Secure parking Solutions (Foundry Gym Dudley)

Sankai

Hello,

Because of the previous help from this forum, I've already managed to win one case in court. But here we go, another parking company strikes again. 2 NTK for separate cases just landed on keepers table. The keeper will send the first shablon letter today, and will wait, but we would like a bit of an opinion. First case says 'Unauthorized vehicle', second one ' Vehicle parked not in a designated area'. The parking is free in there but the area is privately owned, and it's used by 3 companies: gym ( the keeper has a membership in there), motorbike shop and nursery. The rules say that it's for valid permits only, or preauthorized cars, but none of these companies give the permits, or authorize the cars.  My gym claims that the parking is managed by Elite Management Parking, not Secure Parking Solutions. There is no visible board with T&C on entrance, only these small boards there and there in the parking area. The car in a second NTK parked on yellow lines, because the motorbike shop was already closed, so it wasn't obstructing anything. On what grounds should we start to construct the future defence? Free parking - no money loss, nonchalant T&C boards, or the obscurity who is actually managing the car park?

P.S. There used to be a website with all the companies and data how many cases of yearly issued tickets actually have been taken to the court. Does any one know the website?

MothballsWallet

The Foundry Gym sign says the car park for them is managed by Elite Management Parking, their website is https://eliteparkingmanagement.com/.

Have you looked through the NEWBIES thread?

Have you started looking at the landowner details to go with Plan A?

D_P_Dance

A polite notice threatening a fine.

Sankai

You see plan A is tricky, because the building is owned by a different person than the land. I've been asking around, and the only advice I was given ' try to defend the case yourself, as we don't know who the parking landowner is'. We'll send the letters denying keepers liability from Newbies thread, and I'll ask an explanation who are the Elite Management Parking, and what rights both of the companies have for that ground. 

Le_Kirk

Sankai said:

You see plan A is tricky, because the building is owned by a different person than the land. I've been asking around, and the only advice I was given ' try to defend the case yourself, as we don't know who the parking landowner is'. We'll send the letters denying keepers liability from Newbies thread, and I'll ask an explanation who are the Elite Management Parking, and what rights both of the companies have for that ground. 

Be careful if you add anything to the standard blue text appeal, it is worth sending the appeal from the Registered Keeper and keeping the driver and the driver's name right out of it!  POFA accords more protection to the keeper than the driver.

Sankai

Yes of course, but then half of the blue text has no meaning, as they did everything according the rules. Keeper received the letter in a week time, a lot of photos and even more on their website. And even picture of the sign stating Elite Management is issuing the fines in there =D Looks like a joke... 

Umkomaas

Please follow advice. 

KeithP

Sankai said:

Yes of course, but then half of the blue text has no meaning, as they did everything according the rules. Keeper received the letter in a week time, a lot of photos and even more on their website. And even picture of the sign stating Elite Management is issuing the fines in there =D Looks like a joke... 

I don't know what you are expecting an appeal to do. It is unlikely that Secure Parking Solutions Ltd will accept any appeal and therefore cancel the parking charge. There's no money in that.

Should this ever reach Court, it will look better that you have gone through the appeal process.

The Registered Keeper should send the blue text template appeal.
Send in unchanged - no additions or alterations needed.

The keeper then waits patiently for his appeal to be rejected and then proceeds with a PoPLA appeal - as described in detail in the third post of the NEWBIES thread.

MothballsWallet

@KeithP there's the added thing about the gym saying that the parking is managed by a company other than Secure Parking Solutions, even though both companies' signs seem to be in the car park from the OP's photos.

Trainerman

Looking at the one sign, the pre-authorized and permit one, it occurs to me that you could have a defence of 'forbidding signage'.
If you are not pre-authorized then you have no permission. If you have no permission then there is no contract. If there is no contract then it might be trespass but only the principal with interest in the land can bring action.

Some of the experienced people will soon be along, I expect and you should listen to them rather than a newbie (me). However, this is similar to a case I am involved with, though it has yet to go to court. Have a look at a transcript of UK Parking Control Ltd v Masterson (2016) and also PCMUK v Bull 2016.

Sankai

So I've received their answers to my appeals. More photos, letters crafted according the situation, but as usually no proof of right to administer the land. It's interesting, in the first letter they state that the driver needs a preauthorised permission, that only a landlord can give, but the car park is shared by 3 separate companies and their customers, is for free and permits are non existent. Second letter only mentions the car being parked on yellow lines, but it is the same car park, so somehow the fact that there was no valid permit displayed became not important at all?! I believe they really don't know what is happening in there, as the gym only opened a year ago and so the nursery...
Anyway I have my POPLA number, do I need to write them now, or I need to sit and wait the invitation to the Court first?