VCS - Parked in residential bay other than own, got ticketed for "parking without valid pass" - VCS

NeilCr

Whether or not others were doing it the driver was still "guilty"

To be honest it sounds like they let the parking control ease up a bit and only went for those who were doing things like the driver. Parking on someone else's property. From a ManCo point of view I quite like that approach. Plus they would likely fail against someone with an expired permit parked in their own demised space.

I think your options are right and I'd pay the reduced penalty. But I am not an expert on the intricacies of parking signs/rules etc so wait for someone with more detailed knowledge to comment

Dingaling63_72

Just got the photos off the driver of the parking signs on site - anything to go off on this? low quality I know but this is the best I can do.

hxxps://imgur.com/a/ePFQNp5

Coupon-mad

https://imgur.com/a/ePFQNp5

Yes, I see loopholes. That sign only creates a 'relevant obligation' for Permit Holders!

There are no terms or any parking licence or contractual charge, at all, on offer for non Permit Holders, so a visitor cannot be in breach.

The elements of a contract are just not there for visitors as no consideration has been made available in the form of an offer of a parking space/licence, at all.

In fact it doesn't even say how the 'parking charge' arises at all for visitors with no Permit in the first place. Very badly drafted sign and worth fighting in court.

Are they writing to the keeper and has the driver been named in any appeal?

NeilCr

Was the driver a visitor though?

From the OPs first post

"Posting this on behalf of the driver and keeper.

The driver parked in a residential bay other than their own, but in their car park"

and

"The driver parked in a bay other than their own"

I've been reading this as the driver living with the OP and they being a two car property. But other comments on the thread are a bit ambiguous - for example correspondence going to home address and going back to take pictures.

Can you clarify, please, OP?

[Deleted User]

@couponmad raises the obvious point for a visitor. The sign creates no offer which anyone other than a resident permit holder can accept. It is arguably void for impossibility. That was a key argument in PACE v Lengyl and, FWIW my own case.

If the o/p was a permit holder (expired or otherwise) or entitled to a permit s/he is actually in a weaker position. Ironically, this is presumably the opposite of what was intended when the management co instructed the PPC.

Selective enforcement by the PPC is no defence to (a) the existence of a parking contract or (b) enforceability of the terms in your case.

The_Deep

if someone wants to park and they don't have an available space the only thing they can do is park in somebody else's space.

Can they not park in the street, in a car park, use a taxi? They seem to have a rather cavalier attitude towards other peoples' property.

On the other hand, it looks as though the PPC does not have a contract with them.

Dingaling63_72

Thanks for the help - Myself and the Driver lived in the same flat as we were students, had one car each, but there is only one space available for the property.

We have since moved out from the property, and his DVLA registered address is his family home.

Can they not park in the street, in a car park, use a taxi? They seem to have a rather cavalier attitude towards other peoples' property.

They can park on the street but about a 10 minute walk away, all the immidieate roads around the proprty are either double yellows or business permit only. More of an effort of course, but still possible.

NeilCr

I think the driver may be struggling here

To be honest it is hard to have much sympathy with the driver who deliberately parked on someone else's property.

Umkomaas

NeilCr wrote: »

I think the driver may be struggling here

To be honest it is hard to have much sympathy with the driver who deliberately parked on someone else's property.

I wonder where the 'somebody else' had to park when he/she found their space taken. Likely they'd have copped a ticket too. Potential domino effect, manna for the PPC.

Coupon-mad

I'm helping them draft a message to the management agency

Point out how residents are in a weaker position than trespassers who are not liable to pay anything, due to the signage.

Read what was posted already by me and Johnersh about that. Do you see what we mean about the signs? It's a vital point if this goes to court but a visitor would have been in a better position and could not be bound by those signs - madness.