Hired van, PCN issued for 'commercial vehicles not allowed’ Claim Form Received

Coupon-mad

only the visitor car park is patrolled by One Parking Solution

Are you saying they issued a PCN in the other car park they do not 'patrol' (loose description...you'll n o doubt have read about them in the Sunday Times and/or Brighton Argus and formed your opinion, as everyone else has).

Is this in Brighton?  Is it a flat rented from a private landlord - which site?  I know lots of them in Sussex and have landowner agreements for most of them, to show you what the contract says.  

monahansam

Coupon-mad said:

only the visitor car park is patrolled by One Parking Solution

Are you saying they issued a PCN in the other car park they do not 'patrol' (loose description...you'll n o doubt have read about them in the Sunday Times and/or Brighton Argus and formed your opinion, as everyone else has).

Is this in Brighton?  Is it a flat rented from a private landlord - which site?  I know lots of them in Sussex and have landowner agreements for most of them, to show you what the contract says.  

No sorry, this PCN was issued in the 'patrolled' car park. It is a shame as they do not charge a fee for their services and instead rely on PCNs for their income. Scumbags.
It is indeed Brighton, Mandalay Court on London Road. The flat is rented through an estate agent but from a private landlord. I would appreciate the contract if you do have one.

Coupon-mad

I don't think we've got that one.  I will ask @ParkingMad who is also from Sussex.

Johnersh

This is clearly arguable. Most leases have terms that prohibit regular parking of vans/caravans/running businesses in front of the property, but let's work this through:

1. Everyone in the estate has a right to pass and repass and to enjoy the use of their property.
2. Everyone has to move in/out and they won't be doing that in a Ford fiesta.
3. Every Amazon, post office vehicle, supermarket delivery, plumber, decorator etc is impermissible if the parking Co are correct - that cannot have been the intention of the scheme nor is that likely to be the enforcement pattern. Even Google Street View shows a van parked outside in a visitor bay
4. The use of the visitor space suggests by definition that the user may have been liading/unloading or that this was at least temporary as distinct from regularly parking a commercial vehicle or upsetting neighbours etc. 

Redx

It is typical OPS obfuscation and devious and dubious tactics where anything goes to make a quick buck !!

It smacks of employing a terminally ill pensioner to sit in a vehicle nearby and observing vehicles , taking pictures etc

Now let me think , where have we seen that before ??? 😋😆😆

Coupon-mad

We don't have this contract yet, so please can you let us have it when you eventually get it in the evidence bundle, if OPS continue that far?

Make sure you include the reasoning by @Johnersh above, in your defence pont #3.

Can you please also send a pm to @soolin or @savvy to edit your thread title because it misleads everyone into thinking you have a CCJ.  You don't  PLease edit it or this will happen every time you reply, people will be confused by your thread title (BUT NO STARTING ANEW THREAD PLEASE!).

henrik777

https://www.open.edu/openlearn/society-politics-law/exclusion-clauses/content-section-3.2

3.2 The contra proferentem rule

This rule states that if there is any doubt about the meaning or scope of an exclusion clause, the ambiguity should be resolved against the party seeking to rely on the exclusion clause. It is the other party who is given the benefit of the doubt.



https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/69/enacted

69Contract terms that may have different meanings

(1)If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.

(2)Subsection (1) does not apply to the construction of a term or a notice in proceedings on an application for an injunction or interdict under paragraph 3 of Schedule 3.

monahansam

Johnersh said:

This is clearly arguable. Most leases have terms that prohibit regular parking of vans/caravans/running businesses in front of the property, but let's work this through:

1. Everyone in the estate has a right to pass and repass and to enjoy the use of their property.
2. Everyone has to move in/out and they won't be doing that in a Ford fiesta.
3. Every Amazon, post office vehicle, supermarket delivery, plumber, decorator etc is impermissible if the parking Co are correct - that cannot have been the intention of the scheme nor is that likely to be the enforcement pattern. Even Google Street View shows a van parked outside in a visitor bay
4. The use of the visitor space suggests by definition that the user may have been liading/unloading or that this was at least temporary as distinct from regularly parking a commercial vehicle or upsetting neighbours etc. 

Yes I agree, thank you for listing all of those points for me. I will use them when writing my defence.

Redx said:

It is typical OPS obfuscation and devious and dubious tactics where anything goes to make a quick buck !!

It smacks of employing a terminally ill pensioner to sit in a vehicle nearby and observing vehicles , taking pictures etc

Now let me think , where have we seen that before ??? 😋😆😆

It is a shame that people are so desperate for work that this is what they will do it for it!
I would be more than happy to pay a higher ground rent or service charge if companies like OPS were not used to manage resident parking for free. Instead OPS rely on their scam to pay for generate a profit and ruin victims credit file for 6 years!

Coupon-mad said:

We don't have this contract yet, so please can you let us have it when you eventually get it in the evidence bundle, if OPS continue that far?

Make sure you include the reasoning by @Johnersh above, in your defence pont #3.

Can you please also send a pm to @soolin or @savvy to edit your thread title because it misleads everyone into thinking you have a CCJ.  You don't  PLease edit it or this will happen every time you reply, people will be confused by your thread title (BUT NO STARTING ANEW THREAD PLEASE!).

As soon as I have access to the leasehold/ freehold I will update the thread.
I will make sure to use all of the points @Johnersh has stated above.
I have messaged the admins to request a title edit. No new threads here.

henrik777 said:

3.2 The contra proferentem rule

This rule states that if there is any doubt about the meaning or scope of an exclusion clause, the ambiguity should be resolved against the party seeking to rely on the exclusion clause. It is the other party who is given the benefit of the doubt.

69Contract terms that may have different meanings

(1)If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail.

(2)Subsection (1) does not apply to the construction of a term or a notice in proceedings on an application for an injunction or interdict under paragraph 3 of Schedule 3.

Thank you for the above information, this will be valuable when writing my defence and if the claim proceeds further. I can't see how OPS have a leg to stand on with their vague clause 'non-commercial vehicles'.

Le_Kirk

As soon as I have access to the leasehold/ freehold I will update the thread.

What do you mean by this?  Do you mean access to the leaseholder/freeholder or do you mean the lease relating to either or both of those?

monahansam

I have now received a copy of the lease from the blocks managing agent. It does not contain any information in regards to the visitor parking spaces.
They have supplied me with their 'guide to apartment living' for the block which does state information on the visitor parking spaces. It states:
'Visitors bays located to the front of Mandalay Court are for private motor vehicles only and should 

display a Visitor’s Parking Permit. Each flat has been issued with a Visitor’s Permit. Copies of the Permit 

will not be allowed and vehicles using a duplicate are not permitted.'
'NO COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY SHOULD BE UNDERTAKEN WITHIN THE GARAGES OR PARKING AREAS – MANDALAY COURT IS A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY'.

Clearly commercial activities are not allowed but private motor vehicles are. As I hired the vehicle in my own name and I was not using the vehicle for commercial activities this should be easily disputable. 
I will draft my defence and update the thread once I have done.
Please let me know if you think there are any reasons the parking company might be able to use this to their advantage. Thanks for all of your help so far.