PPC taking me to court for PCN on land belonging to landowner who hadn't heard of them..

Fruitcake

I think everything will hinge on what the landowner put in the contract with the lessee.

If permission was given for the lessee to operate a for profit parking scheme, then I think you could have problems.

If however there were restrictions, whether actual or implied on what the lessee could do, then this could swing things in your favour.
Even if there were no restrictions, the landowner should be able to instruct the lessee to instruct the parking scammers to cancel the charge, or risk being booted off the land.

You need a copy of the contract between the landowner and the lessee.

You also need to contact the landowner of the car park location mentioned on the PCN.

Coupon-mad

bobsnotmyuncle wrote: »

Apologies Coupon-mad, I have had a long day...
It is not a leasehold. They rented the extra parking from the neighbouring property.

Hmmm, OK that's different, so you can say something like:

I have discovered that there is no authority for this car park flowing from the owner or occupier of the land. The company which contracted with the Claimant is xxxxxxxx and they have no title in the relevant land. No permission was given by the owner or occupier of the land for the company renting the spaces in this area to operate a profit-making parking scheme. A company who merely rent spaces only have a bare licence themselves, yet have allowed the Claimant on this land against the wishes of the landowner, who is xxxxxxxxxx (attach evidence to your WS - an email from the landowner would be good).

And add that you do not believe the overflow car park forms any part of any 'relevant land' that can be enforced with any lawful 'relevant contract/obligation' as defined in the POFA 2012 Schedule 4, because it falls at the first hurdles set out in the statute:

''...''relevant contract'' means a contract (including a contract arising only when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land) between the driver and a person who is—
(a) the owner or occupier of the land; or
(b) authorised, under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land;
“relevant land” has the meaning given by paragraph 3;
“relevant obligation” means—
(a) an obligation arising under the terms of a relevant contract; or
(b) an obligation arising, in any circumstances where there is no relevant contract, as a result of a trespass or other tort committed by parking the vehicle on the relevant land''.

bobsnotmyuncle

That's awesome! Thanks Coupon-mad! A very succinct argument I will certainly use it.

Fruitcake I have correspondence from the establishment where they have asked the PPC to cancel the PCN but were refused by the PPC because it was 'too late'...

The establishment is an owner operator business and we had free parking park included in the booking.

On the point about relevant land is there any mileage in the argument that the PCN is invalid because the address of the violation on the PCN is different to where the vehicle was temporarily parked.

nosferatu1001

Ye,s it must specify the relevant land;it does not do so, if the postcode of the actual land is different to the PCN.

The_Deep

Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams so complain to your MP.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

bobsnotmyuncle

Thanks nosferatu. It specifies the address of the main carpark not the over flow which is different.

Coupon-mad

It is questionable why PCNs are even being issued in this overflow site!

Show us your final WS draft and a list of what your attached evidence is.

bobsnotmyuncle

Hi Coupon mad. Still working on WS.
Actually I have a question.
Does 'relevant land' refer to the land that has been claimed actually been parked on, or the land where the vehicle was actually parked.
Can both be refered as 'relevant land' if the address is being disputed?

bobsnotmyuncle

My WS is a chronological account of events but it refers to clauses in POFA and BPA COP.
Will also refer to PCM V Bull, Jopson V Homeguard and UKPC V Masterson.
These were submitted in defence docs
I have also included the Title registrations and plans from the land registry which are referred to.
I am not the actual defendant, I was the driver, but I am the key witness and I am preparing defence arguments.
The witness statements are quite long and detailed so I am considering a skeleton argument for the defence to submit with the WS.as there is more evidence than when the initial defence was sent to Northampton.
I have learned a lot on this 'journey'...

Coupon-mad

Will also refer to PCM V Bull, Jopson V Homeguard and UKPC V Masterson.
These were submitted in defence docs

No transcripts/attachments should have gone with the defence, so either way these will need reprinting, filing & serving with the WS.

Actually I have a question.
Does 'relevant land' refer to the land that has been claimed actually been parked on, or the land where the vehicle was actually parked.
Can both be refered as 'relevant land' if the address is being disputed?

The relevant land is the land and where the car was actually shown to have been parked (you say they put the wrong address) and where the other requirements of the POFA are met, which are:

- adequate notice of the parking charge on prominent and large font signs

- a relevant obligation or relevant contract exists

- the creditor has the right to enforce charges, from the owner occupier

- the NTK was served with the right wording & timeframe (if keeper liability is sought).