CCJ issued for PCN's in Secure Residential Parking

Umkomaas

My friend is also wondering, if they can charge excessive fees for the harrassment and stress caused to my friend, is there a case for asking for compensation? If so, what sort of amount should be mentioned?

An extremely high bar to get over in the small claims court - think pole vault not 100 metre hurdles. Ferguson v British Gas Trading Ltd (February 2009) is a leading case, so your friend needs to read up on that and see the level of harassment meted out by BG. Compare and contrast. Also, don't forget that was at the Court of Appeal, where 'rewards' can be high, but costs can be financially crippling. The small claims court is quite different and 'rewards' would be little more than pyrrhic. 

We have never seen anything to get excited about in terms of 'harassment' at the small claims court, despite almost every poster who comes here feeling extremely annoyed, frustrated, harassed and irritated. 

JoeBloggs321

Umkomaas said:

We have never seen anything to get excited about in terms of 'harassment' at the small claims court, despite almost every poster who comes here feeling extremely annoyed, frustrated, harassed and irritated. 

Thanks Umkomaas, I really don't want to get into a drawn out process for peanuts tbh.

Seems unfair they can harrass and add £60 here and there, but the priority was always to just sort the CCJ out.

So will get my friend that far, then that will be my job done!

Fruitcake

You are more likely to gain traction with a DPA/GDPR claim for misuse of data.

With regards to the scammers asking for you to provide authority to park, respond with a copy of the lease/AST as proof of rights to park and right to quiet enjoyment,  and a copy of Section 37 of the L & T Act 1987 as proof that it cannot be varied without a ballot, which has not occurred.

If there is a head lease, then include a copy of any relevant parts of that.

Point out that the scammers have a duty of care to check all leases and residents' rights before instigating a parking scheme, and before issuing PCNs. They have been negligent and therefore have obtained and processed your personal data without reason.

JoeBloggs321

After 2 weeks of hearing nothing back, I emailed the CEO.

My complaint has now been moved to their 'tier 2' process (whatever that is supposed to mean).

New more senior person taking charge of the complaint, supposedly. I asked it be done by 18th of June.

They asked for a telephone number to discuss anything, I said I prefer to keep it in written form, in case it needs to be used in evidence via the courts.

Not much of an update yet, so will just wait until the 18th now.

JoeBloggs321

Ok, I have just received this from the housing association:

I have just replied to this email to ask, as it is not specifically mentioned, whether they could confirm that the building manager did actually add the vehicle details to the 'white list'.

I don't know if they will reply to that or not, I hope they do, but as it has taken me 4 months to get this far, I think the best course of action now is to contact the parking firms solicitors directly, with this report?

Coupon-mad

I think the next course of action. Is to ask your MP to send a letter on your behalf to help you escalate the complaint to the next stage, tenant panel.

It simply is not acceptable that a new tenant can be asked to send their V5C off to change their address on it BEFORE they are allowed a permit and meanwhile the HA have a wholly unsuitable short term white list that doesn’t protect tenants at all. 

And it doesn’t take a genius to work out that any PCN letter sent before the DVLA has updated the address, is always going to go to the wrong address, so this is even more reason for the HA to exempt tenants from day one, until the time that a permit is provided and displayed in the vehicle.

And they admit they’ve been relying on verbal communications with no evidence of what was (or was not) said to each new tenant, nor is there any apparent record-keeping as to whether each and every hapless tenant was fully warned of the ludicrous ‘policy’!

It’s a dreadful HA policy that causes an inexcusable and unfair ‘derogation from grant’ because the amenity to park is being denied these tenants for the first couple of months of their tenancy!  Why? The policy beggars belief and the lack of communication and refusal to simply exempt the VRM from moving in day and/or tell their agent to cancel any PCNs, is shocking. 

The HA is the principal and the parking firm their agent, thus the HA has equal obligations and can equally be sued over this so called parking contract. Clearly the terms are likely to breach the CRA 2015 by causing an imbalance to the detriment of the consumer and there is no ‘legitimate interest’ excuse to allow this to happen to tenants when the issuance of PCNs and exemptions on a white list are fully within the control of the HA.

The contract the HA has signed with this parking firm is causing tenants loss of amenity for weeks - and actual loss in terms of any PCNs they pay - and a very real threat to their credit rating.  All they need is a ‘new tenant white list’ that exempts cars for new tenants until their V5C comes back from the DVLA, or alternatively, do what most other HAs and Managing Agents do, and issue a permit anyway. There is no good reason whatsoever not to accept the V5C as proof of vehicle keeper status and no reason for them to wait until the DVLA update it to the new residential address that they already KNOW this tenant now lives at!

D_P_Dance

It is worth considering whether the  HA is a registered charity or not, (many/most are).  If so a complaint to HM Charity Commissioners might be worth a stamp.  Have you complained to your MP?  

Coupon-mad

And REALLY IMPORTANT PLEASE: 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/78411172/#Comment_78411172

Please, please come back every week to check and make sure your voice is not missed from this final opportunity to take part in the Government Consultation, coming very soon!

JoeBloggs321

This is the question I asked the HA manager, after reading the report above:

I thank you for your reply, and will take further advice on the matter, as suggested.

A quick final question, as it was not specifically mentioned in the investigation report.

Did you ascertain that the building manager, or caretaker for *******, did actually input my vehicle to the 'protected vehicle list', after providing them the details of my vehicle at my tenancy 'sign in'?

This is the reply I received:

D_P_Dance said:

It is worth considering whether the  HA is a registered charity or not, (many/most are).  If so a complaint to HM Charity Commissioners might be worth a stamp.  Have you complained to your MP?  

They do have a 'foundation' charity, I did mention in 1 of my earlier replies to the HA that I may take the matter further.

I did contact my MP, who got a response from HA, within 1 hour, to say there is no time limit on the 'white list'. However he also said:

They all seem to be of the opinion that because my friend contacted the parking firm, to dispute, then offer to make payment, that he has therefore accepted the fines/liability!

JoeBloggs321

My friend has agreed that we are just going round in circles now, trying to get these people to reply/remove the CCJ.

So we are going to go ahead and take it to the courts now.

I will have to have a read up on the forums on how to proceed, but it seems the only way possible to get this resolved now.

Am I correct in thinking that the costs of court action, should the case be successful, can be recouped from them for doing this, and I assume it is the car park company I request pay for that?

Thanks