Forum Home» Motoring» Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking

residential parking - Recieved PCN for not displaying my Permit - Page 2

New Post Advanced Search

residential parking - Recieved PCN for not displaying my Permit

edited 30 November -1 at 1:00AM in Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking
94 replies 3.5K views
2456710

Replies

  • The_DeepThe_Deep Forumite
    16.8K posts
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
  • Scrumpy11Scrumpy11 Forumite
    62 posts
    10 Posts First Anniversary
    The Deep, I was not aware, thank you.
  • Scrumpy11Scrumpy11 Forumite
    62 posts
    10 Posts First Anniversary
    Sorry all.. New to this.

    Also, my NTD was left on the my car on the 25th of Jan... I received my PCN on the 30th of Jan.. Am I right in reading that there should be 28 days - 56 days from the NTD was issued, breaching their KADOE contract.

    I am compiling a case to complain to the DVLA

    The NTK: -

    Advanced warning

    This vehicle is parked in contravention of the rules of the parking site. Vehicle and particulars and images have been recorded to prove the contravention occurred.

    We will now request the keepers details from the DVLA and issue a 'Parking charge notice' by post to the keeper.

    If you are the keeper or driver and wish to discuss this ahead of receiving the Parking charge notice, you may call PCN admin centre on ********** and quote the vehicle registration mark for more information and details of how to view images online.
  • KeithPKeithP Forumite
    22K posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Scrumpy11 wrote: »
    Am I right in reading that there should be 28 days - 56 days from the NTD was issued, breaching their KADOE contract.
    No, you are not right.

    They can ask for keeper details from the DVLA at anytime within six months following the alleged incident for the reason of asking the keeper for the name and address of the driver.

    That '28 - 56 days' thing is simply to do with whether or not they can transfer the driver's liabilities to the keeper under the Protection of Freedoms Act.
  • Half_wayHalf_way Forumite
    5.5K posts
    Eighth Anniversary 1,000 Posts
    ✭✭✭✭
    You need to get the management company involved in this, and you need to make it clear that you do but after to this parking scheme, and up to now have only displayed a permit out of courtesy.
    Also tell them that you are willing to return any permit upon the receipt of a stamped addressed envelope.
    From the Plain Language Commission:

    "The BPA has surely become one of the most socially dangerous organisations in the UK"
  • Scrumpy11Scrumpy11 Forumite
    62 posts
    10 Posts First Anniversary
    Just looking for loopholes.. thank you Kieth
  • Scrumpy11Scrumpy11 Forumite
    62 posts
    10 Posts First Anniversary
    Half way, thank you.

    I have the land owner saying that thy will ask the operator for the third time to cancel the PCN. They were not brought onto the scheme to harass 'residents' or 'visitors' the operator is of course ignoring this.

    I have also demanded they be removed from the scheme as I have never aggreged to this operator and they gave false evidence against me, a 'resident.'

    Awaiting response.
  • Half_wayHalf_way Forumite
    5.5K posts
    Eighth Anniversary 1,000 Posts
    ✭✭✭✭
    Do you have a hard copy of this cancellation request?
    From the Plain Language Commission:

    "The BPA has surely become one of the most socially dangerous organisations in the UK"
  • edited 13 April 2019 at 4:14PM
    Scrumpy11Scrumpy11 Forumite
    62 posts
    10 Posts First Anniversary
    edited 13 April 2019 at 4:14PM
    I also have the following letter, which seems to me they land owner is sitting on the fence, the scheme was introduced to stop vehicles parking in the entrance of the schemes restricting access to emergency vehicles (ambulances) and bin lorries.

    There was an issue with other carpark as its too small to accommodate residents.. never with ours as our is too big. There are nop problems with non-residents parking on site...

    Land owner initial letter: -

    Thank-you for your letter dated 29 March 2019. I note that you have also exchanged several e-mails with my Neighbourhood Officer, Ms.... as well as telephone calls into our contact centre.

    You have raised a number of issues with relation to office location, signage, CMS’ appeals process and the car park(s).

    Our only intent in introducing a civil parking scheme at Winifride Court was to seek to reduce the number of non-residents parking at the scheme who were using the car-park either because it was close to their place of work in Harborne or who were going to the high street to shop. We fielded many complaints from residents that this was taking place, preventing residents from parking and, following consultation, introduced the civil parking scheme.

    The intention is not to ticket residents or their visitors which is why we issued all of our residents with permits they could display to void receiving a parking ticket.

    However, it is certain that if we were to cease with the civil parking arrangements at Winifride Court we will very quickly return to the situation where residents are unable to park their vehicles because shoppers, shop workers and office workers are parking at the scheme.

    Very occasionally residents may fail to display their tickets and if this is a one-off occurrence we will try to intervene if we are notified in sufficient time. However, if we are not notified quickly enough our ability to assist is diminished but I will make contact with CMS again about your ticket. As previously stated the intention of this parking arrangement is not to penalise residents. It is not our intention to see residents inconvenienced. Once I have a resolution on your ticket I will contact you again.

    With regards to your issues around CMS office location and not displaying their new address on their tickets or using incorrectly located signage I am uncertain on how material this is, but I have asked CMS to respond to me on this matter. Clearly, we want CMS to be working within any regulations in place so that they are able to enforce any tickets they issue to uphold the credibility of the scheme.


    There are undoubtedly two separate car-parks at Winifride Court but our expectation would be that CMS patrol them as one single scheme as we do not advise residents at Winifride Court which of the two car parks they should use. Indeed we have recently introduced a pathway making it easier for residents to access both car-parks from either side of the development.

    Once I have heard back from CMS I will contact you again and I am happy to visit you if you would like to discuss this further.

    Yours sincerely


    Housing Services Manager
  • Scrumpy11Scrumpy11 Forumite
    62 posts
    10 Posts First Anniversary
    My response:

    Civil Parking Scheme


    Thank-you for your letter dated 04 April 2019. Please note my response to your points raised. You my wish to discuss this with your legal team.


    You have raised a number of issues with relation to office location, signage, parking operator appeals process and the car park(s).

    1) Our only intent in introducing a civil parking scheme at Winifride Court was to seek to reduce the number of non-residents parking at the scheme who were using the car-park either because it was close to their place of work in Harborne or who were going to the high street to shop. We fielded many complaints from residents that this was taking place, preventing residents from parking and, following consultation, introduced the civil parking scheme.

    The initial reason to introduce a civil parking scheme at Winifride Court was to stop vehicles parking in the entry of the schemes restricting access to Bin Lorries and Emergency Vehicles Such as Ambulances. MPC (Midland Parking Contracts) failed to stop this and bollards were introduced to the scheme. I proved MPC was operating illegally an they were removed from the scheme.

    The main problem in that Albert road carpark is larger than War Lane… Its War Lane that has the problem with parking as its to small to accommodate the residents in War Lane. Albert Road does not need all the space allocated, to one remedy is to extend War Lane Car Park using the bottom of Albert Roads Car Park.


    2) The intention is not to ticket residents or their visitors which is why we issued all of our residents with permits they could display to void receiving a parking ticket.

    Parking companies don’t care if we are residents or about our visitors, they only care about was a permit displayed as they are a business and are out to make money. These are the clamping companies of old, whom have adapted after it was made illegal in 2012 to clamp and remove vehicles. CMS are aware I am a resident, this does not matter to them.


    3) However, it is certain that if we were to cease with the civil parking arrangements at Winifride Court we will very quickly return to the situation where residents are unable to park their vehicles because shoppers, shop workers and office workers are parking at the scheme.

    As mentioned in 1) there has never been an issue in Albert Road regarding non- residents parking at our scheme.


    4) Very occasionally residents may fail to display their tickets and if this is a one-off occurrence we will try to intervene if we are notified in sufficient time. However, if we are not notified quickly enough our ability to assist is diminished but I will make contact with parking operator again about your ticket. As previously stated the intention of this parking arrangement is not to penalise residents. It is not our intention to see residents inconvenienced. Once I have a resolution on your ticket I will contact you again.

    I have spoken to several residents, one of which has had several tickets, her daughter paid the PCN just to get rid of the company as they use out-dated points of law (Bevis v ParkingEye) to scare people into paying. Bevis v ParkingEye cannot be relied upon in the case of Residential Parking.


    5) With regards to your issues around parking operator office location and not displaying their new address on their tickets or using incorrectly located signage I am uncertain on how material this is, but I have asked parking operator to respond to me on this matter. Clearly, we want parking operator to be working within any regulations in place so that they are able to enforce any tickets they issue to uphold the credibility of the scheme.

    Signs must conform to current legislation. Signs must have certain details included within them and be of a certain size with eligible text and be well illuminated. This includes a company registered number (which must tally to a registered office.)

    A limited company must inform Companies House of any change of registered address. A registered address is a place to serve documents, such as Court Documents.

    parking operator changed the sign at the front of the scheme around the 20th March, bringing it inline with the false evidence they supplied to the IAS on the 08 March 2019. I have photographic evidence, time/ date stamped to prove the old sign was displayed on the 12 March 2019.

    Please read the following article to see how these companies, such as MPC operate (introduced to the scheme in the mid 1990’s, eventually forced off the scheme due to evidence I supplied):

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/content/articles/2008/03/05/west_midlands_clamping_s13_w3_feature.shtml

    Please not, “bailiffs have been unable to recover the money as the company’s given postal address is a rented PO box rather than premises.” MPC’s company was registered to a Bookies, whom had apparently never heard of them. This means that no official documents such as Court Claims can be brought against the company whom often have no assets within their name, making it impossible to enforce and Judgment.

    In the Case of parking operator, this would mean that any costs incurred by myself for Solicitors fees, Irwin Mitchell Solicitors quoted £2000 upfront and £140 per hour; Compensation for trespass or any other compensation should the court award would be sort from the Land Owner, Clarian Housing.


    There are undoubtedly two separate car-parks at Winifride Court but our expectation would be that parking operator patrol them as one single scheme as we do not advise residents at Winifride Court which of the two car parks they should use. Indeed we have recently introduced a pathway making it easier for residents to access both car-parks from either side of the development.


    Once I have heard back from parking operator I will contact you again and I am happy to visit you if you would like to discuss this further.

    In closing:

    a) parking operator have given false evidence against me to the IAS to secure the PCN being valid. They supplied false evidence to what signs were displayed at the scheme as their initial sign did not conform to current legislation (evidence already supplied).

    For this reason alone, I am requesting for a final time that parking operator be removed from the scheme of Winifride Court with immediate effect. Failure to do so will leave me no alternative than to take legal action against Clarion Housing for allowing a private company to fabricate evidence against one of its residents. A company that in a court of law will be deemed to be operating illegally.

    b) parking operator do not operate from a physical address, (their company does not occupy the address in which their company is registered to), so the company is operating illegally. Therefore, the onus will fall back to the land owner should compensation, solicitors’ fees occur.

    Reasons I believe I have a case, to be reviewed and compiled by a Solicitor, to be appointed if Court proceeding are issued against me by CMS or one of the companies which they contract.

    i) parking operator are a limited company whom have obligations of which they have not met. Therefore, CMS are operating illegally. CMS are operating from an address which they no longer occupy. Therefore, any PCN’s issued after 23rd January 2018 are void.
    ii) Denied a fair appeal. My evidence was not considered by the IAS and IPC.
    iii) False evidence supplied by parking operator to the IAS and IPC
    iv) Signs which were displayed at the time of the alleged contravention did not conform to current regulations. Confirmed by the change in signs March 20th 2019.
    v) I had parked within the confines of the larger sign which has been displayed pre-1995. This sign states “Private Road, Carpark for residents and visitors only. This overrides and signs introduced by a private company as its older, larger in size and text displayed.
    vi) I was not parked in the location of ‘Winifride Court, War Lane, Harbourne, Birmingham B17.
    vii) I have not entered nor agreed a contract with parking operator.
    viii) My ‘Tenancy Agreement’ signed 04th Dec 1995, is the key document with gives me unfettered rights to park in the Car Park, in which I was parked without mention of ‘Parking Permits’


    After seeking legal advice, I believe I have a strong case in Court, even though I have been denied a fair right of appeal. Unfortunately, because parking operator do not occupy a physical address, I am left with no alternative to bring action against my Housing Association, Clarian Housing. I am willing to either take a loan out or sell items within my possession to enable me to fight this case in court with full legal assistance.

    I will also be submitting a subject access request for:

    • Contract between The Land Owner and parking operator
    • Contract between parking operator and I


    Yours Sincerely,
Sign In or Register to comment.

Quick links

Essential Money | Who & Where are you? | Work & Benefits | Household and travel | Shopping & Freebies | About MSE | The MoneySavers Arms | Covid-19 & Coronavirus Support