Multiple PCNs from VCS for Parking in own Bay

nosferatu1001

AST relevant to parking - https://i.imgur.com/AJAH2q2.png

Picture of parking signs - https://i.imgur.com/V6TlFVW.png

Email to Property management company - https://i.imgur.com/Tcbipfi.png

Half_way

It's absolutely critical that you contact the management company, and demand your money back for any permit, state you are withdrawing from any permit scheme, and at the same time raise your objections

Dingaling63_72

Hi all,

Right - Couple of updates for you all -

I have since gone fully through the appeals process and send VCS all the required info - surprise surprise the appeal was denied, but as a "gesture of goodwill" the charges for all 3 PCNs were dropped to £20 each.

I since went to the property management agency, and got a refund for the parking permit. I also asked them to cancel the tickets, and while they agreed to cancel the 3rd one, the 2nd "could be cancelled but we will have to see" and the 1st definitely could not be cancelled, even after extensive persuasion and filling them in with the details, their response was "there are signs up in the car park, you shouldn't have parked there without a pass"

I've also received NTDs via post from VCS for all 3 PCNs. do these now override the NTK received earlier or not? Thinking if I can use the fact that the NTKs are not PoFA compliant as a (potential) defence.

Thoughts?

System

Thinking if I can use the fact that the NTKs are not PoFA compliant as a (potential) defence.

This is for where the driver is not known. You actually want the driver to be known as the driver has a contract that overrides the VCS one.

Get back to the MA again. If you can withdraw then clearly you have primacy for your own space. So it is legally nonsense to say the others can't be cancelled and the MA are interfering with your lease.

Dingaling63_72

IamEmanresu wrote: »

This is for where the driver is not known. You actually want the driver to be known as the driver has a contract that overrides the VCS one.

Get back to the MA again. If you can withdraw then clearly you have primacy for your own space. So it is legally nonsense to say the others can't be cancelled and the MA are interfering with your lease.

Thanks for the advice. Would this work?

[Name of contact at estate management company],

Thanks for your response. Please let me know when VCS has cancelled the other 2 tickets.

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that my AST does not mention anything about having to display a valid permit to park, which I signed before even arriving at the property. The parking signs placed around the [PROPERTY CAR PARK] interfere with the signed AST, and under primacy of contract they are rendered unenforceable. Furthermore, if you can withdraw some of the tickets then clearly I have primacy over my own space, and you are interfering with my AST.
Please cancel the first ticket.

Regards

Fruitcake

Strongly hint to the MA that if this goes to court you will require their head honcho to appear as a witness for the claimant so you can cross examine them about the AST.

You need to hammer home that the AST has primacy of contact and already offers you parking. Getting a refund for the permits is of great help as it proves they are not needed and not part of the AST and are unnecessary as you already have an unfettered right to park.

Please do get your MP involved with this, explaining how you have a lease to a property with car parking space, but an unregulated third party scammer (MPs own words) is trying to operate a for profit business on your demised space and charge you for using it.
Not all MPs are as clued up as others and need this scam explain to them in simple terms.

These are some of the comments made by the MPs in Parliament concerning the unregulated parking industry (Feb 2018):

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-02-02/debates/CC84AF5E-AC6E-4E14-81B1-066E6A892807/Parking(CodeOfPractice)Bill

''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''; unfair charges and notices; 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 is as much use as a multi-storey car park in the Gobi desert''; and finally, by way of unanimous 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''.

These are the exact words used, so you should quote them to your MP in a complaint and ask him/her to contact Sir Greg Knight MP if he/she wants further information about this scam.

It wouldn't hurt to show the MA what our government thinks about these scammers concerning their choice of car park monitoring.

Dingaling63_72

Fruitcake wrote: »

Strongly hint to the MA that if this goes to court you will require their head honcho to appear as a witness for the claimant so you can cross examine them about the AST.

Thanks for this, Fuitcake. by strongly hint, should I say it explicitly? I'm not exactly sure what's best practice here - If I explicitly say "if this gets to court your MD will be required to appear as a witness and explain why the PCN contract takes precidence over my AST" will it be taken as threatening behaviour and come off badly for me? Any tips on which way to phrase it? Nuance isn't my strong suit :rotfl:

Fruitcake

Just say it.

My AST says this ... I require the MA's head to be in court to say why he/she thinks this does not have supremacy of contract over a third party described by our MPs as scammers. Please supply me with dates when he/she will not be available so I can inform the court.

Umkomaas

Ask who will represent them when the court requires them to nominate and to provide details of when they might not be available (within the next 6 months) to attend for cross-examination. You are certain the court will deem them pivotal to this case, and will adjust their scheduling to ensure their attendance as a key witness.

Much is bluff, but let them work that out. If they can't, they might just demand the PPC drops it. If they try to call your bluff, you try to get the court to call them - costs you nowt. Who blinks first!