Help my car has been Towed away on Private Land

twhitehousescat

Eminowa wrote: »

I think I know what Elite are trying to do when they said they didn't tow my vehicle. Is like someone parked on my property and I call a towing van to tow it away, and I say I didn't tow your car, the towing van company did. But in all honesty who called the towing van to tow away that vehicle is the tower.

post 1

First thing in the morning, I went to my housing association office, and I met a lady who said he has authorized my vehicle to be towed away,



As stated in our letter of 12th February 2019, we advised that Jessop the land owner gave permission for the car to be removed from wave close
• Elite management who patrol the car park at Wave close provided the information for Another Level whom the association contacted direct. As this was an ad-hoc arrangement there is no official document showing the authorizer or tower.
• As stated above as this was a ad-hoc arrangement there is no official documents with the information that you have requested.

you or your wife have no contact in place with Jessops the land owner , therefore they are the ones that have broken section 54 (I forget now) of the POFA

and the person that "pulled the pin" and called them was

Another Level whom the association contacted direct.

NeilCr

nigelbb wrote: »

Neither case provides legal grounds for towing away a car & demanding a ransom for release. I suspect a rogue PPC. I thought Elite Parking Management had been suspended from BPA but I see that they are on the current (March 2019) list of operators https://www.britishparking.co.uk/BPA-Approved-Operators

I don't disagree with this. Although it's worth looking at the paragraphs that the OP quoted from the tenancy agreement. And, I don't think he can get away with saying he isn't party to the TA. His wife is and he is bringing problems on her.

More to the point. There are two separate issues here - whether or not the towing away is legal.

I have a concern that the underlying issue with the HA and TA will get lost in the noise around the towing.

Might be worth the OP posting, separately, on the Housing forum about the (possible) breach of the TA.

Redx

to clarify , your wife signed the TA and has ONE parking space , yet you have NO parking space , ie:- they only allocate ONE parking space per tenancy

so are there TWO vehicles , one correctly parking in the keepers own space (your wife) and your vehicle being parked where it should not be parked as there is no contracted provision for it at all ?

OR

did you park your own vehicle in the empty and allocated space allowed for your wife in the TA ?

ie:- as you are married (or partners) then I would have thought that either of you could park in the actual space on the TA , even if you both have a vehicle but use the space at separate times

but it sounds to me like you have TWO vehicles and only ONE parking space allocated , meaning that you were parking somewhere that you were not authorised to park in (but your wife was) , hence this saga unfolding because of the lack of parking spaces (ie:- limited to one space per tenancy)


it is sorting out the confusion over the above that may determine the towing saga, as one contractual issue (or lack of) has led to the other

twhitehousescat

This is what section 11 D & H says on the tenancy agreement
D. If you are allocated a parking space in the parking area, you must use only the space that is allocated to you
H. by signing this agreement you authorize us to remove any vehicle or other object that is left anywhere on our property and breaks these conditions, or which we believe has been abandoned or is dangerous. You will be charged to cover our expenses for removing and disposing of any items.

umm no space was allocated , and the person that reported the vehicle (and indeed ticketed others) was not registered as an ATA at the time

why should the MA take the word of a "bloke on the street" and organise towing without due diligence

NeilCr

twhitehousescat wrote: »

This is what section 11 D & H says on the tenancy agreement
D. If you are allocated a parking space in the parking area, you must use only the space that is allocated to you
H. by signing this agreement you authorize us to remove any vehicle or other object that is left anywhere on our property and breaks these conditions, or which we believe has been abandoned or is dangerous. You will be charged to cover our expenses for removing and disposing of any items.

umm no space was allocated , and the person that reported the vehicle (and indeed ticketed others) was not registered as an ATA at the time

why should the MA take the word of a "bloke on the street" and organise towing without due diligence

Hang on a mo

The OP said this

Eminowa wrote: »

.
i have not been allocated any space, besides i didn't sign any agreement with HA, my wife did, not me. my wife got a space, not me.
t.

So - sounds like there is a space allocated to the property. It is now appears that the OP believes that, as they didn't sign the TA, he can do what he wants.

I am with Redx. Where was the OP's car parked? Not on his property as said earlier but where exactly

Given H above I think OP's wife may be the one with the issue. I don't know how "legal" that paragraph is - others here will, likely, know better than me.

But I do think there is a deeper concern than the actions of a possible "rogue" parking company.

nigelbb

twhitehousescat wrote: »

This is what section 11 D & H says on the tenancy agreement
D. If you are allocated a parking space in the parking area, you must use only the space that is allocated to you
H. by signing this agreement you authorize us to remove any vehicle or other object that is left anywhere on our property and breaks these conditions, or which we believe has been abandoned or is dangerous. You will be charged to cover our expenses for removing and disposing of any items.

As bargepole already pointed out this clause is a nullity. The vehicle owner cannot consent to an illegal act. POFA 2012 Section 54 Paragraph 2 explicitly spells out that you cannot agree to having your vehicle clamped or towed.

54 Offence of immobilising etc. vehicles

(1)A person commits an offence who, without lawful authority—

(a)immobilises a motor vehicle by the attachment to the vehicle, or a part of it, of an immobilising device, or
(b)moves, or restricts the movement of, such a vehicle by any means,
intending to prevent or inhibit the removal of the vehicle by a person otherwise entitled to remove it.
(2)The express or implied consent (whether or not legally binding) of a person otherwise entitled to remove the vehicle to the immobilisation, movement or restriction concerned is not lawful authority for the purposes of subsection (1).

NeilCr

nigelbb wrote: »

As bargepole already pointed out this clause is a nullity. The vehicle owner cannot consent to an illegal act. POFA 2012 Section 54 Paragraph 2 explicitly spells out that you cannot agree to having your vehicle clamped or towed.

Thanks

I missed bargepole's comments in the flurry of posts and glasses of wine yesterday!!

I am concerned that the (apparent) breaking of the tenancy agreement is the more serious issue here - while taking on board the HA may have acted illegally in the towing. I, like others, am still not convinced the whole story has come out yet. I have some experience of dealing with HAs and the one thing they don't do is act quickly (except, these days, on rent arrears). We usually get involved if they haven't done something - not if they have done something. They tend to try and sort out things amicably and give people a couple of chances.

It appears there may be a history here and I would worry for the OP's wife and the tenancy.

Guys_Dad

NeilCr wrote: »

Thanks

I missed bargepole's comments in the flurry of posts and glasses of wine yesterday!!

I am concerned that the (apparent) breaking of the tenancy agreement is the more serious issue here - while taking on board the HA may have acted illegally in the towing. I, like others, am still not convinced the whole story has come out yet. I have some experience of dealing with HAs and the one thing they don't do is act quickly (except, these days, on rent arrears). We usually get involved if they haven't done something - not if they have done something. They tend to try and sort out things amicably and give people a couple of chances.

It appears there may be a history here and I would worry for the OP's wife and the tenancy.

No matter what parking contravention may or may not have been breached, the landlords and management can not carry out an illegal act and towing away has been illegal since POFA.

And if towing was a punitive act based on previous unpaid invoices but no court case, that is clearly illegal.

Coupon-mad

Taking the HA to court in those circumstances may not, necessarily, be the wisest course.

I hope it will.

Popcorn now out, so time will tell.

No more posts needed on this thread for now.

Eminowa

According to coupon-mad he said "Popcorn now out, so time will tell"
Time will always tell. Good news to the house. bargepole has sorted it out for me. HA has paid me the full money for the recovery of my vehicle, plus £80 court fees and lost of wages too, including bus fare. HA has paid me a total of £767.50. They are now asking me to discontinue the case with the court.