Permit displayed inside car and motorcycle parked in same bay received ticket - Link Parking

D_P_Dance

Can this not be challenged as an unfair term in a consumer contract? 

Coupon-mad

Why did you do that?  It's the one thing never to do.  It is futile.  The NEWBIES thread makes that crystal clear. We tell people NEVER EVER to pay £15 for the kangaroo court that is said to be 'binding' (it's really not though and judges can ignore it).

You don't even appear to have provided your lease as evidence?  If not, everything you are saying about your lease will be deemed hearsay.

You need to respond and reiterate that the operator's photo proves the point in your appeal that the contract on the sign says nothing whatsoever about motorcycles having to be registered for electronic permits, and given that bikes have no dashboard or windscreen, the contractual term as drafted about displaying a paper permit on the dashboard/windscreen cannot reasonably be taken to relate to motorcycles and in any case is a term that is void for impossibility in law.

If the operator wanted to impose a 'relevant obligation' to register residents' motorcycles for electronic permits then they could have (and for it to have legal clout, should have) put that on the contract, otherwise there is no breach of any 'relevant contract or obligation' and their email admits that they do NOT expect display of a paper permit in these circumstances. Telling a resident now, after the conclusion of the alleged contract, that there is an unknown bolt-on clause for exempting motorbikes in a different way, comes too late (authority: Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking - Google and read it and show a link to that court transcript).

I don't think you can add evidence now, such as your lease, so the above is what you should reply with. I wrote it for you to copy and go get the case law transcript yourself and put that as your response.

I can't promise it will work but in my view it's the only legal point you can push if you didn't include any evidence of your lease.

If you lose, do not pay. 

You have a right to defend in court and this so-called ADR is so bad and damaging to consumers that it's being replaced by the Government stepping in next year.  You can certainly tell that to a Judge and in court you could evidence your lease as well.

Fruitcake

Le_Kirk said:

Fruitcake said:

Arbitration? What do you mean by that? Do you mean an IAS appeal? If so, then yes you should do that as long as it is not the free version, not the legally binding version where you have to pay £15.

After a (free) IAS appeal which is not binding on the motorist, there is no further stage until court.

Did you mean: -

If so, then yes you should do that as long as it is not the free version, not the legally binding version where you have to pay £15.

Should have gone to Spec ... I have no defence. I went there on Saturdegg. *hangs head in shame*

Fruitcake

shaf119 said:

Fruitcake said:

Arbitration? What do you mean by that? Do you mean an IAS appeal? If so, then yes you should do that as long as it is not the free version, not the legally binding version where you have to pay £15.

After a (free) IAS appeal which is not binding on the motorist, there is no further stage until court.

The only way I was able to appeal was through paying the £15 fee as they deemed it a non standard appeal. there was no other option. Have I backed myself into a corner?

You had the option not to appeal.

You have just had your pocket picked by the IPC/IAS.

You really, really need to find somewhere else to live.

shaf119

Coupon-mad said:

Why did you do that?  It's the one thing never to do.  It is futile.  The NEWBIES thread makes that crystal clear. We tell people NEVER EVER to pay £15 for the kangaroo court that is said to be 'binding' (it's really not though and judges can ignore it).

You don't even appear to have provided your lease as evidence?  If not, everything you are saying about your lease will be deemed hearsay.

You need to respond and reiterate that the operator's photo proves the point in your appeal that the contract on the sign says nothing whatsoever about motorcycles having to be registered for electronic permits, and given that bikes have no dashboard or windscreen, the contractual term as drafted about displaying a paper permit on the dashboard/windscreen cannot reasonably be taken to relate to motorcycles and in any case is a term that is void for impossibility in law.

If the operator wanted to impose a 'relevant obligation' to register residents' motorcycles for electronic permits then they could have (and for it to have legal clout, should have) put that on the contract, otherwise there is no breach of any 'relevant contract or obligation' and their email admits that they do NOT expect display of a paper permit in these circumstances. Telling a resident now, after the conclusion of the alleged contract, that there is an unknown bolt-on clause for exempting motorbikes in a different way, comes too late (authority: Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking - Google and read it and show a link to that court transcript).

I don't think you can add evidence now, such as your lease, so the above is what you should reply with. I wrote it for you to copy and go get the case law transcript yourself and put that as your response.

I can't promise it will work but in my view it's the only legal point you can push if you didn't include any evidence of your lease.

If you lose, do not pay. 

You have a right to defend in court and this so-called ADR is so bad and damaging to consumers that it's being replaced by the Government stepping in next year.  You can certainly tell that to a Judge and in court you could evidence your lease as well.

Thank you,
Having logged in to the IAS website, I am still able to upload documents as there is an 'add file' button which opens up to add documents. 
The estate management company got back to me in email and this was their response:

'Good afternoon,

 

Link Parking have been employed on behalf of Adriatic Land (GR1) Ltd – the Freeholders.

Link Parking were initially employed under the previous managing agents, Pinnacle – of which then was transferred/continued when Encore took over the role of managing agent with no change to the agreement/terms and conditions when parking.

 

Parking permits have always been a requirement to park within the car parks at Caspian Quarter.

Failure to display the correct permit(s) will result in fines being issued by Link Parking.  Signage within the car parks stipulate this ruling.

 

Your lease also contains a number of clauses which allow for such services to be implemented on site.

An example can be found under Schedule 7, Point 11: “Acting reasonably at all times, the Manager shall have authority to make and at any time vary such Estate Regulations as it may be reasonably think fit for the preservation of the amenities of the Estate or for the general convenience of the occupiers of the Dwellings provided such Estate Regulations are notified to the Tenant and other owners and the Landlord in writing”

 

Parking enforcement assists with ensuring that the terms of the lease are adhered to – in so much that residents utilise only their allocated parking bay and not those of other residents/home owners.

 I hope that this assists with your query in this regard.

 Kind regards,

Claire'

Not sure if this point matters but it is a gated underground car park that the public have no access to

Could I get a draft argument to present with regards to the lease please? thank you

 

Fruitcake

shaf119 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Why did you do that?  It's the one thing never to do.  It is futile.  The NEWBIES thread makes that crystal clear. We tell people NEVER EVER to pay £15 for the kangaroo court that is said to be 'binding' (it's really not though and judges can ignore it).

You don't even appear to have provided your lease as evidence?  If not, everything you are saying about your lease will be deemed hearsay.

You need to respond and reiterate that the operator's photo proves the point in your appeal that the contract on the sign says nothing whatsoever about motorcycles having to be registered for electronic permits, and given that bikes have no dashboard or windscreen, the contractual term as drafted about displaying a paper permit on the dashboard/windscreen cannot reasonably be taken to relate to motorcycles and in any case is a term that is void for impossibility in law.

If the operator wanted to impose a 'relevant obligation' to register residents' motorcycles for electronic permits then they could have (and for it to have legal clout, should have) put that on the contract, otherwise there is no breach of any 'relevant contract or obligation' and their email admits that they do NOT expect display of a paper permit in these circumstances. Telling a resident now, after the conclusion of the alleged contract, that there is an unknown bolt-on clause for exempting motorbikes in a different way, comes too late (authority: Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking - Google and read it and show a link to that court transcript).

I don't think you can add evidence now, such as your lease, so the above is what you should reply with. I wrote it for you to copy and go get the case law transcript yourself and put that as your response.

I can't promise it will work but in my view it's the only legal point you can push if you didn't include any evidence of your lease.

If you lose, do not pay. 

You have a right to defend in court and this so-called ADR is so bad and damaging to consumers that it's being replaced by the Government stepping in next year.  You can certainly tell that to a Judge and in court you could evidence your lease as well.

Thank you,
Having logged in to the IAS website, I am still able to upload documents as there is an 'add file' button which opens up to add documents. 
The estate management company got back to me in email and this was their response:

'Good afternoon,

 

Link Parking have been employed on behalf of Adriatic Land (GR1) Ltd – the Freeholders.

Link Parking were initially employed under the previous managing agents, Pinnacle – of which then was transferred/continued when Encore took over the role of managing agent with no change to the agreement/terms and conditions when parking.

 

Parking permits have always been a requirement to park within the car parks at Caspian Quarter.

Failure to display the correct permit(s) will result in fines being issued by Link Parking.  Signage within the car parks stipulate this ruling.

 

Your lease also contains a number of clauses which allow for such services to be implemented on site.

An example can be found under Schedule 7, Point 11: “Acting reasonably at all times, the Manager shall have authority to make and at any time vary such Estate Regulations as it may be reasonably think fit for the preservation of the amenities of the Estate or for the general convenience of the occupiers of the Dwellings provided such Estate Regulations are notified to the Tenant and other owners and the Landlord in writing”

 

Parking enforcement assists with ensuring that the terms of the lease are adhered to – in so much that residents utilise only their allocated parking bay and not those of other residents/home owners.

 I hope that this assists with your query in this regard.

 Kind regards,

Claire'

Not sure if this point matters but it is a gated underground car park that the public have no access to

Could I get a draft argument to present with regards to the lease please? thank you

 

They are not fines. The estate manging company needs to bone up on the law.
Issuing charges to non residents for the preservation of the amenities of the Estate will be of benefit to residents, but issuing charges to genuine residents is contrary to the general convenience of the occupiers of the Dwellings.
You did not receive the information in writing about a car and a motorbike being permitted in the same demised space, nor were you informed in writing about having a vehicle's VRM entered on a whitelist to get an electronic permit, so the MA has breached that specific clause.
A whitelist should actually be made available to all residents for all types of vehicle to save the need of having to display a physical permit, and eliminate the possibility of a permit slipping because someone has deliberately bounced up and down on the car to dislodge it, or blown over by wind as a door is closed, forgery, steamed up windows etcetera. Both the MA and their contractors are obliged to mitigate any loss, and a whitelist that can be amended retrospectively would be the best and most efficient method.

Not providing the information to you in writing is a derogation of grant, as is issuing the need to display a permit or unregulated private parking companies not party to your lease issuing charges or court claims.
If a term is not in your lease then a ballot must be held in accordance with Section 37 of the L & T Act 1987, and the requisite number of tenants and landlords must agree without exceeding the number of dissenters before a lease can lawfully be changed.

Keep hammering the MA. Ask where in your lease there is any mention of a requirement to display a permit and/or pay an unregulated third party,  (Assuming there is no such requirement in your lease), and ask when the ballot in accordance with the L & T Act occurred (don't ask if), what was the result, and how and when were residents and landlords notified of the changes to the lease.
Quote the relevant parts of the Act.

Contact other residents to see if they have had problems.

Complain to your MP.

Move home.

D_P_Dance

WRT to this "legally binding" stuff, .  I would ignore it and take my chances if they take me to court.  

Coupon-mad

You don't need a draft argument to support attaching your lease, just upload it and add the words I said, plus a line referring to it.

D_P_Dance

Remember, you hold all the trumps her, kick @rse.

shaf119

So I have had my appeal dismissed by the IAS and this was their response:

''It is important that the Appellant understands that the adjudicator is not in a position to give his legal advice. The adjudicator's role is to look at whether the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each particular case. The adjudicator is legally qualified (a barrister or solicitor) and decides the appeal according to their understanding of the law and legal principles.

The terms of this appeal are that I am only allowed to consider the charge being appealed and not the circumstances of other drivers or other parking events. The guidance to this appeal also makes it clear that I am bound by the law of contract and can only consider legal challenges not mistakes or extenuating circumstances.

For the avoidance of doubt, this charge has been issued on the basis that no valid permit was clearly displayed in the vehicle at the time of the parking event. I am presented with photographic evidence from the Operator that no valid permit was on display at the time the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued. The signage throughout the site makes it clear that the restrictions apply to all vehicles parked at this site and that if vehicles park otherwise than in accordance with the terms a charge will be payable. I am satisfied that there is no evidence of a valid permit correctly displayed, or displayed at all. Having considered the evidence provided I am satisfied that the Operator has the authority to issue and enforce PCNs at this location.

Whether a driver feels that they have permission to park or not, the contractual terms require a driver to properly display a valid permit and by not displaying properly any such permit they agree to pay the charge. The Appellant should have ensured that a valid permit was clearly displayed in the vehicle otherwise they should have parked elsewhere.

It is the driver's (rather than a third party's) responsibility to ensure that the terms and conditions of parking are complied with. The vehicle was secure, stationary and unattended with no valid permit correctly on display and therefore, in accordance with the advertised terms, the driver is liable to pay a charge. The signage on site complies with current regulations and is sufficient to have brought the terms of parking to the driver's attention. The signage is neither misleading nor unclear. The contractual terms require the driver to display a valid permit, otherwise by parking they agree to pay the charge. If for any reason the driver cannot display a valid permit they can either park elsewhere, or remain parked and agree to pay the charge. The Appellant chose the latter option.

I am satisfied that the Operator has proven their prima facie case. Whilst having some sympathy with the Appellant's circumstances, once liability has been established, only the Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge based on mitigating circumstances. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed.''

What are my options now? this was a Non standard appeal where I had to pay £15 ( yes I know I shouldn't have)