Allocated parking space- five tickets issued to resident

Holtzmann84

fisherjim said:

Why would an admin charge be x5 it should be one single charge for the lot

That sounds far too reasonable for them...! But I will bear that in mind, thanks.

Umkomaas

Holtzmann84 said:

Thanks @Coupon-mad, I've now appealed the tickets via the IAS, using the same evidence I would use in court, and will send the same info and evidence direct to Lauren at PCM, to be clear that I am engaging with all routes, while I wait to hear back from my property manager/s.

You can't appeal via the IAS until such time as you've appealed to PCM and had your appeal(s) formally rejected. Please confirm exactly what you've done, because the above doesn't make sense. 

Holtzmann84

You can't appeal via the IAS until such time as you've appealed to PCM and had your appeal(s) formally rejected. Please confirm exactly what you've done, because the above doesn't make sense. 

I appealed to PCM right after I got the tickets, and they rejected those initial appeals. At that point I was advised I could appeal via the IAS. Before doing that I contacted my own housing association (as the property managers) to request that they intervene to get them cancelled. That was when PCM responded saying they would not cancel all the tickets, but if I paid the first two by 1 November 5pm they would cancel the next three. My property manager forwarded that response onto me and advised that I should accept the deal, I then responded requesting that he continue to escalate this with PCM instead. I haven't heard back from him yet so while that is going on I messaged here about whether I should try the IAS route, as well as maybe contacting PCM directly myself as I now have a named contact there. I was advised this would be a good thing to do, in case it goes to court eventually- so it's clear I've engaged however I can. Hopefully that now makes sense

Umkomaas

Thanks for above response. Did you appeal each PCN individually and did you receive a separate rejection for each?

Have you appealed each PCN individually with the IAS?  

Holtzmann84

Umkomaas said:

Thanks for above response. Did you appeal each PCN individually and did you receive a separate rejection for each?

Have you appealed each PCN individually with the IAS?  

Yes to both

Coupon-mad

Ok, best you can do against these greedy ex-clampers who were outed on Watchdog.  Horrific that so many MAs and HAs inflict the very worst ex-clampers on residents and seem clueless that the reason these firms operate 'free' is because they actively target residents.

Very few housing estates even need parking management and of those that do, a gate/keyfob system is enough and it would be simple to keep an exempt list.

But then the rogue firms wouldn't make any money, would they, without the sitting duck victims.

Holtzmann84

I have already started getting rejections to my various IAS appeals this morning. They have uploaded photos of the signage in the car park as evidence, and included this statement:

Case Summary Site background: The operator was originally instructed by East Thames Housing Association (now merged with L&Q HA), the Freeholder, to implement a permit parking system on this scheme in October 2014. The sole parking issue on the scheme is tenant over/ improper parking. Parking is limited on the new build development and parking rights are varied. Most properties have a right to park one vehicle in a designated bay; however, some have a garage & others have no parking rights. There is no visitor parking on the development and no parking is permitted outside of a marked bay.

The contravention: The vehicle was parked in a manner that contravenes the terms and conditions for the use of the private land on which it was photographed. These terms and conditions are clearly stipulated throughout the area and upon review, the operator is confident that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was correctly issued, in line with these signs. On this occasion, the vehicle was parked without fully displaying a valid permit within the windscreen. The advertised contractual terms require a valid permit be displayed at all times and that this permit is appropriate for the bay/area in which the vehicle was parked. This is clearly outlined by signage and the onus is on the driver to ensure compliance with the terms. If a driver is unsure they should seek further advice or refrain from parking.

Signage advises that retrospective evidence of authority to park will not be accepted; therefore claims or copies of permits provided at a later date cannot be considered. Response to the appellant’s representation: The Appellant has provided a section of their tenancy agreement, allegedly providing them an unrestricted right to park. The Operator would contend that a section of the agreement cannot be considered as sufficient evidence to prove this point. Ultimately, there are two contractual agreements at play – the tenancy agreement and the contract entered and agreed to by parking. While these agreements are compatible, they are not formally linked in terms of one constituting a variation of the other. The parking scheme should be seen as working alongside the rights granted with the lease documents and as a means to protect these rights.

Generally speaking, save for very few cases, lease documents will contain clauses that allow for the implementation of parking controls – whether explicitly or by means of authorising a management company to take such decisions. It is appreciated that the appellant may have parked in a bay that is allocated to their property. However, the terms require a permit to be displayed at all times. By receiving and accepting this permit (and having shown an intention to comply with the terms of the permit), the appellant has indicated a consent to the parking scheme, which is, in part, for their benefit. In taking this benefit (i.e. in having the parking bay managed), the appellant must accept their part to play, which was to simply display a permit and park in the appropriate bay. The Appellant claims to have displayed a permit, but it had fallen.

The onus is on the driver to ensure compliance with the terms and therefore, it can only be the responsibility of the motorist to ensure their permit is and will remain clearly displayed. Once displayed correctly, a permit should not fall. A dashboard that slopes towards the windscreen does not enable permits to fall upwards. If a permit is not secured to the windscreen, the driver should ensure that the permit is adequately & visibly displayed on the dashboard or front fascia prior to leaving the vehicle unattended.

In relation to the typo on the permit, I can only apologise, however it is clear that all the other details – including bay number, site name, issued date - are correct on the permit. If the Appellant would like to raise further issues of this type, they are welcome to utilise the operator’s complaints procedure as this does not impact the validity of the charge.

It's not a big surprise that the appeal would fail of course, but is there anything I should be concerned about in there? I have been given two options- 1. Respond providing more evidence, or, 2. Refer straight to arbitration.

I'm not sure I have any more evidence at this stage- as I included a fair amount in my appeal. Should I just refer to arbitration, knowing it's just the next step in a fairly pointless process? 

Coupon-mad

You always repond with more evidence, every time at IAS.  Batter them with responses.

You can see what they said about you supplying only a section of your tenancy agreement so it's obvious how to reply to that.

Holtzmann84

I will upload a copy of the whole lease when I respond. I've read it a number of times to make sure I'm not missing anything, but I am wondering if anyone here knows what kind of clause I should be looking for when it comes to the point they made about third parties: 

Generally speaking, save for very few cases, lease documents will contain clauses that allow for the implementation of parking controls – whether explicitly or by means of authorising a management company to take such decisions. 

Sorry, I realise that's a bit vague but just in case anyone knows the kind of terminology that may be used, or indeed if there might be a clause that expressly forbids this.

amvo33

Ha ha, yes I see what they are saying but they’re still just trying their luck & hoping you will back down. There will be a general clause saying that leases can be amended (not specific to parking) but as per the advice from the LSA, a freeholder cannot just simply change a lease particularly if by changing or adding a clause, it is more onerous to the leaseholder & in any case they haven’t changed your lease so why are they referencing that? If you send them your lease, simply ask them to confirm where it says you must display a permit, liable for any fines, etc.  Remember the lease takes primacy and you should mention that plus state you can send them examples of case law that supports this, again as provided by LSA. Also say you will contact your MP as parliament are reviewing the way they operate. Really your property mgt company should be dealing with this for you, appeals process is just wasting your time.