NEW ADDRESS HAS JUST INTRODUCED PARKING MANAGEMENT

tom_cahill

Hi folks,

1st of all, some good news: I took VCS to court last summer and won! They ended up paying me £100+ in damages etc and sent a rent a defence to argue on their behalf.

Anyway, I have today received a letter from Parking Control Management Ltd at my new address stating that they have been instructed to carry out parking management at the block of flats in currently living in. My questions are:

1. We, as tenants, have not been consulted about this, is this  allowed? Or is the consultation process not required by law? We were only sent a letter stating that they had already contracted the services of PCM due to a few complaints by residents.
2. They are not in operation until July 27th, is there anything I can do to opt out or any way to refuse to enter into a contract with PCM prior to the start of their operation?

Thanks for any advice. I hate these companies.

Redx

read this thread , especially the remarks from today

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6038349/residential-pcn-help-please/p9

check what your lease and head lease say

bargepole

Those residents who have complained, will soon regret it when the PCM goon sneaks around at 5am and sticks a PCN on their windscreens for not properly displaying a permit, or whatever.

As far as opting out is concerned, it depends what your Tenancy Agreement says about parking. If you have a designated space, which your tenancy says you are allowed to use, then you should write to PCM, copying in the Managing Agents, stating that you do not accept any terms and conditions of parking conveyed by PCM's signage, as they do not constitute a legal variation to the terms of your tenancy.

If they send you a parking permit, send it back, saying that you do not need to display one according to your tenancy terms which already grant you a right to park, and that if any PCNs are placed on your windscreen, it will be a tort of trespass to goods, for which you will hold both PCM and the Managing Agents jointly and severally liable for compensatory damages.

If they then issue you with a PCN, come back here and follow the steps for filing a Defence and Counterclaim, and make sure you give them a damn good spanking in Court, that's the only language these people understand.

Half_way

bargepole said:

As far as opting out is concerned, it depends what your Tenancy Agreement says about parking. If you have a designated space, which your tenancy says you are allowed to use, then you should write to PCM, copying in the Managing Agents, stating that you do not accept any terms and conditions of parking conveyed by PCM's signage, as they do not constitute a legal variation to the terms of your tenancy.

If they send you a parking permit, send it back, saying that you do not need to display one according to your tenancy terms which already grant you a right to park, and that if any PCNs are placed on your windscreen, it will be a tort of trespass to goods, for which you will hold both PCM and the Managing Agents jointly and severally liable for compensatory damages.

I cant stress how important the above is, however if they send you a parking permit, dont waste money on a stamp and envelope, tell them to send you a stamped addressed envelope, or arrange collection at your convenience.

 Also, assuming your lease etc is good, i would tell the management that if your data is processed regarding a pakring charge on your property then you will take this as a GDPR breach ( no just cause) and will consider pursuing the management company and/or the named individual who signed the contract with the parking company for a GDPR breach (GDPR allows for personal liability)

Again its important that you are pro active on this issue and you must show that you do not agree

Coupon-mad

Read this one, exactly the same. 

The residents got PCM removed and the signs were covered before they started!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5997200/pcm-company-introduced/p1

Fruitcake

Before your lease can be changed, a ballot of all residents must be carried out in accordance with the Landlord and Tenants Act 1987, section 37.

Check what your lease says first, then tell whoever has employed the scammers to cancel the contract now and quote the relevant parts of this Act. As advised, state that introduction of this company is unlawful without a ballot and without a majority of residents agreeing to be scammed, with no more than the prescribed number of residents dissenting.
Note that the landlord must be a party to the ballot.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1987/31/section/37

37 Application by majority of parties for variation of leases.

(1)Subject to the following provisions of this section, an application may be made to [F1the appropriate tribunal] in respect of two or more leases for an order varying each of those leases in such manner as is specified in the application.

(2)Those leases must be long leases of flats under which the landlord is the same person, but they need not be leases of flats which are in the same building, nor leases which are drafted in identical terms.

(3)The grounds on which an application may be made under this section are that the object to be achieved by the variation cannot be satisfactorily achieved unless all the leases are varied to the same effect.

(4)An application under this section in respect of any leases may be made by the landlord or any of the tenants under the leases.

(5)Any such application shall only be made if—

(a)in a case where the application is in respect of less than nine leases, all, or all but one, of the parties concerned consent to it; or

(b)in a case where the application is in respect of more than eight leases, it is not opposed for any reason by more than 10 per cent. of the total number of the parties concerned and at least 75 per cent. of that number consent to it.

(6)For the purposes of subsection (5)—

(a)in the case of each lease in respect of which the application is made, the tenant under the lease shall constitute one of the parties concerned (so that in determining the total number of the parties concerned a person who is the tenant under a number of such leases shall be regarded as constituting a corresponding number of the parties concerned); and

(b)the landlord shall also constitute one of the parties concerned.

bargepole

The above is only true if the OP has a lease on the property. It doesn't apply if he/she is a tenant under an AST.

If the OP is a tenant (as opposed to a leaseholder), then it is the landlord, who will have the long lease on the property, who needs to object to the variation under s37 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.

D_P_Dance

AFAIAA, MAs have to jump through several hoops before they can introduce a cuckoo in to the nest, read this

also this

https://forums.landlordzone.co.uk/forum/residential-letting-questions/1053920-private-parking-companiesb

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

What does your lease/AST say about parking? Does it mention the need to display a permit? then it may take primacy over the self serving TnC of the scammer, and interfere with your lawful right to “quiet enjoyment” of your property, possible an offence under The Landlord and Tenants Acts.

tom_cahill

Hi guys,

Thanks for all your replies. Before further discussion I thought it useful to point out that I am only a tenant and my AST agreement makes no mention of parking whatsoever.

Fruitcake

No mention of parking means no mention of permits, PCNs, or court claims. Your AST has primacy of contract over anything an unregulated third party has to say. 
No mention of the above means they do not have the ability to take away your existing rights. 
Usually there will be something about your right to quiet enjoyment. Anything that takes that away cannot be considered a reasonable change of rules.
It's called derogation of grant because it would be derogatory to your existing rights not to be hassled and charged for the privilege.

tom_cahill

So would the AST agreement have primacy over the agreement between PCM and the management company even if they had balloted the landlords and they had voted in favour of bringing in PCM?