Private Parking Solutions Fine for Parking in my own Bay!

patnut

As the title suggests. I was given a hire car while mine was off the road I stupidly forgot to swap the parking permit to the hire car and received two "Parking Charge Notices" from the above company.

I don't use the car every day so only noticed after two days.

I live in a residential flat and have an allocated parking space which I pay for in my service charges.

I have checked my lease and there is no mention of having to display a permit. It was the MA that introduced the scheme recently.

I emailed PPS advising them of my mistake and that I own the parking space.

They rejected this and sent me a code to appeal on https://www.popla.co.uk within 28 days. After reading the sticky in the forum I understand that my appeal to them could have been better.

However I'm at the POPLA stage now and can't find a template to make an appeal with. I was hoping someone could point me in the right direction.

Thank you,
Pat

Coupon-mad

PPS can't have sent you a POPLA code as they are in the IPC.

Full Company name please?

KeithP

Private Parking Solutions (London) Limited, with a website https://www.privateparkingsolutions.com are members of the BPA AOS.

Fruitcake

You say you have a lease but then say you own the space. It is important to be as precise as possible when dealing with parking scammers as it could make a difference if it gets to court. If you own the space then it should show up on the land registry. It will cost under a fiver to get a copy of the entry.

This thread might be helpful.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/71782781#Comment_71782781

If there is no mention of a permit scheme in your lease, why are you displaying one?
You already have a right to use the parking space and pay for that use.
The scammers cannot take away or amend that right as your lease gives you primacy of contract. They are offering nothing that you do not already have. There is no consideration.

Have a look at this to see what other judges have said about residential parking.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/residential-parking.html

Have a look at this residential thread by Jestershoe.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5969018/miss-r-versus-vcs-ltd&highlight=jestershoe

JesterShoe wrote: »

First of all, I would like to give a very big thank you to the great people on this forum who have helped me with this case. You all deserve a very big pat on the back.

Myself and my Lay rep were in court today and both claims have been struck out.

The main argument that the Judge summarized on was that there was no consideration in the contract. The point is that the parties must exchange something of value. Consideration is needed so that both parties incur some sort of burden or obligation in the agreement. VCS could not offer me anything of value as I was already parked in my own demised parking bay, so no contract could exist.

I also had £250 cost awarded in my favour but the claim for unreasonable behavior was not entertained.

The_Deep

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]It is not a fine, it is an invoice from an ex- clamper for damages for the harm they allege they suffered when you did what you did. We call it a scam. Pay them not one penny unless a judge so orders it.[/FONT]

Have you read this?

https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/residential-parking.html

It is very likely that your lease/AST has primacy of contract, (google it), over the self serving parasite infesting your car park. Let them take you to court where you can give them a bloody nose.
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif] [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Nine times out of ten of these tickets are scams so consider complaining to your MP, it can cause the scammer extra work.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, 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.

[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]

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

patnut

KeithP wrote: »

Private Parking Solutions (London) Limited, with a website https://www.privateparkingsolutions.com are members of the BPA AOS.

Thanks Keith. Yes this is the one!


Pat

patnut

Fruitcake wrote: »

You say you have a lease but then say you own the space. It is important to be as precise as possible when dealing with parking scammers as it could make a difference if it gets to court. If you own the space then it should show up on the land registry. It will cost under a fiver to get a copy of the entry.

This thread might be helpful.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/71782781#Comment_71782781

If there is no mention of a permit scheme in your lease, why are you displaying one?
You already have a right to use the parking space and pay for that use.
The scammers cannot take away or amend that right as your lease gives you primacy of contract. They are offering nothing that you do not already have. There is no consideration.

Have a look at this to see what other judges have said about residential parking.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/residential-parking.html

Have a look at this residential thread by Jestershoe.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5969018/miss-r-versus-vcs-ltd&highlight=jestershoe

Thanks Fruitcake I worded it incorrectly as the flat is Leasehold and my lease states that I have the exclusive right to park there.

I'll take a look at the links you provided.

patnut

I'm thinking of submitting the following to POPLA. Please let me know what you think?




I am xxxx the defendant in this matter and the hirer of vehicle xxxx

I would like to appeal this PCN from Private Parking Solutions, on the following grounds:

1. Background
2. No Variation of Lease and Primacy of Contract
3. No Contract with the Claimant and Residential Parking

1. Background
1.1 The Defendant is the leasehold owner-occupier of a flat in a residential block on a private housing development and has resided there since it was built in 2007.
1.2 Under the Lease the Defendant is demised an allocated parking space giving the Defendant “The right to exclusive use of the Parking Space for the purpose of parking a private motor vehicle. The location of the Parking Space is marked on the Parking Plan attached to the Lease. It is therefore evident that the Defendant has purchased the Parking Space along with the flat. There is no requirement anywhere in the lease for the display of a Parking Permit of any kind.
1.3 The Defendant’s hire vehicle was parked in the Defendant’s demised Parking Space on the date on which the Parking Charge Notice (PCN’s) were issued.
1.4 In 2019, without any consultation with the Defendant or other residents, the Management Company unilaterally introduced a parking enforcement scheme using Private Parking Solutions, a private parking management Company, for this purpose. Private Parking Solutions, signage appeared in the parking area There was no mention in the letter of the Lessor xxxx or that they had been involved.

2 No Variation of Lease and Primacy of Contract

2.1 The Defendant avers that the scheme introduced by the Management Company and operated by the Claimant constitutes a variation of the terms of the Lease. No such variation has ever been sought of the Defendant nor agreed by the Defendant.
2.2 The contract between Private Parking Solutions and the Management Company requires that vehicles “Park within a marked bay” and “Display a valid permit at all times” and this is repeated on the parking signs. It therefore seeks to remove the Defendant’s right to “exclusive use” of the Defendant’s demised parking space and allows anyone with a permit to park there. This is a clear detriment to the Lessee and a Derogation from Grant under the Lease.
2.3 The Defendant refers the court to the cases of Link Parking v Parkinson 2016 C7GF50J7 and Pace Recovery v Mr N 2016 C7GF51J1 where District Judge Metcalf and District Judge Coonan respectively, ruled that the Management Company could not unilaterally vary the Lease.
2.4 Given there has been no variation to the Lease, the Lease has primacy of contract over any subsequent contract the Management Company has entered into with Private Parking Solutions. The Defendant refers the court to the case of Jopson v Homeguard 2016 BNGF0A9E in which His Honour Judge Harris ruled that a resident’s Lease takes precedence over any arrangement between the Management Company and a third-party Parking Management Company unless the Lease has been varied. The Defendant also refers the court to the case of UKPC v Mr Aziz 2017 C2HW01A6 in which District Judge Gibson ruled that UKPC had no authority to override the Lease.
2.5 In correspondence the Claimant has referred to a clause in the Defendant’s Lease which gives the Management Company the “power to make and at any time vary such Development Regulations as it may think fit for the preservation of the amenities of the Development or for the general convenience of the Dwellings”. Such ‘sweeping up clauses’ cannot in principle override the substantive terms of the Defendant’s Lease. There is no Development Regulation in the Lease relating to the Parking Space and no reference to the Management Company being involved at all in the operation or use of the Parking Space. The Defendant refers the court to the case of Link v Parkinson in which District Judge Metcalf questioned whether the management of the parking space fell within the ambit of the Management Company as it was not mentioned in the Lease. Even if the Management Company were entitled to introduce the Claimant’s parking scheme as a new Development Regulation, they are not entitled to impose a contractual relationship with a third party on the Defendant nor charge for any failing to comply with a new Development Regulation.

3 No Contract with the Claimant and Residential Parking

3.1 The Claimant avers that the Defendant entered into a contract with them by parking in the space. However the Defendant already had authority to park there under the Lease. There was no offer to the Defendant to park as the Defendant already had the right to park in the demised space and therefore the Defendant could and did not accept any such offer by parking in the space. There was no consideration as the Defendant already owned and had paid for the Parking Space under the Lease. The Defendant refers the court to the case of UKPC v Mr Aziz in which District Judge Gibson ruled that residents (or their visitors) would not agree to pay a charge of £100 to park in spaces they owned.
3.2 The Defendant refers the court to the case of UKPC v Sean Masterson 2016 B6QZ4H3R where Deputy District Judge Ellington ruled that UKPC signage identical to that installed on the Defendant’s Development, was ‘forbidding’ and thus sought to prohibit unauthorised parking rather than constitute an offer to contract to park. There was therefore no contract to park. The Judge ruled similarly in Horizon Parking v Mr J 2016 Guildford C5GF17X2 and that therefore the matter was one of trespass and as the claimant was not the landowner they could not bring such a claim.
3.3 In correspondence the Claimant refers to the case of Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis 2015 UKSC 67. However the circumstances in that case were very different in that it involved a commercial parking site and not private residential parking. In a number of cases since it has been decided that the loss and the commercial consideration that were essential to this ruling do not apply to private residential parking. As only the Defendant can legitimately park in the Defendant’s “exclusive” Parking Space there cannot be any loss to the Claimant nor any legitimate interest for anyone else, e.g. retailers or shoppers’ parking there.
3.4 The Defendant refers the court to the case of Pace Recovery v Mr N in which District Judge Coonan ruled that residential parking spaces were unlike a commercial site such as a supermarket and that the ruling did not apply. In Link Parking v Parkinson District Judge Metcalf took a similar view as did District Judge Gibson in UKPC v Mr Aziz.

It is respectfully requested that this appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed.

KeithP

At this stage in the process perhaps you should refer to yourself as the appellant.
The Defendant defends a court case.

Have you looked at the many example PoPLA appeals linked from post #3 of the NEWBIES thread?

It looks like you draft appeal has been based on a court Defence, even using the words "the Defendant refers the court...".

There is also no mention of inadequate signage in that appeal.

Umkomaas

If the OP is up for submitting that as a POPLA appeal, I’d love to see what POPLA make of it. It’s outside their comfort zone and they’d need to come off the fence to make a decision.

If there’s one of the standard appeal points entered that POPLA can latch onto and uphold, they will not rule on any of the ‘primacy of contract’ points.

Even if POPLA don’t uphold, I can’t see any Judge finding for the PPC - if they were daft enough to sue.

Coupon-mad

You'd have to also upload your lease, including the page that proves it relates to this car park and you. Some leases have a ''plot number'' (instead of house/flat identifier) and POPLA are not the smartest, so you have to join the dots for them and produce evidence of what you are saying.