PCN received after friend parked car in my private parking space

NeilCr

Do we yet know who the freeholder of the estate is?

They will have appointed the MA so will have influence over them 

Vermicious_Knad

Yes, i do understand that CouponMad, thank you. 
Unfortunately leaseholders seem happy to sit idly by while it all goes on around them rather than banding together to help each other. We have done strong letters to the MA and their limp response is tragic and to the effect of "the PPC have an appeals process, and an independent ombudsman so raising the complaint with them is not the correct avenue"! Utterly useless!

Vermicious_Knad

Yes I am aware who the landowner is and have drafted a complaint letter to them in an attempt to follow the guidelines in the newbies forum.
Feedback would be gratefully received but envisage it looking something like this.

"I would like to complain about the predatory behaviour of a Private Parking Company operating on your land. Since moving into the development I have received fake parking charge notices demanding payment of £100 each.

I have attempted to resolve the matter with the managing agent who have constantly denied any responsibility for the actions of the Private parking Company and attempted to suggest this is fair and reasonable behaviour for the good management of the development.

The Lease grants a right to use the parking space allocated to it which in this respect is the exact one mention in that lease. This right is granted provided that:

(a)        All the rights and benefits specified in the relevant schedule are subject to and conditional upon

            i.        The observance by the lessee of the regulations made at any time and from time to time by the lessor or the manager in its reasonable and proper discretion which the lessor or the manager deems necessary or expedient for the good management of the block the estate.

           ii.        The lessee contributing and paying the service charge in accordance with the lessee’s covenants

          iii.        The observance by the lessee of the conditions set out in the foregoing paragraphs

In a recent legal case on your land the claimant XYZparking’s case was that, because the lease has a clause saying that the landlord, or managing agent, can impose regulations for the efficient and good management of the estate, this entitled the Claimant to rely upon that, and the terms of its signage.

The defence case was that any such regulations had to be consistent with the lease terms, and this was not, it would have required a properly executed variation of lease. Previously decided cases of Jopson, Noor, and Parkinson were relied upon and further support the signage in place creating no contract to park and therefore no breach of any terms and conditions. The Judge said that the Jopson case was particularly relevant, as it was an appeal decision from a Circuit Judge.

Alternatively, the claimant’s signage states ‘Authorised Vehicles Only’, and I am de facto authorised by virtue of possessing a key fob and a permit to park which was both supplied by the managing agent and claimant themselves and clearly displayed at all times.

The District Judge was well versed on the issues and predatory tactics employed by the claimant, having heard many similar cases previously. They ruled that any regulations imposed must be reasonable and that it was not reasonable to attempt to penalise a leaseholder who was parking in accordance with the terms of their lease and subsequent tenancy agreement which mentions no need for a permit to be displayed. It was also ruled that the signage also did not create any contractual liability and the claim was denied with the claimant being made to pay costs.

It cannot be considered reasonable to attempt to impose 5 fake parking charge notices onto a tenant that has a right to park in a space allocated to them whilst complying with terms and conditions of an alleged contract that has been ruled to not exist!

There is nothing in this behaviour that has encompassed good management of the estate, no other resident or the managing agent has suffered no loss or inconvenience as a result of my parking in my allocated bay! This is merely an attempt to obtain money from residents in a fraudulent manner!

Your agent has, following the above judgement, continued to place fake parking charge notices onto the vehicles of residents and fraudulently obtain and misuse their data by applying for their details to the DVLA under the

There is an implied term in any tenancy whether or not it is actually written down in the tenancy which brings with it the covenant of quiet enjoyment. A breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment generally implies harassment under the protection from eviction act 1977 which is a criminal offence.

As a result, the local police force has given me a crime number and begun to investigate this matter under harassment and attempts to obtain money by doctoring evidence and committing fraud.

For the reasons stated above I would respectfully ask you to instruct your agents to cease and desist immediately their campaign of harassment and fraudulent attempts to obtain money from me. I will ask that any and all Parking Charge Notices that have been alleged be withdrawn and that your agent agrees to accept my right to park and to allow my quiet enjoyment of the property.

There are other less predatory options for managing parking on the development that do not need to carry an increased cost to the residents and leaseholders but your managing agent is choosing to not explore those more thoroughly. Many residents are quite rightly in agreement for the parking to be managed but not in a way that is both unreasonable and against the law"

 

 

 

NeilCr

Coupon-mad said:

Someone needs to get those residents and bang their heads together and write a strong letter to the MA, because this is war, surely?

I have to say I agree with you but, mostly, this isn't in the real world.

Residents are a mixture of owners and tenants. Some will agree with parking restrictions - others won't. Quite a few will have more pressing issues. Landlords, in general, aren't that bothered as long as they are getting the rent in. They will, also, (D P Dance excepted) want to keep the peace with the Freeholder/ManCo/whoever. Tenants have no vote.

Speaking from the other side of the argument - as a chairman of a ManCo it is massively frustrating. In general owners are happy to leave it to the directors and you never hear from them - until something  actually affects them. Then they are all up in arms. Far easier to criticise when you are not prepared to take on any responsibility yourself . And, yes I know, there are good reasons why folks don't have the time. But respect those who volunteer to actually get involved and make decisions,,,


Our last years AGM ( My first as chairman) was great. Well attended and vibrant. How it should be. But one of the reasons it was well attended was that there were a number of individual gripes. We sorted them but they could have, easily, been raised well before the  AGM and everyone would have been happy

The chances of concerted, combined action are small - I wish there was more of it. 

beamerguy

Surely in view of the buck passing going on it is time to say to someone, you want them as your witness in court to explain themselves and be bound by the truth

CALLING A WITNESS TO SUPPORT YOUR CASE ..
Posted by Brown Trout
Witness Summons in the County Court
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6099468/witness-summons-in-the-county-court

NeilCr

Vermicious_Knad said:

Yes I am aware who the landowner is and have drafted a complaint letter to them in an attempt to follow the guidelines in the newbies forum.
Feedback would be gratefully received but envisage it looking something like this.

"I would like to complain about the predatory behaviour of a Private Parking Company operating on your land. Since moving into the development I have received fake parking charge notices demanding payment of £100 each.

I have attempted to resolve the matter with the managing agent who have constantly denied any responsibility for the actions of the Private parking Company and attempted to suggest this is fair and reasonable behaviour for the good management of the development.

The Lease grants a right to use the parking space allocated to it which in this respect is the exact one mention in that lease. This right is granted provided that:

(a)        All the rights and benefits specified in the relevant schedule are subject to and conditional upon

            i.        The observance by the lessee of the regulations made at any time and from time to time by the lessor or the manager in its reasonable and proper discretion which the lessor or the manager deems necessary or expedient for the good management of the block the estate.

           ii.        The lessee contributing and paying the service charge in accordance with the lessee’s covenants

          iii.        The observance by the lessee of the conditions set out in the foregoing paragraphs

In a recent legal case on your land the claimant XYZparking’s case was that, because the lease has a clause saying that the landlord, or managing agent, can impose regulations for the efficient and good management of the estate, this entitled the Claimant to rely upon that, and the terms of its signage.

The defence case was that any such regulations had to be consistent with the lease terms, and this was not, it would have required a properly executed variation of lease. Previously decided cases of Jopson, Noor, and Parkinson were relied upon and further support the signage in place creating no contract to park and therefore no breach of any terms and conditions. The Judge said that the Jopson case was particularly relevant, as it was an appeal decision from a Circuit Judge.

Alternatively, the claimant’s signage states ‘Authorised Vehicles Only’, and I am de facto authorised by virtue of possessing a key fob and a permit to park which was both supplied by the managing agent and claimant themselves and clearly displayed at all times.

The District Judge was well versed on the issues and predatory tactics employed by the claimant, having heard many similar cases previously. They ruled that any regulations imposed must be reasonable and that it was not reasonable to attempt to penalise a leaseholder who was parking in accordance with the terms of their lease and subsequent tenancy agreement which mentions no need for a permit to be displayed. It was also ruled that the signage also did not create any contractual liability and the claim was denied with the claimant being made to pay costs.

It cannot be considered reasonable to attempt to impose 5 fake parking charge notices onto a tenant that has a right to park in a space allocated to them whilst complying with terms and conditions of an alleged contract that has been ruled to not exist!

There is nothing in this behaviour that has encompassed good management of the estate, no other resident or the managing agent has suffered no loss or inconvenience as a result of my parking in my allocated bay! This is merely an attempt to obtain money from residents in a fraudulent manner!

Your agent has, following the above judgement, continued to place fake parking charge notices onto the vehicles of residents and fraudulently obtain and misuse their data by applying for their details to the DVLA under the

There is an implied term in any tenancy whether or not it is actually written down in the tenancy which brings with it the covenant of quiet enjoyment. A breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment generally implies harassment under the protection from eviction act 1977 which is a criminal offence.

As a result, the local police force has given me a crime number and begun to investigate this matter under harassment and attempts to obtain money by doctoring evidence and committing fraud.

For the reasons stated above I would respectfully ask you to instruct your agents to cease and desist immediately their campaign of harassment and fraudulent attempts to obtain money from me. I will ask that any and all Parking Charge Notices that have been alleged be withdrawn and that your agent agrees to accept my right to park and to allow my quiet enjoyment of the property.

There are other less predatory options for managing parking on the development that do not need to carry an increased cost to the residents and leaseholders but your managing agent is choosing to not explore those more thoroughly. Many residents are quite rightly in agreement for the parking to be managed but not in a way that is both unreasonable and against the law"

 

 

 

So is this a separate freeholder or a ManCo?

Is this the first time you have been in contact with them? If so, I'd be a little less confrontational. A mix of firm but polite and reasonable may be the best way forward. If I received this as first contact I'd be inclined to dig my heels in.

In the end, I guess, you want these tickets to go away ASAP. Getting the freeholder onside may be the best way of affecting this

Vermicious_Knad

It is a manco. I hear what you say about confrontational but after several attempts to get the MA to see reason they keep spouting the "its a wonderful lovely fluffy resident friendly process that has an excellent appeals service" bit. Of course this now the written narrative after they already admitted all PPCs were scams so better tonstick with the one they have! 🤣 would say both their agents have more than enough chance to resolve it first.
I could write them a fluffy letter but do we really think they will do anything other than ignore it?
Maybe I just save the above for a LBA? 

Vermicious_Knad

beamerguy said:

Surely in view of the buck passing going on it is time to say to someone, you want them as your witness in court to explain themselves and be bound by the truth

If the residents wont even muster the resolve to write a collective complaint i cant see any of them turning up in court! 🙄

NeilCr

Vermicious_Knad said:

It is a manco. I hear what you say about confrontational but after several attempts to get the MA to see reason they keep spouting the "its a wonderful lovely fluffy resident friendly process that has an excellent appeals service" bit. Of course this now the written narrative after they already admitted all PPCs were scams so better tonstick with the one they have! 🤣 would say both their agents have more than enough chance to resolve it first.
I could write them a fluffy letter but do we really think they will do anything other than ignore it?
Maybe I just save the above for a LBA? 

So it's a ManCo

Have you engaged with the resident directors at all? After all they are your representatives. 

Vermicious_Knad

The MA refuses to comment on who they are but that the only conduit to the resident directors is through them and then back to the same old "PPC has an appeals process and an ombudsman so its super fair and honest and therefore this is not the right way to complain" etc etc
Resident directors are probably people that own several properties on the development and have a vested interest in the "goings on" 😉