Yet another PCN in a private car park space.

Coupon-mad

stating it is the responsibility of my estate agent as they have not updated my tenancy agreement after implementing PCM. Is this correct?

No, because your estate agent didn't bring in PCM. The Management Company did, and it is their responsibility to communicate any changes to terms and conditions to all residents, and their failure to do so means there was NO agreed contract.

Did you read Daniel san's thread from start to finish (and it's not over yet). His stand against Warwick Estates is brilliant, and Parliament agrees with you and him, not the ''bloodsuckers'' (Hansard).

Klaggers

KeithP wrote: »

They have up to six years to bring a court claim.

Yes of course you can involve your local councillors.

Guh, that's a long period to wait before I know I am in the clear. Or perhaps a better way to state it: I know I am free from being wrongfully harassed.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

No, because your estate agent didn't bring in PCM. The Management Company did, and it is their responsibility to communicate any changes to terms and conditions to all residents, and their failure to do so means there was NO agreed contract.

Unfortunately my MA are still sloping their shoulders and not wanting to engage with me. They are simply saying that as a tenant, they have no obligation to deal with me on this issue; rather the leaseholder (my landlord who lives in France..) is in fact responsible and they can raise a dispute if they think this is an injustice. It does seem that as I am only a tenant, that this makes my case more difficult to "prove" or motivate the PPC / Estates Management company to redact this blatant extortion as I do not own the legal paperwork which outlines the use of this land.

Warwick Estates have implied that either the landlord or estate agent is a fault as they have not amended my tenancy agreement. If this is the case, it suggests that Warwick Estates did in fact inform the leaseholder / my landlord of their intention of implementing PCM. In light of this, my last correspondence with Warwick Estates is myself asking them how did they disseminate the information to the leaseholder (my landlord) that they were going to employ PCM to enforce parking regulations on their land, and how did the leaseholder respond (i.e. did they agree to this change, or did they even acknowledge this). In addition to this I also asked if they could send me the signed contract between Warwick Estates and PCM. However, they have yet to respond.

I suppose a large smoking gun I am missing is that I do not know where to get the lease from which will detail the ownership and management (if any) of the allocated parking bays. My Estate Agents are just as clueless and say they do not own a copy of the lease. Would it be wise for me to ask my estate agent if they can liaise with my landlord, and at least send me the clause(s) which highlight the right of the parking bay?

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Did you read Daniel san's thread from start to finish (and it's not over yet). His stand against Warwick Estates is brilliant, and Parliament agrees with you and him, not the ''bloodsuckers'' (Hansard).

I have read large chunks of this thread - it is a beast to digest. There are some similar parallels which are undoubtedly informative, but I think they key difference in this case is that Daniel-San is a residents and owns the flat. That seems to be where I am getting stuck.

Klaggers

Now, I appreciate this is going out on a limb, but I was looking over the "evidence" that PCM have used to issue this PCN, and the picture they have taken on the sign displaying this "contract" is cut off. I know PPC's rely heavily on the signage, as it is stipulating the alleged terms which you agree to by simply parking there.

This evidence which they submitted can be seen here: imgur.com/a/IoWdM [no link posting permissions yet!] - please note I have cropped it, however I would argue that approx 1/4 of the sign was actually cropped on the right hand side due to the attendant taking a badly framed shot.

Is this significant? As the "contract" has not been fully submitted as part of the "evidence" when issuing the PCN, can this in effect make it null and void? Or am I reading too much into this? Am I trying to grasp at straws in such a corrupt arena by trying to fight this on such a weak technicality?

As always folks, your help in this is really appreciated. In addition, if you think I should remove this image / link for what ever reason please tell me.

Much love!

Coupon-mad

https://imgur.com/a/IoWdM

Haha, that pic is rubbish! The parking charge could be a tenner...

As the "contract" has not been fully submitted as part of the "evidence" when issuing the PCN, can this in effect make it null and void?

I would grasp that straw, if that's the only signage photo, it looks a fair point, crying out to be made!

Guys_Dad

The fact that you are a tenant and not the leaseholder is relevant. Warwick only need contact the leaseholder about changes and have no responsibility to you.

The other main point is that your wife actually did display the permit. My advice would be to get a video of the permit in place and be ready to show the court how the warden deliberately used a picture that didn't show the permit. Or a series of still shots.

If you can also find out if there is a warden incentive scheme in force to show why a fake ticket is to his advantage.

Lastly, you admit that the PPC has cleared up the outsider parking problem. Unless most of the leaseholders have been bitten by the rottweiler they brought in, you may be in a minority and for all you know, your landlord may have been a supporter.

Klaggers

In light of this I'll type up an appeal to IAS today using this as the crux of my argument. Shall I post my draft here for review?

Klaggers

Guys_Dad wrote: »

The fact that you are a tenant and not the leaseholder is relevant. Warwick only need contact the leaseholder about changes and have no responsibility to you.

I accept this.

Guys_Dad wrote: »

The other main point is that your wife actually did display the permit. My advice would be to get a video of the permit in place and be ready to show the court how the warden deliberately used a picture that didn't show the permit. Or a series of still shots.

Done. I have snapped a bunch of still pics of varying angles displaying the permit. My issue is I am so reluctant to appeal to the IAS as the opinion on this forum is that it is a waste of time; however I am keen to use the service due to the following:

1) Try every angle to nip this in the bud (hey, a 10% success rate is better than 0%);
2) I'm under the impression that it costs the PPC money for every appeal lodged; and
3) Should this go to small claims, I can demonstrate that I attempted to resolve this matter using all other avenues.

Guys_Dad wrote: »

If you can also find out if there is a warden incentive scheme in force to show why a fake ticket is to his advantage.

I doubt I would ever get PCM to admit this..

Guys_Dad wrote: »

Lastly, you admit that the PPC has cleared up the outsider parking problem. Unless most of the leaseholders have been bitten by the rottweiler they brought in, you may be in a minority and for all you know, your landlord may have been a supporter.

Then the argument on this is that the Landlord can be held responsible for failure to communicate this matter to the estate agent and has not updated the tenancy agreement. Surely a change to my tenancy cannot be implemented at LEAST without the tenant being informed? Anyway, I know the landlord is selling up, and I have to leave by August (I am in the process of purchasing a property as we speak), so this could not come at a more inconvenient time, and my wife is genuinely stressed and upset by this. And I cannot say I am enjoying being put in this position.

Thank you for your input!

Fruitcake

If the landlord has not informed you about changes implemented by the MA, it is possible that they never received anything from the MA and may not know about it, may have received something but ignored it, may have received something and agreed it but didn't tell you, or may have disapproved of it but the MA implemented it anyway.

If the landlord is silent about this for whatever reason, and unless the scammers produce something in writing, I think they will have a job convincing a judge this was agreed.
You simply say that the scammers have provided no proof that the landlord has agreed/changed your lease/AST to allow a third party to charge you for parking in your own demised space.

Klaggers

Hello all,

I have a concise appeal drafted to the IAS - I figure I can give it a shot on the technicalities I have highlighted as above.
Is it encouraged that I post the draft here to be scrutinised? I am all too aware that companies do frequent these boards, and as a result disclosing certain details can hinder any progress..

Keep up the good work all

nosferatu1001

Yes, post it here.