UKCPM - PCN issued for not displaying permit

NeilCr

Guys_Dad wrote: »

I haven't a clue what a "Resident Director company" is. Just what does this company do????

Residents can form a company and take over a freehold from previous freeholders and I have experience of this, but not sure where the Resident Director company fits in.

Nonetheless, the freeholders can't just impose new t&c without agreement with leaseholders.

Me, either. It's a new one to me. If all the money goes to the freeholder what do they use for funds?

Back to questions that need asking - and answering

Who authorised the introduction of a PPC and what was their authority to do so?.

Who are the parties to the contract?

System

Just to simplify matters a bit

The Freehold company has granted the leaseholders a basket of rights (which a leaseholder can sell on) one of which is the right to park.

GD has pointed to the LTA about less than 10 and it boils down to whether the imposition of parking enforcement is part of the original agreement with the leaseholders or an unilateral decision with is in breach of the LTA.

You would need to see the wording of the lease with regards to whether they are enforcing a term within the lease or introducing a new term - without agreement.

Search for derogation from grant (i.e. the original deal between the Freeholder and the Leaseholders.)

sparky8888

all, thanks for keeping this on track. I have a list of things now that I need to go and do, and a few different letters to draft. I don't want to waste anyone's time or consume their time unnecessarily, so I'll come back when I have something to post for review.

Thanks again to everyone for they excellent information.

sparky8888

Ok, so here is a first draft of a letter I am intending on sending to the Managing Director of the MA. I welcome your feedback, and please do be pedantic. I want this to carry weight.

I would also appreciate any comments on the content, whether anything in there is not relevant, out of date, or just not needed. Likewise, any feedback on missing content is also very much appreciated.

I need to find a suitable place to talk about signage too. There are a total of 3 signs at the development, they are all unlit and no sign exists at the entrance - I believe this is an IPC code of conduct requirement, which UKCPM are a member of. The signs are poorly placed, and are not visible at all from almost all of the parking spaces. I'll see if I can figure out how to upload some pictures for you guys.

Thanks again for everyones your help in pulling in the various pieces of information that may be relevant to my situation.

---

My address
here

Managing Agent
address here

DO NOT IGNORE THIS LETTER

NNth July 2018

Dear Sirs,

RE: UKCPM !!!8211; PCN XXXXXX; Vehicle XXXXXX

I am writing to make a formal complaint about the parking scheme that has been imposed on our residency, and the predatory and inexcusable conduct of your client UKCPM.

On the evening of XX June 2018 at XX:XX a PCN was placed upon the windscreen of the above vehicle whilst rightfully and lawfully parked. The reason indicated on the ticket was for not displaying a valid permit.

A request for the PCN to be cancelled was sent to your employee XXXX, via our Landlord, on the XX June 2018. The request was unreasonably denied without consideration and a reason was never provided.

Your client, UKCPM, obtained my data from the DVLA and subsequently processed my data to issue a Notice to Keeper (NTK) on the XX July 2018, claiming keeper liability and demanding rising costs of £149.00. As the registered keeper of the above mentioned vehicle, I deny any liability. There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn, nor was there an agreed contract.

I have appealed the NTK and I am currently awaiting a response from your client. I look forward to receiving their normal automated template rejection letter, as appeals are never considered by your client.

This unreasonable behaviour goes against the reasons of why the scheme was apparently introduced. It is therefore not surprising that Parliament agreed unanimously that ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists...should not have to put up with this''.

Its purpose is to protect resident parking facilities from abuse by those who do not have any right to park there, and not to penalise residents for lawful and rightful use of their own parking facilities. Clearly, any resident regrettably forgetting to display a permit does not equate to abuse of the parking facilities. There is no reasonable justification for refusing to, or failing to, cancel a PCN issued for this reason.

Firms of your client!!!8217;s ilk, including your client themselves, were unanimously condemned in 2018 as operating an 'outrageous scam' (Hansard 2.2.18). The IPC, which your client claims to be a member of, were heavily criticised too; hardly surprising for an industry where so-called AOS members admit to letting victims 'futilely go through the motions' of appeal and say on camera 'we make it up sometimes' (BBC Watchdog).

It is evident that [MA] do not have the best interests of the estate in mind despite being appointed to provide a !!!8216;service!!!8217; to the residents. If you did, you would have a process in place where you could just immediately cancel tickets sent to you from genuine residents, visitors or contractors.

My parking rights are covered in several places in my tenancy agreement and the properties leasehold. These grant me an unfettered right to park and are Primacy of Contract. The vehicle in question was rightfully and lawfully parked, and in complete compliance with the properties freehold, lease hold agreements as well as my tenancy agreement, at the date and time the alleged contravention is said to have taken place.

The only obligations are:
i) Not to store or keep on the premises or any communal car park any boat, caravan or commercial vehicle without the prior consent of the landlord or his agent. (In order to avoid misunderstandings or disputes later, it is strongly recommended that the tenant obtain confirmation in writing of any such consent granted) Such consent not to be unreasonably withheld. The landlord reserves the right to withdraw, for reasonable grounds and upon reasonable notice, any such consent previously given.

ii) Not to repair cars, motorcycles, vans or other commercial vehicles at the premises apart from general maintenance, from time to time, to a vehicle of which the tenant is the registered keeper.

[remove this below para???]
A permit may be displayed out of ease from avoiding the hassle of having to spend my time resolving these fines, but I would like to make crystal clear that there is no obligation whatsoever to do so as per any binding agreement I am a party to.

As a property management company of !!!8220;great knowledge and experience in all aspects of Property Management!!!8221; (your words, not mine), you will surely be very familiar with The Leaseholder Association, the law around lease variation and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA). When contracting to introduce parking restrictions at a residential site, both yourselves, and your client (UKCPM) have a duty to pay regard to the lawful rights of those living there and to ascertain what arrangements already exist under the leasehold agreements. That duty was not exercised by either party.

Had you undertaken your duty, you would have established that leaseholders already have the unfettered right to park vehicles at the property. Therefore, to change this term a variation of lease is required.

Under Section 37 of the LTA an application can be made to an FTT in respect of two or more leases for variation and the changes can only be achieved if all of the leases are varied to the same effect. Where the application to the tribunal is in respect of less than nine leases, all leaseholders or all but one must consent.

In speaking with multiple leaseholders at the development, it prevails that leases were not varied at all. It is therefore without any doubt, [MA] have made a unilateral decision to introduce a new term without agreement. This is in breach of the LTA, and is derogation from grant. I did not agree anywhere in any contract to pay parking charges, nor did I agree to display any parking permit. No lease was never varied, so these terms cannot be introduced.

I refer you to the following relevant case law:
!!!8226; Jopson v Homeguard B9GF0A9E [2016] It was found as fact that the parking company had unlawfully disregarded the rights under the lease, and the defendant was able to claim over £2000 in costs.

!!!8226; Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] It was found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.

!!!8226; Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016] It was also found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.

!!!8226; UKPC v Miss C C8HW2E9Q [2017] It was found that the parking company!!!8217;s signage could not override that of the tenants unfettered right to park.

[I found this recent case win on Parking Pranksters website. The case reports that the NTK was substantially compliant, but not fully complaint. I have checked my NTK against the POFA requirements and mine does look to be compliant, but I will require someone with more knowledge to verify this. If mine is compliant, this para will be removed]
Contrary to the threatening statements made in your clients NTK, your client has no legal right to pursue me, the registered keeper, for the alleged debt. The NTK is not Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (POFA) compliant and therefore no keeper liability can exist.

I refer you to this relevant case law:
!!!8226; UK CPM v Mrs H D6GF60EJ [2018] It was found that UKCPM NTK letters are not POFA compliant and therefore no keeper liability can exist. UKCPM had no legal right to pursue Mrs H (the Register Keeper) for the debt. The case was thrown out. hxxp://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2018/03/court-report-uk-cpm-lose-on-pofa-and.html

In light of the statements above, it is without doubt that any PCN issued to any vehicle to which the resident is the registered keeper or visitor to resident, is done so unlawfully. The unlawful issuance of such PCNs makes the processing of my data by your client unlawful.

In the appeal sent to your client, it has been clearly instructed that I do not consent under any circumstances to any further processing of my information. They have been instructed to remove it from their own systems, and partner systems with immediate effect. It was clearly stated as a !!!8220;Section 10 Notice!!!8221; under the DPA. Should your client reject my appeal and continue to misuse my data by further processing, and/or passing it onto third party debt collectors, they will be in breach of the DPA. Additionally, your client has been instructed to cease and desist any future communication in regard to this matter. The only permissible communication permitted is that to inform me the PCN has been cancelled.

It must be noted that as the party who established the contract with UKCPM, you are severally and jointly liable for your client!!!8217;s actions. Any further pursuant actions relating to this matter from your client will be regarded as harassment under the terms of The Protection from Harassment Act 1997, and a claim for damages will be pursued.

Take formal note:
You and your client are warned that should you fail to cancel this PCN, any party that again contacts me in pursuit of the 'parking charge notice' will constitute a breach. Each breach will give rise to a further sum in compensation.

I hereby request with your response the following information to be able to consider my legal stance in this matter. Refusal or blatant obfuscation on any level will be condemned unreasonable behaviour, and will be used as evidence should this matter advance into legal proceedings.

i) A unredacted copy of the contract agreement that gives permission for UKCPM to operate at this location.

ii) Strict proof that a clear chain of traceability exists all the way back to the landowner, that provides the authority from the landowner for UKCPM to operate at this location.

iii) Strict proof that your duty to ascertain the arrangements that already exist under the leasehold agreements was duly exercised.

iv) Strict proof that an application was made to an FTT for lease variation.

v) Strict proof that all leases were varied, and were varied to the same effect.
[are points these above points correctly worded??]

I look forward to receiving your client's remittance and/or your substantive response with all requested information within 14 days of the date of this letter.

Yours faithfully,

Guys_Dad

I would cut out any emotion and opinions, yours or parliament's. They are inclined to make complaints sound like a rant.

You write "In speaking with multiple leaseholders at the development, it prevails that leases were not varied at all." I would add "to incorporate the introduction of a penalty charge parking regime which is clearly a variation to the leases."

NeilCr

Guys_Dad wrote: »

I would cut out any emotion and opinions, yours or parliament's. They are inclined to make complaints sound like a rant.

You write "In speaking with multiple leaseholders at the development, it prevails that leases were not varied at all." I would add "to incorporate the introduction of a penalty charge parking regime which is clearly a variation to the leases."

I would agree

It does seem a rather long rant. Essentially, you are trying to find out who authorised it, on what authority and who are the parties to the contract. As usual IamEmaresu was on the money. I'd concentrate on that in your first letter.

sparky8888

Guys Dad and NeilCr, thanks for the feedback. I'll park this letter a post a draft 'fact finding' letter here a bit later. I agree this should probably be more of a follow up response when they refuse to answer any of the questions asked.

sparky8888

It's been a busy few days, so this is the first chance I've had to be able to post up a revised letter. See below. I would ideally like to post this of in the morning, so any feedback is welcomed.

----

Dear Sirs,

RE: UKCPM !!!8211; PCN 0000000; Vehicle NNNNN


I am writing to make a formal complaint about the parking scheme that has been imposed on our residency.

On the evening of ?? June 2018 at ??:??pm a PCN was placed upon the windscreen of the above vehicle whilst rightfully and lawfully parked. The reason indicated on the ticket was for not displaying a valid permit.

A request for the PCN to be cancelled was sent to ??, via our Landlord, on the ?? June 2018. The request was unreasonably denied without consideration and a reason was never provided. As a party to the contract with UKCPM, I invite you to reconsider this decision.

Your client, UKCPM, obtained my data from the DVLA and subsequently processed my data to issue a Notice to Keeper (NTK) on the ?? July 2018, claiming keeper liability and demanding rising costs of £149.00. As the registered keeper of the above mentioned vehicle, I deny any liability and there will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn, nor was there an agreed contract.

I have appealed the NTK and I am currently awaiting a response from your client. I look forward to receiving their normal automated template rejection letter, as appeals are never considered by your client.

My parking rights are covered in several places in my tenancy agreement and the properties leasehold. These grant me an unfettered right to park and are Primacy of Contract. The vehicle in question was rightfully and lawfully parked, and in complete compliance with the properties freehold and leasehold agreements as well as my short hold tenancy agreement, at the date and time the alleged contravention is said to have taken place.

The only obligations are:
i) Not to store or keep on the premises or any communal car park any boat, caravan or commercial vehicle without the prior consent of the landlord or his agent. (In order to avoid misunderstandings or disputes later, it is strongly recommended that the tenant obtain confirmation in writing of any such consent granted) Such consent not to be unreasonably withheld. The landlord reserves the right to withdraw, for reasonable grounds and upon reasonable notice, any such consent previously given.

ii) Not to repair cars, motorcycles, vans or other commercial vehicles at the premises apart from general maintenance, from time to time, to a vehicle of which the tenant is the registered keeper.

As a property management company you will be familiar with The Leaseholder Association, the law around lease variation and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA). When contracting to introduce parking restrictions at a residential site, you have a duty to pay regard to the lawful rights of those living there and to ascertain what arrangements already exist under the leasehold agreements. To change any of these terms, a variation of lease is required.

In speaking with multiple leaseholders at the development, it prevails that leases were not varied at all to incorporate the introduction of a penalty charge parking regime which is clearly a variation to the leases. This is in breach of the LTA, and is derogation from grant. I did not agree anywhere, in any contract, to pay parking charges, nor did I agree to display any parking permit. No lease was never varied to introduce these terms.

I hereby request with your response the following information:

i) A unredacted copy of the contract agreement that gives permission for UKCPM to operate at this location.

ii) Strict proof of a clear chain of traceability existing all the way back to the landowner, that provides the authority from the landowner for UKCPM to operate at this location.

iii) Strict proof that your duty to ascertain the arrangements that already exist under the leasehold agreements was duly exercised.

iv) Strict proof that all leases were varied, and were varied to the same effect, to incorporate the introduction of a penalty charge parking regime

I look forward to receiving your client's remittance and/or your substantive response with all requested information within 14 days of the date of this letter.

Yours faithfully,

sparky8888

Hi all, sorry to bug, but any feedback on the above? Any other amendments recommend before posting tomorrow?

sparky8888

So, today I received my first debt collector letter - lucky me, what a fantastic Christmas present!! Seems like UKCPM are no longer using Debt Recovery Plus (or whatever they are call), as this one is from "TRACE Debt Recovery UK Limited", registered company number 10079126.

Anyone heard of these before?