Parking in my own parking bay!! - appeal DENIED

Redx

NeilCr wrote: »

Can we please be aware of the difference between a management company and managing agent

http://www.bacheandhill.co.uk/managing-agent-v-management-company/

This mixing up happens quite a bit on residential parking issues and it is quite important when trying to understand the problem to have clarity on terminology. People are definite here, for example, on not using the word fine.

OP

You say that George Wimpey were the freeholder. I assume (?) that this means they are no longer. It is possible/quite likely that they will have sold/passed on the freehold of the estate as a whole to a freehold company or a Residents Management Company (RMC)

Whichever of the above - GW, RMC, another body - owns the freehold of the estate will have appointed the managing agent to do much of the day to day management. They "should" be able to put pressure on the managing agent to cancel the ticket. Have you any sense of residents having a say in the management of the estate?

ETA

In reality it is an owners management company. Residents who are tenants will have no say.

I agree , I have no concept of these differences but it always seems more complicated than it should be due to freehold , leasehold , almos , owners , tenants , AST,s , leases etc

This is why we need more people like yourself who understands the issues

But the OP of this thread has talked about , my space , ownership , leases etc , so as I said earlier it's my belief that they do not own the space , they say they own the flat so are not a tenant or leaseholder

I do not believe that the parking space was clarified when they bought the flat and this has reared its ugly head due to ticketing, it's my belief that they do not own the space at all

It reminds me of a recent TV programme where a parking company was ticketing residents on a Barrett estate and was causing havoc, I think it was similar in that the residents owned their houses but not the parking

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-51137799

However , this forum does not set out to solve these contractual issues , the people renting or buying under these circumstances need to sort out the legal issues and any management companies or agents or letting agents

A simpler system is needed , because it's like the wild west

The OP has admitted they didn't clarify all this at the buying stage , plus as you say I bet Wimpey sold on the parking and it's all shell companies and backhanders and nobody willing to sort out the problems

NeilCr

Thanks Redx. To be honest I have neither the knowledge on car parking or the passion that others have about PPCs to make a meaningful contribution here

However, out of interest I did ask our property manager about this. She and the MA she works for are not keen on PPCs. She said that if we did appoint a PPC here the contract would be between the ManCo (us) and the PPC

If this is the norm - and it seems logical and what I would expect - there is no contractual arrangement between the MA and the PPC - which would mean they could neither cancel a ticket (I guess that the contract could give them that power) nor boot out the PPC. That would be down to the ManCo/freeholder. The MA, in essence, does what they are told while advising/providing information.

What the MA can do is report back unrest/unhappiness etc

I stress that this is just what one MA has said

Coupon-mad

I am really nervous about the court, I have never done anything like this in my life so I wouldn't know where to begin.

So say pretty much all the posters here, who then win in 99% of cases!

There are cases that have been won by tenants because your rights flow from the lease of your landlord (the owner of the flat) and you are entitled to any right to park that his/her lease provides for. Is it a private landlord?

The leaseholders need to get this parking firm REMOVED from this site.

ssm90

Reviving this post as I was told to come back here if the next step was to take this to court.
I have had a final response where they have denied the appeal and at this point I am lost as I am not sure what else I can do.
I have uploaded the whole chain here - https://easyupload.io/5pjxw5 but the final response is posted below...what really pisses me off is how Link dismissed all my queries and I was forced to answer everything, real double standards!


The adjudicator made their decision on 26/02/2020 17:12:49.

The Appellant should understand that the Adjudicator is not in a position to give legal advice to either of the parties but they are entitled to seek their own independent legal advice. The Adjudicator's role is to consider whether or not the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each individual case. In all Appeals the Adjudicator is bound by the relevant law applicable at the time and is only able to consider legal challenges and not factual mistakes nor extenuating or mitigating circumstances. Throughout this appeal the Operator has had the opportunity consider all points raised and could have conceded the appeal at any stage. The Adjudicator who deals with this Appeal is legally qualified and each case is dealt with according to their understanding of the law as it applies and the legal principles involved. A decision by an Adjudicator is not legally binding on an Appellant who is entitled to seek their own legal advice if they so wish.

The Operator has provided evidence of the signs at the site, which make it clear any driver parking without clearly displaying a valid permit and parking in the correct allocated bay, agrees to pay the parking charge.

The Appellant claims that they had a valid permit but fails to provide evidence of the same. However, the Operator concedes a permit has been sent to the address. The permit displayed at the time the notice was issued though was a copy and therefore not valid. This is accepted by the Appellant this was a copy, the reasons for this are irrelevant. The terms are clear. If the Appellant was unable to display a valid permit, for whatever reason, they must park elsewhere; assuming they wish to avoid the charge.

The Appellant claims they have rights under their lease. The Appellant has not provided the full document; therefore, I cannot be satisfied the rights granted are not restricted by other provisions. Even if the Appellant does have an unrestricted right to park in their lease I am unable to allow the appeal on this basis. Whilst the Appellant is correct that a right in the lease would ordinarily have primacy, and the Operator could not unilaterally override this, by agreeing to display a permit, and take part in the car park management scheme, the Appellant has agreed to have waive any rights they had to park without restriction. The Appellant cannot take advantage of the scheme when it benefits them and disregard it when it does not.

Loss is irrelevant since the charge is the amount the Appellant agreed to pay. The signage at this location clearly indicated to motorists the level of charges that were in force and the Appellant had the option to go elsewhere to park if they felt that the terms and conditions were excessive or unreasonable. In view of the fact that the Appellant chose to park there it confirms that the Appellant agreed to park in accordance with the clearly displayed terms and conditions including the level of the parking charge if it arose. In addition the recent case in the Supreme Court of Parking Eye and Beavis dealt in part with this issue and decided that that the amount of the parking charge was justified in view of the Operator's overheads and expenses as well as by comparing the charges with those made in the public sector.

The consumer contract regulations are not breached because the amount being sought by the parking operator was clearly communicated by the signage on site. If the Appellant considered the charges to be excessive they had the option to reject it by parking elsewhere or by parking on this site in accordance with the terms and conditions displayed on the signage. The Appellant chose not to park in accordance with those terms and therefore is deemed to have agreed to pay a charge if any breach occurred.

VAT is an issue between the Operator and HMRC. It has no bearing on the lawfulness of the charge. I can see no problem with the wording of the notice. The position of other vehicles, or historic issues with obtaining a permit have no bearing on the lawfulness of the charge.

As a genuine permit holder the Appellant has my sympathy, but the guidance to the appeal is clear that I may only consider legal issues not extenuating circumstances. The Operator has provided photographic evidence of the Appellant's vehicle parked on the land they manage, and without a valid permit displayed. The appeal is dismissed.

KeithP

I have had a final response where they have denied the appeal and at this point I am lost as I am not sure what else I can do.

You were expecting that weren't you?

On 27 January at 3:29PM Redx wrote:

If you thought they would allow your appeal , or that the IAS would allow your appeal , you are deluding yourself

On 27 January at 3:30PM Coupon-mad wrote:

We don't need to hear about failed IAS 'appeals' (LOL - there was no appeal!) or be asked about an existent 'next step'. See you when you get the Court claim which is when you win later this year at your local court.

On 27 January at 6:58PM Fruitcake wrote:

An IPC member PCN gives you a greater than 80% chance of you losing an IAS appeal. Now you have come this far you could attack each point of your appeal/their evidence in case you need to show it later to a judge, but don't expect to win.

It's now a case of waiting for a County Court Claim.

Coupon-mad

See you when you get your claim which is the stage when these are won, at your local court, by ordinary honest people like you who have never done it before.  Read a load of court claim threads, it is not that scary and it's exhilarating when you win and get your costs against them ordered by your Judge, who makes real decisions.

This one was won after someone lost after wasting their time trying IAS:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76752841#Comment_76752841

There was also another one this week that I can't find because the search doesn't work properly any more on this 'new forum' where the Judge said it was astonishing that the IAS had made the useless findings they did.

ssm90

My only concern is the fact that they've said I waived any rights I had by displaying a permit in the first place- which to be honest I did because I wasn't familiar with any of this. I only realised the ins and outs when I started researching all of this recently.

Just so I understand, do I need to build my own case when I get the letter in the post? Is there individual help available anywhere or do I need to collate all the info by reading all the posts? Just curious.

D_P_Dance

Never mind what the adjudicator says, likely he/she knows nothing about property law.  

WRT your other questions, why not read a few other "own space" court claims, you will see that almost all of them get quashed.  Have you read this?

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

Fruitcake

ssm90 said:

My only concern is the fact that they've said I waived any rights I had by displaying a permit in the first place- which to be honest I did because I wasn't familiar with any of this. I only realised the ins and outs when I started researching all of this recently.

Just so I understand, do I need to build my own case when I get the letter in the post? Is there individual help available anywhere or do I need to collate all the info by reading all the posts? Just curious.

Yes of course you will need to build your own defence. You will get bespoke help but you will have to read relevant posts and collate your evidence yourself.

Do not despair. You will get through this with help from the forum regulars.

ssm90

Coupon-mad said:

See you when you get your claim which is the stage when these are won, at your local court, by ordinary honest people like you who have never done it before.  Read a load of court claim threads, it is not that scary and it's exhilarating when you win and get your costs against them ordered by your Judge, who makes real decisions.

This one was won after someone lost after wasting their time trying IAS:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76752841#Comment_76752841

There was also another one this week that I can't find because the search doesn't work properly any more on this 'new forum' where the Judge said it was astonishing that the IAS had made the useless findings they did.

Fruitcake said:

ssm90 said:

My only concern is the fact that they've said I waived any rights I had by displaying a permit in the first place- which to be honest I did because I wasn't familiar with any of this. I only realised the ins and outs when I started researching all of this recently.

Just so I understand, do I need to build my own case when I get the letter in the post? Is there individual help available anywhere or do I need to collate all the info by reading all the posts? Just curious.

Yes of course you will need to build your own defence. You will get bespoke help but you will have to read relevant posts and collate your evidence yourself.

Do not despair. You will get through this with help from the forum regulars.

Hi Coupon and Fruitcake,

Quoting the two of you specifically as they were the most relevant points towards the end of this chain when I left this thread. It has been almost 5 months, but the first legal letter has now arrived. 

Just wanted to confirm that when you mentioned 'come back when you get the court claim', did you mean the legal letter or is there a more official letter that comes directly from the court? I have attached the copy of the legal letter to this thread.

If this is not the stage that I start drafting my court battle, should I just keep ignoring these letters too? Is it a bad idea to appeal to these guys stating how legally it was my own bay etc etc.?

Thank you.