PCN - Owned (leasehold) residential parking space

Le_Kirk

The parking company, PCN,

Isn't it PCM?

 inpairment on their use of their property

Shouldn't it be impairment?

Coupon-mad

The example PCM thread I already linked for you earlier in this thread shows you a perfectly robust rant. Copy the style.

1505grandad

"Having to display a permit, (less) they get charged, is an inpairment on their use of their property."

If you will be using the above phrase in the new rant it is (lest)  -  as well as "impairment" already advised.

Galloglass

The problem with ranting to people like PCM is they've seen it before. They are ex-clampers after all.

Perhaps an explanation to PCM may be in order, once you've had sight of their contract. 

The law, set down in the Beavis case, is that the £100 is a penalty unless there is a legitimate reason for the charge. On a residential site, it will be the enforcement of the terms of the lease. For example, If Resident A parks in their space there is no legitimate reason to ticket them. It's a unlawful penalty. If Resident A parks in the space of Resident B or the common area without permission, then the £100 is legitimate and it would be upheld in the court. As professionals and their literature claims they are, they should know the law inside out. So it seems they have been collecting monies, not lawfully due, for some time.

If you rant, they'll back off for a while, then continue

If you examine their contract and find they have failed to provide a lawful service, they should have the opportunity to rectify their breach of their own contact with the MC or terminate it. If they MC fails to monitor PCM, then they themselves are failing in their duties under the contract to the RTM which should result in rectification or termination. 

Easily said but more difficult when the PPC's want to fight back and claim they were working to the agreement set up by the MC. So a three way [legal] bunfight.

Perhaps this one should be reeled in slowly.

Stereo6225

Thanks guys for the proof reads.

I agree with Galloglass, I ideally just want some oversight. So they can no longer harass and issue PCN's with imputiny. I will make sure I get sight on the contract to see what it says.

I, ideally, want my current "outstanding" PCN which they are threatening legal action over, cancelled. So that is goal one. Then I can, in slower time, try and claw some control over the PPC.

Stereo6225

Reply to my query about whether I can cancel charges.

As a Director you cannot cancel tickets. We can make this request but even then we cannot guarantee tickets will be cancelled as the company are quite strict on this.

 

I can arrange a meeting between you and them if you wish to discuss it further?

I didn't use the term tickets, that was his words (the property manager, representative from the MC).

I think I should get sight on the contract before I agree or have a meeting arranged.

Coupon-mad

You won't get sight of the contract from the parking firm.  Will he provide it to you?

Grizebeck

Galloglass said:

What do the Articles of Association say about Directors scope to change contracts/cancel contracts?

PPC do take RTM’s to court. There was one on Friday

If there has been a previous decision, then there should be a minute of it on file. Get a copy and it should show the basis of the decision; whether a consultation was needed; if no consultation was needed due to the lease or covenants terms; the length of the contract agreed with the PPC; and whether there was a break clause.

At all times, as a Director, you'll need to have the leaseholders' and freeholder's interest in mind as set down in the lease.

Check you have Director's insurance if you want to go off-piste.

What was the outcome do you know or did you just see it on CourtServe?

Stereo6225

Coupon-mad said:

You won't get sight of the contract from the parking firm.  Will he provide it to you?

I will get it from the MC. They should have a copy too. I have not opened up any comms with the PPC yet.

Stereo6225

I am still waiting on the contract from the MC rep, however I have had some contact witht the PPC themselves as preliminary to see how react. The following is both my complaints/issues and their reponse "point by point".

(Bold is PPC)

Complete lack of discretion & bad faith execution of their job.

 

Our instruction is to issue permits to authorised people & to ticket any car not displaying or parked not adhering to the advertised restrictions – often people forget this is for their benefit it is cost neutral – parking is one of the most emotive subjects in estate management. Do people just accept we do this for free and to even incur costs when they mess up.

 

Their job is to stop unauthorised vehicles from parking in owned parking spaces.

 

Agreed – the only way that we can effectively do this is if we all take some responsibility

 

That is, acting as agents of the management company & the landlord to enact the responsibility, as per the lease, for leaseholders to have quiet enjoyment of their property.

Their job is not to simply plonk a charge on any car that doesn't, at that exact time, display one of their paper permits.

 

A vehicle's authorisation to park in an owned parking space does not come from the parking company, it comes from the leaseholder who owns the space, therefore the parking company should exercise far more discretion over when a charge is applied, or cancelled. 

 

The parking rules have to be set the same for all issues and it is difficult to apply discretion as there are no definitive rules set for this.

 

In the instance of my car, even if for a short time I have forgot to display the permit, or it has fallen down or any other reason, there is still other evidence they can call on to determine whether the car should receive a charge. The two most obvious are 1. That the car in question has been parked there for years, displaying a permit for the majority of that time & 2. The registered keepers address, whom they send the charge to, is the address directly above the parking space. Those two factors alone should give a good indication that a charge is 1. either not needed at all, or 2. should be cancelled at the first request.

 

Vehicles are not recognised by wardens which is why permits are needed.

 

Another issue is their general attitude of both their staff who monitor the parking areas, and the office staff. They are aggressive, belligerent, and prone to harassment. E.g. the incident I reported of one staff member shouting at a tradesman.

 

I use female operatives on this scheme and neither have any issues with these type of attitude problems.

 

That example leads into my next issue: their complete inability to understand, or wilful ignorance of, their own "rules": That same staff member was trying to tell the tradesman to park his van in any of the owned spaces, which is completely wrong.

Second example, a few years ago, the spectre court permits also allowed parking in any of the "orange" visitor bay anywhere on the aviation ave estate. This was clearly denoted on the information pack given to us with the permits and on the permits themselves.

However, a visitor of mine got a charge for parking in an orange bay, and no amount of telling them, showing them a scans of their own documentation, as well as the permit would convince them of their own rules, they refused to budge and flat out denied what we were telling and showing them.

 

Which circles back to the bad faith practices that borderline extortion. They are not interested in making sure only authorised vehicles park where they should, they are more interested in handing out as many charges as possible regardless whether the vehicle is authorised, and being completely unreasonable in attempts to rectify mistakes.

 

At the very least, they need to be accepting of cancellations when they mistakenly charge an authorised vehicle. The leaseholders' lease supersedes the "contract" of their notices, and their job, as an agent of the management company, is to make life easier for the leaseholders not to use them as a source of income. 

 

The charge will be cancelled but without enforcement on the site the issues that students cause would cause a lot more issues. Having looed at the ticket that was given this was not appealed and the charge was ignored. The charge is with debt collection but this will now be removed from them. Please note that we will no longer patrol this residents bay so a permit will not be needed. Should someone else park in this space then we will not be involved in this and will not issue any tickets to them.

I have not responded yet, and i don't know the value of getting into a back and forth with them.

It seems they do not have much of a willingness to work with me (as expected),

for example them writing off the entire 5th paragraph with

Vehicles are not recognised by wardens which is why permits are needed.