Own space parking charge notice, relevant TA details included.

Aether

Hi there,

To give some background: I've been following the newbies guide after receiving a parking charge notice at an address I no longer live at. To be clear I lived at this address when the PCN was issued but have now received a "UK search trace" letter from Gladstones about 4 months later, so apparently they have been sending letters to the wrong address since.  I have informed Gladstones of the new address and that I will not be paying them or PCM UK and requested they send me the old correspondance. I have done the same for PCM UK in the appeal (which I expect to be rejected of course.). I have had "charges" from PCM dropped before and had them cancelled at the same address, but this was due to some luck with having a contact of the Housing Association present in a nearby construction site get it cancelled, so that's not an option this time. I do wonder if that provides any additional strength to my potential case though.

This was a shorthold tenancy agreement with a residential car park which PCM UK "manage".

As per the newbies guide, I have complained to the Housing Association I lived at at the time with links to PCM UK's and Gladstones horrendous reputation, the issues they've given me previously etc. I have requesed a SAR from PCM UK. I did complain to my MP previously who were not massively useful may do this again, I am also considering complaining to the housing ombudsman if the HA ignores me or tries to wash their hands of the issue. I have yet to have a reply from any of these yet but only sent this yesterday. I have heard tenants still living there are also complaining about this so considering asking them to also write complaints to the current housing association.

I assume the fact I am no longer a tenant is irrelevant legally (I know the HA may be inclined to ignore if they can get away with it), but obiously IANAL so correct me if im wrong.

I have a PDF copy of the old Tenancy agreement which is the main thing I want advice on, there are multiple relevant lines which to me seem solid and in line with what I've seen so far in other cases, I've outlined these in quotes and Italics:

"Possession and Riqhts to Occupy

We will give you possession of your home at the start of your tenancy.

We will not interrupt or interfere with your right to peacefully occupy your home or have

access to communal areas except where:

i)

We need access to inspect the condition of your home or to carry out repairs or other works to your home or adjoining property;

ii)a court has given us possession by ending your tenancy; or

iii) you have ceased to use your home as your only or principal home and we have given you four weeks notice to end your tenancy and that notice has expired"

To me this seems to confirm I have the right to peaceful enjoyment which PCM UK are intruding upon.

"Other Parties

Nothing in this Agreement shall give to any other person any benefit or the right to enforce

any term of this Agreement and you and us may vary or cancel this Agreement without

being required to obtain the consent of any other person."

This to me supports that third parties like PCM UK should not be messing me about in relation to parking which as below states:

"Parking

You or anyone living with you and any visitors must not block the local roadways and other

vehicular or pedestrian accesses. You and they must keep such accesses and car parking

spaces clear of unroadworthy or untaxed vehicles and other obstructions. One private

motor car or light van used solely for private purposes may be parked on the allocated car

parking space. Any other vehicle, including a caravan, trailer or boat requires our prior

written approval. Vehicles must not be parked or driven over any grassed or landscaped

area."

As you can probably tell this is something of a generic template, but my flat was no. 3 and I was allocated space number 3. There is no mention here or anywhere else in the agreement about permits, parking management, charges etc.

So to me this establishes Primacy of Contract.

There is a section regarding services as per follows which  does allow some conditional changes to the TA:

"Services

The services we provide are set out in this Agreement.

The services can be increased, decreased, added to or removed either:

a) By written agreement between you and us; or

b) By us, after we have:

(i) written to you setting out the changes we wish to make to the services;

(ii) given you a reasonable period of time to make written representations to us about the changes;

(iii) considered any written representations made by you; and

 (iv) sent a notice of variation to you setting out the changes we are making to

the services and stating the date on which the services ("the reviewed

services") will take effect. The reviewed services shall not take effect until

at least 28 days after the notice of variation is sent."

From what I honestly recall, none of process "b" happened on the HA's part, we were simply sent a letter with a permit and instructed to use them so I expect this to hold very little weight in PCM UK's favour. If at the time process b happened I imagine after a little bit of research I would have raised an issue. Still though, let me know if this is likely to be a concern. That is all that I can see which is relevant in the TA.

For the specifics of how the PCN was applied: The permit has been shown as a courtesy (not obligation, aware I need to be clear about this) to try to make sure PCM leaves me alone. After previously using a public car park the old ticket on display obstructed the permit and in fact if you look carefully in their photo evidence you can even see the permit underneath the tickets. Rather shameless of course but what can you expect!

They also got the make of the car wrong, so maybe I should charge them £170.

Thanks for any advice you can give and let me know if you need any info from me.

B789

You've got it in one. What it DOESN'T say about needing a permit/parking is equally as important as what it does say.

You might want to check Section 37 of the Landlord & Tenants Act 1985 which covers the legal requirements if a landlord wants to vary the lease and infest the property with scammers such as these. How much are you willing to bet they didn't vary it or if they did, they didn't follow the requirements set out in that section?

Fruitcake

Your research and understanding of this is excellent. 

Do check the wording of the L & T Act as advised by B789. Ask the HA when the ballot to change your tenancy agreement occurred, and what was the result. Ask for proof that all tenants and landlords were balloted in accordance with the Act before the PPC was inflicted on residents.
Remind them that they are jointly and severally liable for the actions of their agents and will be required to attend court to provide the above proof.
Ask them for the details of their legal representatives, the names of HA members who will be attending the hearing, and ask that they provide dates when they will not be available to attend court.

No longer being a resident is irrelevant. Primacy of contract and your right to quiet enjoyment applied whilst you were a tenant.

Did you tell the DPO of the PPC to erase your old data and replace it with your current address for service? If not, you need to do so, and make sure you use the word erase as it has a specific meaning where personal data is concerned. You also need them to instruct all their agents of your current address, not just rely on you telling their legals.

Do complain to your MP again. This is the only way anything will ever change.

Aether

Thanks very much,

I did give the DPO my new address but did not use those specific terms so I have sent another email specifically requesting they erase the old address and replace it with my new one. I've put an alert in my phone to email the MPs office tomorrow after work and will refer to the previous complaint I made as well.

Especially thanks for the reference to the Landlord & Tenants act. I still have not received a response from any parties involved but will be contacting the HA again this coming Saturday and include the reference to that act as well as inform them of what you've highlighted in regards to their liability. The last time this occurred it was revealed that they could not "locate" a copy of the tenancy agreement on their end and the HA has changed at least 3 times since so I think the odds of them being able to provide anything remotely useful to PCM or Gladstones is even slimmer than usual.

Fruitcake

If the HA has changed, then any contract the PPC might have had with the HA in place at the time will (should) be null and void, and only a contract with the HA that was in place at the time of the alleged event will be valid.
If the current HA were not in place at the time of the alleged event, then you need to ask them for a copy of the "new" contract they made with the PPC when the current HA took over, and how the "old" contract can possibly apply retrospectively.

You should point out that any contract between two parties must comply with the Companies Act 2006 Sections 43 and/or 44. These sections are very short and worth reading. It's all about who had authority to sign/form a contract.

None of this affects primacy of contract, that is, your lease, but it's worth throwing as many obstacles as possible in front of the HA to get them to act and instruct the PPC to cancel.

Aether

Excellent thanks for your advice, it's very relevant to me right now as predictably the HA is trying to fob me off to Citizen's Advice. I will reply and point out their liability if this goes to court as well as the contents of Companies Act 2006, the Landlord & Tenants act. I will also ask them that if their final decision is to not provide assistance in resolving this, I will contact the Housing Ombudsman accordingly and that they will be expected to make an appearance if this goes to court due to their liability.

As it turns out the HA changed "once" and then basically renamed/merged multiple times after, I will ask them for the contract with the PPC anyway as it could well have been with the original HA. I will also ask them for proof of the ballot they never did as per the Landlord & Tenants act.

I've also received the documents from PCM for the SAR and I have contacted my MP

Aether

I've had a reply from the MP's office and the HA.

The MP's office stated they will take my concerns to PCM and have asked for the "evidence" PCM provided which I have replied with, I've also offerred them PDF copies of my own TA and reminded them that it has primacy of contract over any signage PCM plants.

The HA's Neighbourhood Officer has replied stating they've forwarded this to their Resolution Team who will liase with their Legal Team after I've informed them of their liability, primacy of contract, no balloting etc. I've put an alert in my phone to get in touch with the HA again if no reply by next Wednesday. I won't hold my breath but I'm hoping their Legal Team will look at the situation and go "oh no" and put the clamps on PCM.

I will let you know of any further responses or if anything new comes out of PCM/Gladstones, thanks for your help so far.

Coupon-mad

That's great progress.

Aether

Hi there,

It's been a while and have received no further letters from GS or PCM UK but have had a reply from the MP's office who seem to be taking an interest after the evidence I sent them.

After they contacted the HA, the HA replied to the MP's office that the land the parking space is on belongs to the local property developer who were the ones who hired PCM (I imagine this is why I still haven't had a response from the HA, or they've given up) , the MP's office have informed they have in turn contacted the developer in regards to their existing agreement with PCM UK but have yet to have a reply from the developer. The MP's office have reassured me they are continuing to pursue the matter and will update me in the future.

I think I might have seen issues with developers/HA/parking rights around before. I can only imagine the amount of ??? going on here would strengthen my case? The tenancy agreement makes no mention of the developers name, even states it offers no additional rights to third parties as I mentioned earlier and it doesn't seem reasonable for myself as a tenant to ensure the agreement the HA is offering is valid. I don't have a degree in land or contract law but there seems to be a conflict there, between the offer of a parking space which actually is owned by someone/something else.

I'm quite happy to wait it out for the MPs response but will update you if I receive any more letters. If you have any more advice in regards to this please do let me know. 

Thanks for the help so far!

Aether

Hi everyone,

It's been a while I've finally had an email back from gladstones:

"Good Afternoon,

Thank you for your correspondence and apologies for the delay in responding.

By way of background this charge was incurred on the *Date* at our clients site *Redacted*. Issued to the vehicle bearing the registration *Redacted*, as the vehicle parked without a permit, breaching the contractual terms and conditions of the site.

We note the content of your recent correspondence, however, our clients signage is clear in stating the contractual terms and conditions all motorist must adhere to upon entry of our clients site. Your vehicle is observed to be in breach of the stated, therefore incurring the parking charge.

Our client remains satisfied this charge was correctly issued and you are liable.

Should full payment fail to be discharged before the 22nd July 2023, our client reserves the right to issue further legal proceedings against you without further notice.

Payment can be made via bank transfer to the account detailed as follows:

Gladstones Solicitors Ltd

Barclays Bank

Account Number: 33028712

Sort Code: 20-24-09

Reference: 104356.8286

Amount Due: £170.00

Alternatively, you can make payment online at www.gladstonessolicitors.co.uk or via the automated payment line on 0333 0230 049 quoting reference 104356.8286.

You must include your reference 104356.8286 when making payment. If you fail to do so, we may be unable to allocate your payment. This may result in further costs being incurred, for which you will be liable."

Because it's been a while, to refresh anyone reading I have sent the SAR to PCM and informed gladstones of my new address and that I will not be paying etc. I have also been in touch with the MP's office who informed me of the following:

"Following on from the letter that *My MP* sent you previously regarding the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) that you received while parked at your previous property I have now received a response from *The housing developer* who own the land on which the *old address* resides on. They have stated that PCM are contracted by the Residents Management Company who are party to the lease. The intention is to ensure that residents spaces, which are granted to them under their lease, are used only by the correct residents."

I recall nothing about ever agreeing or being made aware of any decision being made by an RMC in relation to parking, I have a suspicion the developer had another nearby property make that decision, then gave permission for PCM to operate in all of the surrounding areas. I've accordingly asked the MP's office to get back in touch with the developer about this agreement and any evidence of it (At the MP's office's suggestion after my further queries, so they are being cooperative!). As covered earlier in this thread, I believe my tenancy agreement contradicts all of that and has primacy of contract, but do let me know if there are any caveats I need to be aware of.

At this stage I believe I simply sit and wait for an actual court claim to come through and keep talking with the MP's office based on what is in: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822/newbies-private-parking-ticket-old-or-new-read-these-faqs-first-thankyou#latest ? Apologies if I'm mistaken.

Thanks again!

Coupon-mad

Yes but I'd reply to Gladstones and tell them to get lost.  Seriously... be robust! And add that:

(a) your MP is taking up your complaint and

(b) you are seeking debt advice, so you require them to put the case on hold for 30 days at least, and 

(c) by that date you expect that the DLUHC will have published their Draft Impact Assessment and Public Consultation which you will be responding to, and which you anticipate will finally put the nail in the coffin of the extortion and blatant double recovery that roboclaim firms operate by adding the fake £70 'DRA fee', and

(d). You do not need their template drivel about that fake fee, thankyou very much

yours faithfully