CCJ issued for PCN's in Secure Residential Parking

JoeBloggs321

I've had a reply back from the HA now, and it's not looking good!

I didn't know they had contacted the Parking company directly!

Now I am not sure if I can help with this anymore!

I'm thinking their only option now is to pay the CCJ, so it shows as a settled debt?!

JoeBloggs321

Actually, it may be a bit cheeky, but after just re-reading this part of their letter:

Could that be used to say they should not of received any PCN's from move in date?

Grasping at straws I think...?

Fruitcake

The most important thing is that the lease/AST is silent on permits. Unless a ballot of all residents and landlords has taken place in accordance with Section 37 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, and the relevant majority in favour, and the minimum number of dissenters not exceeded, a tenant's lease cannot be varied.
This is the law.
Since no such ballot took place, then the lease as written and agreed by the tenant has primacy of contract over anything an unregulated third party agrees with the HA.

The resident's rights as per their lease has been breached, and their data obtained and processed without reasonable cause. This is a breach of the GDPR 2018.

As an aside, the lease contains an illegal clause as it requires a disabled motorist to display a disabled badge in order to park in a disabled bay. A disabled badge is not the only indicator of a disability, and the Government Blue Badge scheme does not apply on private land. Requiring a disabled person with protected characteristics to do something that an able bodied person does not have to do in order to obtain reasonable adjustments for their disability is a breach of the Equality Act 2010.

The HA are jointly liable for the actions of their agents and are therefore jointly their breaches om my lease. *Insert threat of court action against them here*

D_P_Dance

Have you read this?

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

Have you complained to your MP?

Fruitcake

JoeBloggs321 said:

Actually, it may be a bit cheeky, but after just re-reading this part of their letter:

Could that be used to say they should not of received any PCN's from move in date?

Grasping at straws I think...?

What is crucial is whether the resident was told this before or no later than the day they moved in. The scammers can only obtain the registered keeper details held by the DVLA at the time. Until the V5C was updated this will have been the resident's old address, meaning the scammers would automatically send all correspondence to the old address until a new PCN was issued after the DVLA had updated their records.

Irrespective of any of this, the lease has primacy of contract and cannot be varied without a ballot as I have already mentioned. In any case, if car park access is via a key fob, then it is obvious that a parking system beyond that stated in the lease is not required.
A resident cannot have a parking scheme imposed upon them that takes away their existing right to park.
I expect the lease will also mention something about a right to quiet enjoyment as well, which will also have been breached.

Coupon-mad

I didn't know they had contacted the Parking company directly!

Of course they did! 

Flipping heck if you didn't realise that, we've been talking at cross purposes.  This is not news to us and nothing has changed.

JoeBloggs321

Thanks for all the replys.

So going forward, despite the HA saying I am now to contact the parking firms solicitors directly about this, your advice is to continue to contact the HA.

In the next letter to HA I am to specify that they themselves state:

Customers with vehicles are able to supply the HA with their registration details, in order the PCN's are not issued prior to the DVLA updating address details.

My friend did supply the HA with this information, so no PCN's should have been issued, until the process of DVLA updating log book and HA permit was issued.

Also give the information Fruitcake gave, regarding the lease:

Fruitcake said:

The most important thing is that the lease/AST is silent on permits. Unless a ballot of all residents and landlords has taken place in accordance with Section 37 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, and the relevant majority in favour, and the minimum number of dissenters not exceeded, a tenant's lease cannot be varied.
This is the law.
Since no such ballot took place, then the lease as written and agreed by the tenant has primacy of contract over anything an unregulated third party agrees with the HA.

The resident's rights as per their lease has been breached, and their data obtained and processed without reasonable cause. This is a breach of the GDPR 2018.

As an aside, the lease contains an illegal clause as it requires a disabled motorist to display a disabled badge in order to park in a disabled bay. A disabled badge is not the only indicator of a disability, and the Government Blue Badge scheme does not apply on private land. Requiring a disabled person with protected characteristics to do something that an able bodied person does not have to do in order to obtain reasonable adjustments for their disability is a breach of the Equality Act 2010.

The HA are jointly liable for the actions of their agents and are therefore jointly their breaches om my lease. *Insert threat of court action against them here*

and

Fruitcake said:

Irrespective of any of this, the lease has primacy of contract and cannot be varied without a ballot as I have already mentioned. In any case, if car park access is via a key fob, then it is obvious that a parking system beyond that stated in the lease is not required.
A resident cannot have a parking scheme imposed upon them that takes away their existing right to park.
I expect the lease will also mention something about a right to quiet enjoyment as well, which will also have been breached.

and thanks to the post by D_P_Dance, I was led to this website: http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/residential-parking.html which gives the same lease information as Fruitcake, and examples of cases in law:

In Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.

In Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016] it was also found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.

These are just my early observations on the comments, I will look into that parking prankster website in a bit more detail later, but if you can let me know I'm on the right track please.

D_P_Dance

IMO you should refer to Section 35 of the Housing Acts wrt ballots.

Coupon-mad

''Customers with vehicles are able to supply the HA with their registration details, in order the PCN's are not issued prior to the DVLA updating address details.''
My friend did supply the HA with this information,

Prove that in the reply to the HA and ask who will appear in court, should he call them as a witness if the parking firm contractor do not cease and desist.

kryten3000

If the HA can add vehicles to an approved list and the car park is protected by a security fob, what's the point of the permit?