PPS (Newton Abbot) Residential Parking

paulherts

Morning

I hope I am not treading on anyone's toes by starting a new thread. I have read through the Newbies thread.

My daughter lives in Exeter and is being plagued by the above company who have been given the right to manage the residential car park at her address. I will be attempting to obtain the contract from the landowner Cornerstone in due course.

There have been a huge amount of issues, ticketing vehicles with permits, ticketing vehicles without permits but in their allocated space, no grace period in visitors spaces, ticketing vehicles with visitors permits in allocated spaces where they have the authority to be there. It has become a minefield which I am attempting to work through.

I would like views on the signage and whether it is forbidding:



If so does that mean that all PCNs they issue are invalid and unenforceable as there is no contract only trespass?

Thanks in advance

Paul

Fruitcake

The most important aspect is what the residents' lease/AST says.

Unless it specifically mentions that a third party can demand money with menaces, then the scammers cannot offer something that a resident already has. The lease/AST has primacy of contract.

See if it mentions parking, parking companies, parking permits, whether a third party can issue PCNs, demand money, and take a resident to court.
Also look for the term "quiet enjoyment".

Has your daughter complained to the landowner/landlord as well as the MA?

In any case, appeal each and every PCN using the appeal template using the template in blue from the NEWBIES.

In "own spaces" it is OK to reveal the drivers identity if the lease/AST doesn't mention parking scammers. This makes it easier if it gets to court to say My Lease/AST allows me to park My Car in My Space.

The signs are forbidding for anyone without/without displaying a permit, and Beavis is not engaged/not relevant.

Fruitcake

This is what judges have to say about residential parking scams.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/residential-parking.html

She should also complain to her MP, as should anyone else who has been caught, whether resident or visitor.

The_Deep

The MP for Exeter is well aware of these scammers.

It is the will of Parliament that these scammers be put out of business. Hopefully that will take place in the near future. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers. Read this one which I wrote earlier

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Third Reading in late November, and, with a fair wind, will become Law next year.

All three readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 6-7 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.

paulherts

Thanks Fruitcake.

The Landowner have been next to useless they have given a response to our concerns that is littered with ineptitude - such as PPS only have two versions of their permit holder only signs - they mention fines in their response and admit the visitors signage is inadequate. They also refer to site rules which we had no idea existed!

They are going to carry out a consultation with residents but that does not help my daughter who has eight to ten PCNs.

I will check the tenancy agreement again - I don't think it mentions parking at all but I will re-read.

Thanks

Paul

Fruitcake

paulherts wrote: »

Thanks Fruitcake.

The Landowner have been next to useless they have given a response to our concerns that is littered with ineptitude - such as PPS only have two versions of their permit holder only signs - they mention fines in their response and admit the visitors signage is inadequate. They also refer to site rules which we had no idea existed!

They are going to carry out a consultation with residents but that does not help my daughter who has eight to ten PCNs.

I will check the tenancy agreement again - I don't think it mentions parking at all but I will re-read.

Thanks

Paul

That's good. If a parking scheme isn't mentioned then a third party cannot add it in without the leaseholder's permission.
Is there a resident's association where this can be brought up?


Your daughter should send a request to the DVLA asking who asked for her personal data including VRN (vehicle reg number) and when, and how many times from just before the first PCN was received until now.

Do the same if any more PCNs arrive. The scammers can only ask for data once per alleged event so they must ask 8 times for 8 PCNs. They can't re-use the data for a previous request.

She should also send an SAR to the scammers for each PCN. I believe there is a link in the NEWBIES to a template SAR form on the Parking Cowboys website.

Get her to put notes on windscreens or through letter boxes telling everyone to come here for advice.

One poster on here got a fightback group together in his block of flats, so that's something else to think about.

The landowner should be warned that if the scammers take a resident to court then they, the landlord will be jointly liable and will need to attend court for each and every case brought.
The same applies to the MA.

paulherts

I have checked the tenancy agreement and there is the line around 'quiet enjoyment' and nothing about parking at all, not even a mention of their allocated space.

They get a permit for their allocated space by phoning the Housing Association and paying a fee of £5 they do not have to sign anything and are not provided with anything other than the permit. There is the same procedure for a visitors permit with again a £5 fee.

PPS have changed some of the signage but it is still forbidding and there are still a few of the old signs dotted around.

It is ridiculous that a scheme that was set up to protect residents from external abusers has been turned against those very residents.

Redx

paulherts wrote: »

It is ridiculous that a scheme that was set up to protect residents from external abusers has been turned against those very residents.

which is one of the main arguments that MP,s have been putting forward since july 2017 and was debated only last friday for the 3rd time in the house of commons, when Sir Greg Knights bill got its 3rd reading

Coupon-mad

They get a permit for their allocated space by phoning the Housing Association and paying a fee of £5 they do not have to sign anything and are not provided with anything other than the permit. There is the same procedure for a visitors permit with again a £5 fee.

Again, that's good, especially if the fiver goes to the HA and not to PPS. That means the permit scheme is a contract completed over the phone with no 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract', not even a caveat telling residents to refer to the signage which forms part of the contract...not even a mention of £100 penalty risk, when people get their permits. The contract is concluded between the HA and the resident, by phone & post. PPS are not a party to it.

I suggest you and the victims at that poor residential cash-cow site, watch the whole video of the Parliamentary debate from Friday, as this type of scam is described by MPs. Here is a link to Friday's proceedings (commences at 12:04.50)

https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/e5b67de6-b2f5-4e03-98bf-52d40c8af2df

They need to get PPS kicked out, and should complain to their MP en masse.

I will go as far as saying that NO-ONE should be paying these 'PCNs' as they have primacy of contract in their tenancy agreement and nothing tells them that the permit scheme that they thought costs a fiver, and they naively believed was designed to deter trespassers (oh no it wasn't...!) carries an onerous additional 'pitfall or trap' of a penalty arising from a third party they never contracted with.

paulherts

Thanks for all the useful information which we have followed in terms of the PCNs already received.

This morning a PPS operative attempted to give a PCN to my daughter as her permit was not in the right place - it was clearly displayed on the dashboard. My daughter drove off after putting her baby and toddler in the car whilst this woman harassed her.

This is harassment and I would be grateful for any suggestions on how I can deal with this. PPS are checking her vehicle twice a day knowing full well that the car is authorised to park in the space.