on this (which I'm assuming my Landlord / Estate Agent has)? This is because the lease will stipulate the ownership of this land, and how any changes regarding Terms of Conditions to this are implemented (e.g. contracting 3rd party parking enforcers who can issue PCN's just by sticking up signage)?

kryten3000

If only there was a simple way to identify vehicles belonging to the legitimate "owners" of a parking space. Oh wait, there is - the Vehicle Registration Number.

Display of any permit in a demised space is merely a courtesy to the PPC and not for any contractural (or other) reason.

What's the betting that even if clearly displayed, the permit would suddenly become invalid due to some made up reason - "wrong colour" (due to fading in the sun) for example.

ampersand

...or a little bit of judicious rocking. Permit/ticket somehow drifts to footwell/seat, becomes invisible.

beamerguy

kryten3000 wrote: »

What's the betting that even if clearly displayed, the permit would suddenly become invalid due to some made up reason - "wrong colour" (due to fading in the sun) for example.

We have seen it from these parking scammers before

You asked who c-m ?

It's coupon-mad, our lady of experience.

She will pop in shortly

ampersand

Klaggers - c-m is :j:T:Acoupon-mad.
#
re: 'appealing via the IAS not worth the time and effort involved?' - correct.
#
re: 'need to see the actual lease on this (which I'm assuming my Landlord / Estate Agent has)? This is because the lease will stipulate the ownership of this land, and how any changes regarding Terms [STRIKE]of[/STRIKE] COLOR=Red]think you mean 'and''?[/COLOR Conditions to this are implemented (e.g. contracting 3rd party parking enforcers who can issue [STRIKE]PCN's[/STRIKE] speculative invoices, just by sticking up signage)? which is 99.99% certain to be non-compliant.
- so yes, all of this, because it is always dangerous to assume anything with parking cowboys.