Appeal guidance; pcn issued on own property in a shared car park

missb74

Good Evening

Firstly apologies if this is the incorrect place to post!

I received a PCN for £60 from UKPC for not parking within a lined bay…

The property I live in owns 2 spaces in a shared car park, with spaces assigned to home owners. No permit system currently operates.

On the date in question I was parked within my 2 bays in order to prevent one of my spaces being used which is a common occurrence; I was expecting a visitor who didn’t turn up therefore my car was left parked across the marked bay but within my own property, not in others spaces and not obstructing anyine…

I’ve appealed informally which was denied so appealed to popla who have emailed today asking me to comment on UKPCS evidence within 7 days. The basis fir the fine was me not being parked correctly with a marked bay; do I have Any recourse?

I have spoken to the estate property company who have failed to do anything; I have requested a copy of their contract with UKPC and how this was communicated to owners/ residence upon the guidance of CAB.

Thee are signs in the car park and I don’t denied I was not parked with a lined bay but was within y own bays!

Any advice would be much appreciated… the frustrating thing is when I’ve contacted UKPC to seek redress on vehicles parked in my space they don’t respond,

Thanks in advance

Coupon-mad

upon the guidance of CAB.

Ouch, steer well clear of 'advice' from the CAB about private parking scams. Generally they are useless, and seem to think people should pay.

The property I live in owns 2 spaces in a shared car park, with spaces assigned to home owners. No permit system currently operates.

Why are UKPC there then, is there talk of a permit scheme? Run for your life, move house, do NOT agree to UKPC moving in with a blinking permit scheme at your own home.

Why are they even there? If there is no permit scheme, are there any signs up, surely they don't just say 'park in a marked bay' as the only rule?

Why have ANY residents agreed to this scam? Do you own the flat, or rent it? Has the Managing Agent canvassed for opinion about a permit scheme and does it look as if they are wheeling UKPC in...OBJECT AND REFUSE.

What did you appeal say...have you admitted who was driving?

The_Slithy_Tove

missb74 wrote: »

The property I live in owns 2 spaces

What exactly is the basis of this "ownership"? For example, are you the leaseholder, and does the lease indicate those spaces as being part of the demised property (often outlined in red on a plan)?

If they really are yours, then no PPC can dictate what you can or cannot do on it.

Looks like you've gone to POPLA before really looking into ALL the potential winning points.

missb74

Thanks for responding.

I rent and to e propert owner has submitted evidence of ownership of the x2 spaces which has been ignored.

I await answers from the property mgmt company who thus far have been useless.

My understanding is that the property mgmt arranged for UKPC to manage the estate due to several complaints from residents who had others parked in their spaces or otherwise were obstructed. I have asked detailed questions as to the contract, relationship etc.

In hindsight I should’ve let UKPC get my details from DVLA. I’ve never had any thing like this happen before so naively contacted them and basically explained as I was within my own spaces I did not believe I was in the wrong.

There are signs dotted around the car park stating vehicles must not be parked on red lines, verges and access roads and must be within marked bays (which technically I was in my view!)

Coupon-mad

In hindsight I should've let UKPC get my details from DVLA. I've never had any thing like this happen before so naively contacted them and basically explained as I was within my own spaces I did not believe I was in the wrong.

You were not in the wrong.

If your landlord OWNS these two parking spaces:

- can you ask him/her for a copy of their lease terms about parking?

- and a copy of his/her map from the lease, if the spaces are marked as demised to them?

- What rights does it say he/she has, and does it say about the MA introducing 'regulations'?

- did your Landlord agree to UKPC, did the MA get a consensus of at least 75% agreement under the Landlord & Tenant Act, to introduce such an onerous and significant change?

must be within marked bays (which technically I was in my view!)

I agree, you were parked in your marked bays, as you have the right to both.

missb74

Thanks both for your help and apologies for the delay in response.

I’ve been notified I have lost my POPLA appeal essentially on the basis that I broke the contract with UKPC by not parking within the marked bay and ignoring the signs dotted around the parking areas stating fines would be issued for incorrect parking.

I sent POPLA an image of the nearest sign to my spaces which is not visibly clear unless you stand right below it. This was disregarded.
Having spoken to the property owner, she’s sent me all correspondence from the management company. There was a letter informing parking control was being introduced and stated that fines would be issued for any parking beaches. There was no consultation or communication regarding how this affected leaseholders rights.

UKPC are the 3rd company. Thus was not communicated to landowners/ tenants. The MC have confirmed UKPC were supposed to communicate but did not. I have a copy of the contract between the MC and UKPC which lays out the fines/breaches. Interestingly the MC receive 15% if all fines please there is no recourse to deal with vehicles who park in a space without permission.

I have requested all correspondence from the MC in regards to parking control. All they’ve provided is the same letter I have from the property owner. The MC state that they were not obliged to consult. The decision was made by the board of directors who act on behalf of the property owners.

I have informed the mc of at least 3 occasions where an unauthorised vehicle has been parked in my spare space. No action has been taken other that a letter going out to residents in my building only fir said registration number to make themselves known. UKPC were also informed and they have confirmed to the MC that they have not persued fining the vehicle despite photo evidence from me.

I am at my wits end, How can it be right that I’ve broken a contract for parking in my own spaces?!

I expect UKPC will chase me again for £100 before sending into debt recovery. CAB hVe been unhelpful.

I have tried to find legislation around the Rights of landowners under the tenants act 1985 as referred to in the community but come to a dead end. I’ve seen guidance to PerSUE the MC for trespass but can’t find supporting evidence.

Any thoughts would be most appreciated!, Do I also have to suffer in silence that my sister soace is continually being used without permission?

Thanks in advance

Coupon-mad

Do I also have to suffer in silence that my sister space is continually being used without permission?

Yes - and it's residents complaining that caused the MA to bring in parking firms, so residents should just shut up whinging about the odd time their space might be used in error, IMHO, and not cause MAs to let ex-clampers in.

IMHO, to an extent, residents have themselves to blame for making parking a hot topic.

But in this case I would send UKPC and the MA a robust letter to both, that says (you will need to re-word this into the first person, but do use it all because you WANT this in evidence for your Judge to read, if a hearing takes place):



This is exactly the sort of baseless and spurious fake parking ticket that was singled out by MPs on 2nd February, during the unanimous scam-shaming of the private parking industry, in the Second Reading of the Private Parking Code of Practice Bill, where the highlights from Hansard were:

''Rip-offs from car park Cowboys must stop''; ''unfair treatment''; ''signage deliberately confusing to ensure a PCN is issued''; ''years of abuse by rogue parking companies''; ''bloodsuckers''; ''the current system of regulation is hopeless, like putting Dracula in charge of the blood-bank''; ''extortionate fines''; ''rogue operators''; ''sense of injustice''; ''wilfully misleading''; ''signage is a deliberate act to deceive or mislead''; ''confusing signs are often deliberate, to trap innocent drivers''; ''unreasonable''; ''a curse''; ''harassing''; ''operating in a disgusting way''; ''appeals service is no guarantee of a fair hearing''; ''loathed''; ''outrageous scam''; ''dodgy practice''; ''outrageous abuse''; ''unscrupulous practices;''; ''the British Parking Association (BPA) is as much use as a multi-storey car park in the Gobi desert'' and by way fo conclusion: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists and ordinary residents should not have to put up with this''.

UKPC cannot possibly protest that the above does not apply to them, given that they are currently banned by the DVLA again (April 2018 onwards), and facing yet another investigation which follows their 2016 ban for altering data on time-stamps in order to issue fraudulent tickets. It was said at the time by the CEO of the BPA, that further transgressions by UKPC could lead to expulsion, so this latest investigation and ban (which the DVLA do not impose lightly) merely confirms UKPC's continued rogue practices.

UKPC appear to the reasonable man, to be the epitome of the type of rogue ticketer discussed in Parliament, and are not operating in a way that the MA should allow, to the detriment of law abiding residents who rely upon an existing right to park without such encumbrance and harassment.

UKPC routinely ruin the peaceful enjoyment of people's property and have no cause of action whatsoever. As they've been banned by the DVLA, why are the Managing Agents allowing them onsite at all because UKPC are as useful as a chocolate teapot if they can't get the DVLA data of keepers of cars, if the site has a trespassing problem.

Regarding this location, when UKPC first rocked up to infest this car park, their duty of due diligence as a so-called 'service provider' at people's home addresses, must surely have included a thorough consideration of the rights of the existing leaseholders and tenant residents, to avoid encroaching on existing grants.

Tell the MA and UKPC that your right to park at this location in that demised bays gives exclusive use and the owner has never contracted with UKPC nor signed any variation of his/her lease. The MA did have to consult, and their conduct in allowing a rogue ex-clamper to maraud among the bays is wholly unacceptable, causing a nuisance and a derogation from grant.

In order to have varied the leases of residents who have an existing grant of unfettered free parking and exclusive use of certain bays, the Managing Agent must have taken steps at the outset (before any enforcement) to vary all of the leases.

Any variation of leases must have been approved by at least 75% of the leaseholders, pursuant to s37 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1987 (L&T Act). This did not happen so UKPC are trespassing and the MA need to kick them out forthwith for their conduct and due to their rogue ticketing and the DVLA ban:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-parking-control-dvla-suspension-misuse-of-data-a8325941.html

NeilCr

If your landlord owns the spaces could they consider putting parking posts in

For example

https://www.barriersdirect.co.uk/parking-posts-residential-c1087/parking-posts-folding-posts-c1089 (not recommending this company - just as an example)

When we had parking problems on our estate these were offered to residents and they have proved very successful. Apart from when the odd person knocks them down that is!

Re CAB. As it happens I am a CAB volunteer and this is the information we would give if someone came in about parking problems. I have to say that, at my branch anyway, it's very rare that we do get this sort of query - if they do, it's usually about a "ticket" from the council

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/parking-tickets/appealing-parking-tickets/appealing-a-parking-ticket/

We work with what we are provided from the centre and we advise on a large number of issues. So we can never have the expertise that posters on a specific topic forum like this will have. And we are, mostly, volunteers!

I do think it's easy to underestimate the effect that bad and selfish parking has on a communal estate. I am a great admirer of what Coupon-Mad does on here (and the courteous way she goes about her business) but, in my experience anyway, it's not residents whinging about the odd time. The problems are endemic and there is a growing swell of residents putting pressure on freeholder/landlord/MA to get it sorted

Having said all that (!) I am fully in agreement (and I speak as a director of an estate) that you should not be ticketed for parking in your own spaces(s). I hope that you win your appeal - from what I have seen from this forum you are in a good place for help

fisherjim

This whole story is typical of the shoddy miss-management of parking by PPC's.


Missb74 should be able to park in any way they like within the space, and in any case the first appeal stage should have highlighted the error of the PPC in ticketing a bonafide resident in their own space, and a cancellation with grovelling apology should have been made.


But no, this is PPC greed land, and they cite their terms and conditions.


I blame the MA for signing a contract that allows this ridiculous situation to arise.


I managed contractors for over 20 years and the tail never wagged the dog!

Le_Kirk

Any variation of leases must have been approved by at least 75% of the leaseholders, pursuant to s37 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1987 (L&T Act).

I seem to remember that part of that Act (assuming it is the most up-to-date version) is that, dependent upon the number of tenants - if there are more than eight - then, along with 75% agreement, there must be no more than 10% disagreement.

Coupon-mad

Yes that's right.

This Act (specifically) has never been tested in a parking ticket scenario because I only stumbled on it when Googling something in March. But the idea of having to 'vary a lease' to do something as obnoxious as causing a nuisance to residents with some random ex-clamper thug infesting the site, has been tested with Judges agreeing.