We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
Own parking space court case lost
DogBed
Posts: 4 Newbie
I wanted to share my experiences of fighting a PCN a friend received when parked in my parking space in August 2016. The case went to court. Due to several delays and incompetencies on the part of the court, the court hearing was last week. It was a paper hearing, as my friend did not want to go to court. I know everyone here advises against this, and this might partly explain why the ruling was not in my favour (as I could not argue the points), but it was the only way of fighting the PCN.
I’d like to thank everyone who posted here with their own problems with PCNs and the replies and advice, which were super-helpful in drafting my defence and witness statement; the BMPA for advising on court procedures; and Parking Prankster for the guide to residential parking and related case law.
I’ve pasted the witness statements below. Regarding the judge’s decision, I seem to have fallen down on two aspects –
First,
Points 6, 7, 8 of my witness statement:
The judge said:
“The Court notes that the wording of the green travel plan does not prevent the issue of PCN to ‘first time’ vehicles, instead requiring that enforcement action must be taken against persistent offenders.”
The wording of the section in the green travel plan that the judge is referring to is:
“The travel manager and parking contractor will carry out periodic checks of parking spaces and roads, which in conjunction with warning notices will ensure proper use of spaces. In cases of persistent contravention, further enforcement action, such as fines will be used.”
My view: I read this statement as defining who receives ‘fines’ and further enforcement action, ie persistent offenders. Non-persistent offenders should be given warning notes, and a PCN that ends up in court is hardly a warning notice…..
Second,
The court said that the defendant’s vehicle was not owned or used by me. Here the court refers to my transfer documents, which state I have use of the parking space for a “vehicle owned or used by the occupier”
My view: you don’t have to own or drive a car to have use of it; a passenger can be someone who uses a car…..I noted in my witness statement that we would be using the car for trips out.
As the PPC won the case, obviously my views were not in line with the judge’s view! If anyone has any thoughts then these may be helpful for other who find themselves in a similar situation. Even though I lost I’m glad that I fought the PCN and would encourage others to do the same...don't let this outcome put you off!
The defendant’s witness statement:
I was a lawful visitor and in line with the occupier’s wishes, the car was parked on land that was in the occupier’s possession. I refer to the whiteness statement of _____for the facts of the case.
My witness statement: (written in March 2017)
1. This Claim arises from an alleged breach of contract relating to a parking incident in my own parking space outside my house; my house is owned under a freehold title. My home comes with unfettered rights to the parking space. The transfer documents for this property give the homeowners the legal right to use this space and have done since 2009.
Document A – My transfer documents, showing:
The right to use the parking space for the parking of private motor vehicles
A map of the estate with the parking space allocated to our house.
2. The defendant and his family came to visit me in August 2016, and I told them to park in my parking space, since we would be using the car for trips out during the duration of their visit. In the excitement of their visit, I forgot to give them my parking permit and overnight (at around 2am) the defendant’s car received a parking charge notice (PCN).
3. I contacted our management company _____, which manages parts of the estate, to explain that the defendant’s car belonged to a genuine visitor associated with my home. The management company said that they would ask the parking company to cancel the ticket, but noted that the parking company might refuse
Document B – emails between myself and the management company from August-September 2016
4. Because the claimant __________ did refuse to cancel the ticket – they asserted that it was issued correctly — I appealed through the parking company’s appeal service, on the grounds that because the management company asked for the ticket to be cancelled, this effectively gave me the landowner’s permission to park, thus over-riding the PCN. This appeal was rejected.
5. I decided not to appeal to the so-called ‘Independent Appeals Service’, because by this stage I had found out that the trade association of the parking company (the International Parking Community), the appeals service, and the solicitors used by the parking company are all run by the same directors. This represents a conflict of interest, and from a practical point of view means that the chance of an appeal succeeding is practically zero.
6. Within my transfer documents (document A cited above), there is no explicit reference to a requirement to display a parking permit. However, the transfer documents state that parking and estate management will be conducted in compliance with the Green Travel Plan.
Document C – Copy of the Green Travel Plan
This is a legal document signed upon sale of land from __________ to _________, the latter party built homes on __________, and was owner of the land (that was not under homes with freehold titles) at the time of issue of the PCN.
7. The Green Travel Plan outlines car parking management. Section 5.2.9 clearly outlines the regime for parking control, and states that if parking problems arise, warning notices will be used, and that ‘fines’ will be used for persistent contraventions.
8. The defendant has not a persistently contravened parking rules, and I contend that he is not an offender at all. This is the first time he has been issued with a parking charge notice (PCN).
9. It is a well-established legal doctrine that an existing contract cannot be unilaterally altered (without agreement of all parties).
Primacy of contract means that a parking contract between the claimant and the management company of ___________ that was introduced in 2015 related to parking management (and led to the issue of this PCN) cannot overwrite information in the transfer documents issued in 2009. The parking company is not party to the transfer documents.
I cite the following cases as authority on this matter in parking cases:
9b Particularly the appeal case of Jopson v Homeguard Services [2016] B9GF0A9E, Oxford County Court. Document D
In his Judgment, HHJ Harris QC states: ‘It therefore seems clear to me that the respondent was not in any position unilaterally to override the right of access which the claimant had bought when she purchased the lease …’
9c County Court, in PACE Recovery & Storage v Mr N (C7GF51J1), Document E
District Judge Coonan: ‘What Pace Recovery is seeking to do is, unilaterally outside the contract, restrict that right to only when a permit is displayed. Pace Recovery cannot do that.….. Therefore, the tenancy agreement takes precedence over the arrangement between Sutton and yourself, the claimant, Pace Recovery. As I have said, it is a pure matter of contract that I have to decide. Therefore, the claim is dismissed’.
9d Case No: C7GF50J7 Wrexham county court November 2016 Document F
Deputy district judge Metcalf
‘There is no evidence before me to suggest that they have in any way undertaken steps to vary the lease, and I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that section 21 applies such that by engaging the company they have applied new and binding regulations on the leaseholders. A mere letter regarding permits would not, in my judgment, suffice in this regard.’
The judge ruled that that for Link or CPML (the management company) to have any right to manage the parking on the Landowner's property, the deeds would have to be altered to state this for the whole site. She ruled that the Landowner could not be penalised for parking in her own space.
9e UKPC v Mr Aziz Birmingham 9/1/2017 C2HW01A6. DJ Gibson
DJ Gibson dismissed the claim on the basis UKPC did not have authority to override the lease and issue charges.
10. It is clearly stated in my transfer documents (document A) that the estate shall be managed in accordance with the Green Travel Plan. Even if the management company has some rights to alter estate regulations to ensure benefit to residents and smooth running of ________, these have to be compliant with the Green Travel Plan. The management company and claimant together cannot alter the Green Travel Plan.
11. Even if the management company has some rights to alter estate regulations to ensure benefit to residents and smooth running of _________, where these changes affect the transfer documents, it must be explicitly stated these changes will mean transfer documents will be changed (if this is legally allowed). See point 9d above, a letter to residents informing of a new parking scheme is not sufficient. The parking company is not party to the transfer documents and cannot alter them.
12. The management company do not have the right to change any terms to my transfer documents without my permission and this has never been willingly given in regards to any changes to parking in relation to the Green Travel Plan. The parking bay forms part of the demised premises of my property, and as such the claimant only has authority over the space when there is a ‘persistent contravener’ parked in it.
13. If it is found that the Green Travel Plan (or parts of it) can be ignored (which I contest), then the transfer documents still have primacy of contract over a parking contract; we are then back to the situation that there is no mention of a need to display a permit in the transfer documents. If this is the case then a permit is there only for the benefit for operatives of the parking company, and in no way implies that the parking company have authority over the space, so they cannot issue a PCN based on a lack of permit.
14. Terms of parking at ________ are therefore controlled by the homeowners’ transfer documents and the Green Travel Plan. The signage is there only to form a contract with non-residents.
15. There is no mention in the transfer documents or the Green Travel Plan that residents will be charged to use their own spaces. (section 5.6.10 refers to visitor spaces). A charge of £100 charge — now arbitrarily inflated to £153.45 with no breakdown of costs plus further unpermitted added costs — to use a designated, legally occupied parking space is excessive and amounts to an unenforceable penalty.
15b The parking company may cite the Supreme Court case of ParkingEye vs Beavis [2015] UKSC 67I to assert that the charge is enforceable. I cite the following case law that this case does not apply to residential parking
In Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E (Document D cited above) it was established that ParkingEye vs Beavis does not apply to residential parking.
15c Also in UKPC v Mr Aziz Birmingham 9/1/2017 C2HW01A6. DJ Gibson followed the lead of Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E, and ruled that ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 did not apply to residential cases. There was no way that residents or their visitors would agree to pay a charge of £100 to park in their own spaces. The charge of £100 therefore had no commercial justification and as it was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss was therefore a penalty and not justified.
16. Even if a contract had been formed by the signage (which I assert it has not), the fact that the defendant’s car was in my space meant that it was not causing a problem. The purpose of parking control at _______ is so that residents can use their own spaces and visitors can use theirs. This then falls under de minimis non curat lex; even if the letter of a contract is broken, but the spirit is not and no harm has been done, then no damages for breach contract apply. I cite the following case: Excel v Miss Bradsell C1DP6Q75 Oldham. 27/2/17 where a PCN could not be enforced in court because no parking spaces were lost.
17. The parking company is unfairly – and I believe illegally – targeting residents in order to maximize profits; this can be seen from the signage; “retrospective proof of parking will not be accepted” since it is only residents who have proof to park. Although a parking regime may benefit residents – allowing them to use their spaces and visitor spaces, targeting residents to maximize profits puts some residents at detriment. This is not allowed. Saeed v Plustrade it explains in detail that a landowner can't do this to the detriment of residents rights:''.....if one man agrees to confer a particular benefit on another, he must not do anything which substantially deprives the other of the enjoyment of that benefit: because that would be to take away with one hand what is given with the other''
Document G Court of Appeal Saeed v Plustrade [2001] EWCA Civ 2011
Document H – Photograph of the parking signs
18. On three occasions, the homeowner made goodwill offers (up to £30) to the claimant to seek closure of the issue; these were refused by the claimant. In a telephone conversion (with hindsight this should have been recorded.) In a letter and emails to management company. These were refused
Document I – Letter to the claimant
See also document B
19 The copy of the contract that reputedly gives the parking company the authority to operate on the land that I received from the management company was neither signed nor dated. No information about parking charges or court procedures (if allowed) are contained in this document. I put it to the claimant that they have the authority to operate at _________ and the authority and standing to bring this case to court.
Document J – Copy of the contract that I received from the management company
20. The claimant’s solicitor has failed to comply with practice direction for pre-action conduct. Despite requests, detailed particulars of the claim have not been received. A county court claim was received despite the solicitors knowing that the homeowner and the management company were in continued discussion to resolve this issue.
Document K Emails to try to resolve this issue without court proceedings: emails that I sent / received from _______ (who was part of the management company at the time of the issue of the PCN) whilst I was in discussions to resolve the issue; dated November (the claim form was issued in January), email ending these discussions dated February. Emails sent to claimant’s solicitor.
I’d like to thank everyone who posted here with their own problems with PCNs and the replies and advice, which were super-helpful in drafting my defence and witness statement; the BMPA for advising on court procedures; and Parking Prankster for the guide to residential parking and related case law.
I’ve pasted the witness statements below. Regarding the judge’s decision, I seem to have fallen down on two aspects –
First,
Points 6, 7, 8 of my witness statement:
The judge said:
“The Court notes that the wording of the green travel plan does not prevent the issue of PCN to ‘first time’ vehicles, instead requiring that enforcement action must be taken against persistent offenders.”
The wording of the section in the green travel plan that the judge is referring to is:
“The travel manager and parking contractor will carry out periodic checks of parking spaces and roads, which in conjunction with warning notices will ensure proper use of spaces. In cases of persistent contravention, further enforcement action, such as fines will be used.”
My view: I read this statement as defining who receives ‘fines’ and further enforcement action, ie persistent offenders. Non-persistent offenders should be given warning notes, and a PCN that ends up in court is hardly a warning notice…..
Second,
The court said that the defendant’s vehicle was not owned or used by me. Here the court refers to my transfer documents, which state I have use of the parking space for a “vehicle owned or used by the occupier”
My view: you don’t have to own or drive a car to have use of it; a passenger can be someone who uses a car…..I noted in my witness statement that we would be using the car for trips out.
As the PPC won the case, obviously my views were not in line with the judge’s view! If anyone has any thoughts then these may be helpful for other who find themselves in a similar situation. Even though I lost I’m glad that I fought the PCN and would encourage others to do the same...don't let this outcome put you off!
The defendant’s witness statement:
I was a lawful visitor and in line with the occupier’s wishes, the car was parked on land that was in the occupier’s possession. I refer to the whiteness statement of _____for the facts of the case.
My witness statement: (written in March 2017)
1. This Claim arises from an alleged breach of contract relating to a parking incident in my own parking space outside my house; my house is owned under a freehold title. My home comes with unfettered rights to the parking space. The transfer documents for this property give the homeowners the legal right to use this space and have done since 2009.
Document A – My transfer documents, showing:
The right to use the parking space for the parking of private motor vehicles
A map of the estate with the parking space allocated to our house.
2. The defendant and his family came to visit me in August 2016, and I told them to park in my parking space, since we would be using the car for trips out during the duration of their visit. In the excitement of their visit, I forgot to give them my parking permit and overnight (at around 2am) the defendant’s car received a parking charge notice (PCN).
3. I contacted our management company _____, which manages parts of the estate, to explain that the defendant’s car belonged to a genuine visitor associated with my home. The management company said that they would ask the parking company to cancel the ticket, but noted that the parking company might refuse
Document B – emails between myself and the management company from August-September 2016
4. Because the claimant __________ did refuse to cancel the ticket – they asserted that it was issued correctly — I appealed through the parking company’s appeal service, on the grounds that because the management company asked for the ticket to be cancelled, this effectively gave me the landowner’s permission to park, thus over-riding the PCN. This appeal was rejected.
5. I decided not to appeal to the so-called ‘Independent Appeals Service’, because by this stage I had found out that the trade association of the parking company (the International Parking Community), the appeals service, and the solicitors used by the parking company are all run by the same directors. This represents a conflict of interest, and from a practical point of view means that the chance of an appeal succeeding is practically zero.
6. Within my transfer documents (document A cited above), there is no explicit reference to a requirement to display a parking permit. However, the transfer documents state that parking and estate management will be conducted in compliance with the Green Travel Plan.
Document C – Copy of the Green Travel Plan
This is a legal document signed upon sale of land from __________ to _________, the latter party built homes on __________, and was owner of the land (that was not under homes with freehold titles) at the time of issue of the PCN.
7. The Green Travel Plan outlines car parking management. Section 5.2.9 clearly outlines the regime for parking control, and states that if parking problems arise, warning notices will be used, and that ‘fines’ will be used for persistent contraventions.
8. The defendant has not a persistently contravened parking rules, and I contend that he is not an offender at all. This is the first time he has been issued with a parking charge notice (PCN).
9. It is a well-established legal doctrine that an existing contract cannot be unilaterally altered (without agreement of all parties).
Primacy of contract means that a parking contract between the claimant and the management company of ___________ that was introduced in 2015 related to parking management (and led to the issue of this PCN) cannot overwrite information in the transfer documents issued in 2009. The parking company is not party to the transfer documents.
I cite the following cases as authority on this matter in parking cases:
9b Particularly the appeal case of Jopson v Homeguard Services [2016] B9GF0A9E, Oxford County Court. Document D
In his Judgment, HHJ Harris QC states: ‘It therefore seems clear to me that the respondent was not in any position unilaterally to override the right of access which the claimant had bought when she purchased the lease …’
9c County Court, in PACE Recovery & Storage v Mr N (C7GF51J1), Document E
District Judge Coonan: ‘What Pace Recovery is seeking to do is, unilaterally outside the contract, restrict that right to only when a permit is displayed. Pace Recovery cannot do that.….. Therefore, the tenancy agreement takes precedence over the arrangement between Sutton and yourself, the claimant, Pace Recovery. As I have said, it is a pure matter of contract that I have to decide. Therefore, the claim is dismissed’.
9d Case No: C7GF50J7 Wrexham county court November 2016 Document F
Deputy district judge Metcalf
‘There is no evidence before me to suggest that they have in any way undertaken steps to vary the lease, and I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that section 21 applies such that by engaging the company they have applied new and binding regulations on the leaseholders. A mere letter regarding permits would not, in my judgment, suffice in this regard.’
The judge ruled that that for Link or CPML (the management company) to have any right to manage the parking on the Landowner's property, the deeds would have to be altered to state this for the whole site. She ruled that the Landowner could not be penalised for parking in her own space.
9e UKPC v Mr Aziz Birmingham 9/1/2017 C2HW01A6. DJ Gibson
DJ Gibson dismissed the claim on the basis UKPC did not have authority to override the lease and issue charges.
10. It is clearly stated in my transfer documents (document A) that the estate shall be managed in accordance with the Green Travel Plan. Even if the management company has some rights to alter estate regulations to ensure benefit to residents and smooth running of ________, these have to be compliant with the Green Travel Plan. The management company and claimant together cannot alter the Green Travel Plan.
11. Even if the management company has some rights to alter estate regulations to ensure benefit to residents and smooth running of _________, where these changes affect the transfer documents, it must be explicitly stated these changes will mean transfer documents will be changed (if this is legally allowed). See point 9d above, a letter to residents informing of a new parking scheme is not sufficient. The parking company is not party to the transfer documents and cannot alter them.
12. The management company do not have the right to change any terms to my transfer documents without my permission and this has never been willingly given in regards to any changes to parking in relation to the Green Travel Plan. The parking bay forms part of the demised premises of my property, and as such the claimant only has authority over the space when there is a ‘persistent contravener’ parked in it.
13. If it is found that the Green Travel Plan (or parts of it) can be ignored (which I contest), then the transfer documents still have primacy of contract over a parking contract; we are then back to the situation that there is no mention of a need to display a permit in the transfer documents. If this is the case then a permit is there only for the benefit for operatives of the parking company, and in no way implies that the parking company have authority over the space, so they cannot issue a PCN based on a lack of permit.
14. Terms of parking at ________ are therefore controlled by the homeowners’ transfer documents and the Green Travel Plan. The signage is there only to form a contract with non-residents.
15. There is no mention in the transfer documents or the Green Travel Plan that residents will be charged to use their own spaces. (section 5.6.10 refers to visitor spaces). A charge of £100 charge — now arbitrarily inflated to £153.45 with no breakdown of costs plus further unpermitted added costs — to use a designated, legally occupied parking space is excessive and amounts to an unenforceable penalty.
15b The parking company may cite the Supreme Court case of ParkingEye vs Beavis [2015] UKSC 67I to assert that the charge is enforceable. I cite the following case law that this case does not apply to residential parking
In Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E (Document D cited above) it was established that ParkingEye vs Beavis does not apply to residential parking.
15c Also in UKPC v Mr Aziz Birmingham 9/1/2017 C2HW01A6. DJ Gibson followed the lead of Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E, and ruled that ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 did not apply to residential cases. There was no way that residents or their visitors would agree to pay a charge of £100 to park in their own spaces. The charge of £100 therefore had no commercial justification and as it was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss was therefore a penalty and not justified.
16. Even if a contract had been formed by the signage (which I assert it has not), the fact that the defendant’s car was in my space meant that it was not causing a problem. The purpose of parking control at _______ is so that residents can use their own spaces and visitors can use theirs. This then falls under de minimis non curat lex; even if the letter of a contract is broken, but the spirit is not and no harm has been done, then no damages for breach contract apply. I cite the following case: Excel v Miss Bradsell C1DP6Q75 Oldham. 27/2/17 where a PCN could not be enforced in court because no parking spaces were lost.
17. The parking company is unfairly – and I believe illegally – targeting residents in order to maximize profits; this can be seen from the signage; “retrospective proof of parking will not be accepted” since it is only residents who have proof to park. Although a parking regime may benefit residents – allowing them to use their spaces and visitor spaces, targeting residents to maximize profits puts some residents at detriment. This is not allowed. Saeed v Plustrade it explains in detail that a landowner can't do this to the detriment of residents rights:''.....if one man agrees to confer a particular benefit on another, he must not do anything which substantially deprives the other of the enjoyment of that benefit: because that would be to take away with one hand what is given with the other''
Document G Court of Appeal Saeed v Plustrade [2001] EWCA Civ 2011
Document H – Photograph of the parking signs
18. On three occasions, the homeowner made goodwill offers (up to £30) to the claimant to seek closure of the issue; these were refused by the claimant. In a telephone conversion (with hindsight this should have been recorded.) In a letter and emails to management company. These were refused
Document I – Letter to the claimant
See also document B
19 The copy of the contract that reputedly gives the parking company the authority to operate on the land that I received from the management company was neither signed nor dated. No information about parking charges or court procedures (if allowed) are contained in this document. I put it to the claimant that they have the authority to operate at _________ and the authority and standing to bring this case to court.
Document J – Copy of the contract that I received from the management company
20. The claimant’s solicitor has failed to comply with practice direction for pre-action conduct. Despite requests, detailed particulars of the claim have not been received. A county court claim was received despite the solicitors knowing that the homeowner and the management company were in continued discussion to resolve this issue.
Document K Emails to try to resolve this issue without court proceedings: emails that I sent / received from _______ (who was part of the management company at the time of the issue of the PCN) whilst I was in discussions to resolve the issue; dated November (the claim form was issued in January), email ending these discussions dated February. Emails sent to claimant’s solicitor.
0
Comments
-
If its your own space then I cannot understand how the PPC is allowed to ticket any vehicle in your space. It does not have to be your own car, its not for them to decide who parks there.I'd rather be an Optimist and be proved wrong than a Pessimist and be proved right.0
-
Is the parking space your property?From the Plain Language Commission:
"The BPA has surely become one of the most socially dangerous organisations in the UK"0 -
I don't own the parking space (the freehold belongs to the management company)
I've now (as of 2018) opted the parking space out of the parking scheme, but at the time of the incident (2016), all parking spaces were under the parking scheme.0 -
Which Judge and Court did this to you/your friend?
Should have opted your space out of the scam from the outset, sadly, with hindsight.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
The court was Uxbridge, and the judge was deputy district judge Child.
The case (the defence statements) had previously been seen by judge Atkin, but the court had lost the witness statement, so it was rescheduled.
Yes isn't hindsight wonderful.....in 2016 we (the residents of our housing complex) were not given the option of opting out, and as I didn't think this would cause issues I didn't follow up it!0 -
I think its now a good time to speak to all your neighbors , show them what has happened , and how easily it could happen to them
explain how easy it is to opt out explain that the management/PPC are denying them visitors
and to rub salt in the managements face , make the situation so bad for he parking co to make money that they hold and sue the management for loss of earnings0 -
I do not own or use my plumber's van, but if he was tcketed in my space it would get right up my nostrils, (not a good place to be).
Did the MA comply with Section 37 of the Landlord and tenant Act 1985? If not you may well be in a position to take it up with them. IN the meantime, read on.
The whole industry is a scam, relying on threats of court, and public ignorance of the Law, A bill is currently before parliament which will regulate the scammers, many of whom are ex-clampers.
Hopefully that will take place in the near future. The Bill has passed through the HOC without hitch, and goes to the Lords soon. In the meantime involve your MP, the poor dears are buckling under the weight of complaints about these scammers.
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.
#]DisdYou never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
I don't own the parking space (the freehold belongs to the management company)
I've now (as of 2018) opted the parking space out of the parking scheme, but at the time of the incident (2016), all parking spaces were under the parking scheme.
What does your lease/rental etc say about parking, do you have nay pre existing rights to the use of the car park space?
You said the scheme was imposed in 2016 (" didn't have the chance to opt out") what was there before? what rights did you have to the parking space beforehand?From the Plain Language Commission:
"The BPA has surely become one of the most socially dangerous organisations in the UK"0 -
My lease gives me the right to park one car that is owned or used by me. (The judge ruled that the car in my space was not owned or used by me despite my witness statement.)
I bought the house in 2009, and have had rights to the parking space since this time. In 2009 there were no parking controls. As the number of houses on the development increased, a PPC was brought in for the first time (I cannot remember the exact year, probably 2011/2012, the PPC has changed a few times over the years)0 -
Your story is so typical of this scam, and I am sorry to hear the Judge decided it badly.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 350.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.8K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.2K Spending & Discounts
- 243.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 597.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.5K Life & Family
- 256.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards