District Enforcement - Chancers!

Tentatively

Hi all,

Not really looking for advice on this one, just posting so you all can follow. Just won my first POPLA appeal here this week:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5864814/metrolink-careparking-fine&page=2#topofpage

So, I received an Ntk last week stating I owe £60 to District Enforcement Limited. They were telling me I had to pay because I had parked in "contravention of the rules" in my own car parking space. Couldn't help but let out a chuckle.

I live in an apartment that is owned by my family and therefore I have access to the exact wording of the leasehold. Nowhere in said leasehold does it state anything about parking rules, enforcement or paying any charges.

Here's the kicker, I'd actually displayed their poxy parking pass in my windscreen when they gave it to me and have done ever since for about the last year. So I log on to their portal to see their evidence photos and to my amazement, this is what I found.

https://i.imgur.com/1sGP7ab.jpg

Note that the flash is reflecting off the condensation, making it even harder to see.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

The thing I have highlighted in red is the parking permit, obscured by condensation at nearly 6am.
I can't wait to hear their excuse for this one. :beer:

Fruitcake

I think you should warn anyone that if they click on the Next Post button whilst viewing your PCN picture on the imgur site, they might want to have a box of hankies ready.
Fair play in her date for sticking with her.

Meanwhile, do the scammers really think you can control the weather? I would think they should be worried about you sending a flood of biblical proportions their way in that case.

Tentatively

Update on this:

After "appealing" directly to District they had the nerve to respond with this:

After reviewing the photographic evidence from our records
we can confirm that there was no permit displayed in the vehicle at the time of the occurrence. The
charge was therefore correctly issued.
We are confident that you have been given the same opportunities to accept the conditions of use, and
indeed dispute the issue of the charge, as every other user. It would be a gross injustice if we were not to
apply the same criteria to yourself as we have done for the other motorists subject to the charges.
For the sake of consistency we must apply the law uniformly and therefore the charge must stand.

I was bored one afternoon so I decided to see what the blind moron's of District would say if I phoned them demanding they review the evidence on the phone and stating the legalities of the lease, it's covenants etc.

As expected, the idiot on the other end of the phone thought he knew it all and was adamant that a head lease existed and that superceded my lease. I'd had enough of debating the legalities to the moron so hung up mid sentence and called the Management Agent.

The MA responsible for the properties was dismissive at first, stating they don't get involved with parking and any appeals had to be with the PPC.

He wasn't so dismissive when he received a letter in writing informing him of primacy of contract and the other legalities, namely the breach of the Landlord Covenant of the right to peaceful enjoyment of the property.

Received a phone call from the MA this week. Apologising profusely and stating that he'd had the PPC cancel the charge and then put me in touch with the head of customer service when I stated I wanted further action taken against District.

I'll be writing to them in the coming days stating I want District removed from the site and the fob activated barrier, which is already installed and has been for a while, put back into use.

Again, the posts in this forum have been invaluable. Many thanks all.

Coupon-mad

He wasn't so dismissive when he received a letter in writing informing him of primacy of contract and the other legalities, namely the breach of the Landlord Covenant of the right to peaceful enjoyment of the property.

Received a phone call from the MA this week. Apologising profusely and stating that he'd had the PPC cancel the charge and then put me in touch with the head of customer service when I stated I wanted further action taken against District.

I'll be writing to them in the coming days stating I want District removed from the site and the fob activated barrier, which is already installed and has been for a while, put back into use.

Love it!

If that doesn't happen, take a look at the new idea in the Deep's thread at the top right now, and report them to whatever the LVT is called now (tribunal about unfair lease charges).

Umkomaas

Great FightBack. Keep at them!

Coupon-mad

Dyl Kurpil will be spitting feathers.

DE is run by ex-Police who seem to be aggressive but entitled individuals, with delusions of grandeur. They even used to mimic Police NIP wording in their NTKs a few years back.

Tentatively

He'll be spitting feathers all right.

The signage that was in the car park has mysteriously disappeared :rotfl:

Coupon-mad

So happy to hear that!

Umkomaas

It's great to see someone come out their corner actually snarling and fighting, smashing in to them. An extremely refreshing change from reading the frequent snowflake response from most we get here.

Keep us up to speed on developments @Tentatively (you're far from 'Tentative' fella :rotfl:)

Tentatively

Here's the letter I've sent to the MA.

Dear XXX,
In order to fully explain the complaint, I’ll provide you with a detailed account of the events over
the last four months.


On the 22nd October 2018, I received a Parking Charge Notice to Keeper, demanding that I pay
£60 for not displaying a permit. If the payment was not made, the letter threatened legal action
and a County Court Judgement.


District Enforcement provided pictures of the supposed parking infraction. As you saw, there is a
small white square under the A pillar of the vehicle, hidden under condensation. This is the
permit provided by District Enforcement. I called XXX shortly after receiving this the Parking Charge Notice through the post and was finally transferred through to I believe <MA>, the Property
Manager for the property. I explained the situation and the fact that I had displayed the permit
but was told that “We don't involve oursevles with residents parking issues and I should
appeal to District Enforcement directly”.


I appealed to District Enforcement on the 29th October, highlighting the fact that I had in fact
displayed a permit in my windscreen and that the parking warden must have made a mistake. I
received a reply to that appeal on the 21st November 2018. Their response was as follows and
I’ve attached the full response in Appendix A.


“After reviewing the photographic evidence from our records we can confirm that there
was no permit displayed in the vehicle at the time of the occurrence. The charge was
therefore correctly issued.”



In an effort to resolve the matter over the phone, I phoned District Enforcement and asked the
person that answered to review the appeal decision and again review the photographic evidence.
I was met with contempt, demands of payment and a threat of court action.


I believe that highlights the fact that District Enforcement is employing severely incompetent
staff, or they are lying in an effort to extort residents out of their money. I personally believe it’s
the latter. How can three separate individuals miss the fact that there is clearly a permit displayed
in the windscreen of the car?

I requested <FAMILY MEMBER> write the letter that you have read in an effort to get the fraudulent ticket cancelled. I contacted MA again just before Christmas and was put through to XXX, MA's
assistant.

On the 8th January I finally received word that MA had reviewed the letter, agreed that there
was definitely a permit of some sort displayed in the windscreen of my car and had instructed
District to cancel the ticket.



The complaints I have are:

1. Why was I told that MA does not deal with residents parking issues when it is clearly within your remit to do so, as employers of District Enforcement?


2. The only legal document that governs the usage of the demised property is the lease that
Leaseholder entered into with the Freeholder. Both parties agreed to abide by the
specified covenants set out in the lease; none of these covenants stipulate any displaying
of a permit or charges resulting from not displaying a permit. This lease was signed
before the parking enforcement contract was agreed with District Enforcement. To the
best of my knowledge, no alteration to the Lease has been made and therefore Primacy of
Contract is in place, rendering the enforcement of parking in the parking space illegal.


3. In Part 1 of Schedule 6 titled ‘Landlord Covenants’, the tenant is granted the right of
quiet enjoyment of the property without any interruption from the Landlord or any person
claiming under the landlord except otherwise permitted by the lease. As the enforcement
of parking and harassing demands for payment are not permitted in the lease, the actions
of District have put the Freeholder in breach of the quiet enjoyment covenant.


How I would like it to be put right:

1. I would kindly request that you terminate the contract with District Enforcement with immediate
effect and the barrier fob system which is already in place be put into use to prevent
unauthorised parking. This was promised when the apartment was being purchased and
never materialised.


2. If the contract with District Enforcement cannot be terminated, instruct them to not issue
any tickets on my apartment's parking space. Any further demands for payment will force me to initiate County Court proceedings against them claiming damages for a breach of Data Protection for unlawfully requesting my details from the DVLA and an injunction to prevent further harassment, along with costs.



3. Please could you let me know the details of the arrangement between District
Enforcement and MA. Specifically if District Enforcement are paid through the Service Charge and do they keep all proceeds from the Parking Charge Notices?

Sincerely,
Tentatively

:beer:

Coupon-mad

Love it!

No-one needs DE anywhere near their home/car. Completely unnecessary regime.