PCN - permit fell down - spoke with operative

Coupon-mad

The bay is under a separate agreement.

With whom, and do you pay for it? Who do you pay and what does the agreement say?

AlCapwn

Yes, the bay is paid for direct to landlord (social housing org)

I'll have to dig out the agreement. From memory it was a basic agreement, pay on time, no major/disruptive repairs in bay, no mention of parking controls. But I'll have to check it to be sure.

Probably a basic question, if the agreement doesn't mention parking controls, does this generally put me in a good position to fight the pcn if it goes to court? Landlord sent informational letter prior to rolling the scheme out, there was no consultation

Umkomaas

Probably a basic question, if the agreement doesn't mention parking controls, does this generally put me in a good position to fight the pcn if it goes to court?

Basic answer - yes.

Le_Kirk

AlCapwn said:

Landlord sent informational letter prior to rolling the scheme out, there was no consultation

I would have a look at the Landlord & Tenant Act 1987 Part IV section 37

AlCapwn

This section mentions leases but I am under a tenancy agreement. 

Coupon-mad

Ah, and there are no private leaseholders because it's run by a housing association and they foisted the rogue parking thugs on you all?

AlCapwn

I have an update on this issue and request for further advice. My first post was written in 1st person for simplicities sake but the ticket was on my relative's car and written on his behalf.

I found out afterwards that the PCM operative did in fact make a note on his phone and my relative and partner took the attached photo and picture of the operative as well (with consent).

Against my advice they decided to write an appeal with photographs. PCM rejected it saying they have a duty to make sure it's attached at all times and retrospective evidence is not accepted. Even if their operative saw it had fallen, they will not allow it.

All very infuriating - of course no one expects a permit to fall off overnight and they had no problems for ~6 months but in the rejection letter, PCM claim they have a duty to make sure it's attached at all times.

I contacted the landlord, had a discussion with a senior manager and it seemed like a promising outcome. Eventually they said they can't get involved further after asking PCM to reconsider due to their parking policy. Reading between the lines, I suspect their agreement with PCM doesn't allow them to force a ticket to be cancelled. The same response was sent to the local Councillor.

Asking for a payment of £100 (since 14 days elapsed) when they are already paying for a bay is a bitter pill to swallow and it's causing quite a bit of stress. This is a prime example of why we badly need the industry to be properly regulated.

I am wondering, given PCM know the driver, what path this is likely to take next and what the advice is.

Regarding bay rental agreement - it says landlord will issue permits which has to be on the windscreen and can tow away if people do not park properly. The wording is very out of date. They no longer issue permits directly and in fact on a previous occasion, it was a virtual system run by another firm. Apart from towing, the only penalty mentioned is cancelling the agreement.

One question the landlord did not answer is whether they have the right to use the bay if they don't show a permit, since the agreement is directly with them and no agreement is made with PCM. They have also not answered what exactly the payment to PCM is for, given it's their own bay and no one lost out on anything. After their response the conversation hit a dead end so as a next step, I will work with my relative to raise a formal complaint - no one should have to face this issue and the fact they can't or won't stop is makes me angry beyond words

Coupon-mad

Just make sure your relative DOES NOT worry about the debt demands for £170 and does not ring them or pay!

And that they know to look out for a LETTER OF/BEFORE CLAIM and a N1 claim form and what that looks like (Google it).

There is no risk. This will be resolved in the small claims court when that stage is reached.

AlCapwn

Ok, thanks, will tell them to do that.

Identifying yourself as driver is heavily discouraged so how much does it matter to the PPC if they know who the driver is vs keeper only?

Coupon-mad

It's not discouraged in a case like this, where the defence won't hinge on it and needs the defendant to bear witness to what happened.