Help With Flashpark PCN Please

Coupon-mad

POPLA is offered. If I would likely lose at POPLA then would the chances be of winning in court?

They are entirely unrelated.

Chalk and cheese.

Chances of a win at POPLA is 50/50 at best - but less in your case, because there's nothing the (non-legally minded and non-independent) POPLA will say is a reason to cancel.

Whereas we see 99% wins reported in court cases when well defended here.  And Flashpark don't sue people anyway.

That's why I say that one option is ignoring them and concentrating on getting their little scheme removed.

Another option is surely thinking about offering the Director the £15 that it will cost to get this PCN cancelled under the landowner agreement.

Apollo18

Thank you so much Half-way for such a detailed reply. It's much appreciated.

I have attempted to address your questions below:

1. The land is co-owned by the owners/freeholders of the houses built on it's perimeter and each has an equal share.
2. Each owner is a member of the Residents' Company set up to manage the communal land. Some of the owners have been appointed as directors.
3. The company was formed around half a century ago when the houses were being built.
4. The land (other than the land the houses are built on) is communal and includes a road, paths and garden and each member has an equal right to use the land.
5. The directors of the Residents' Company manage the communal land (e.g. gardening, cleaning, maintenance, etc.) and do the book keeping, submit company forms and issue and collect the service charge. This is done on a voluntary basis.
6. As far as I remember, they contracted a parking company previously around 2015 but they hardly ever turned up to the site to be useful (as it was not lucrative for the parking company). They started using parking permits around that time.
7. I do not remember there was ever a ballot of residents in regards to introducing the permit scheme. I believe it was just a suggestion but there was possibly a show of hands (I am fairly sure names in favour were not recorded).

fisherjim

Apollo18 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Are they even still BPA?  Thought they might now be IPC.

It seems so, they are listed as a member on the BPA (as Vehicle Control Solutions), although there is no mention of the BPA on their NTK (although it does mention that the case can be taken to POPLA if they reject the appeal).

They are a member of the BPA and Vehicle Control Solutions is their alter ego:

https://flashpark.co.uk/default.aspx

Apollo18

Coupon-mad said:

POPLA is offered. If I would likely lose at POPLA then would the chances be of winning in court?

Whereas we see 99% wins reported in court cases when well defended here.  And Flashpark don't sue people anyway.

That's why I say that one option is ignoring them and concentrating on getting their little scheme removed.

Thanks Coupon-mad, that’s reassuring to know should the case proceed to court. 

pinkelephant12

I own a freehold house on an estate with a similar set-up. The parking company was eventually removed but my MP is still helping me to deal with the repercussions 3 years later.

I regret not taking more robust action sooner when directors began to exceed their powers. 

In your position, I would do the following:

1. No more informal chats with directors.

2. Send a formal letter to the residential property management company’s registered address (as listed at Companies House) asking what provision they are relying on which they believe gives them the power to require you or your tenant to pay a third party for a right you already have.  Make it clear that you do not believe they have that right and put them to strict proof that it exists.

In my case, the residential property management company was a party to the Transfer which contained no such right.

3. Remind them that they are jointly and severally liable for any wrong doing by their contractor.

4. Make it clear that if they cannot prove they have the right to do this and the parking ticket is not cancelled immediately, you will assist your tenant in bringing legal proceedings for breaches of data protection law.  

5. They should notify their insurers of this potential claim immediately in accordance with the terms of their insurance policy.

6. You could also ask why no 'whitelist' exists for the convenience of residents.  Physical permits are very outdated now.

Apollo18

Thank you so much for that helpful information pinkelephant12

Looking at the Memorandum of Association that were written when the company was incorporated, I can see two points which may relate to giving power to contract parking contractors:

"The objects for which the Company is established are:

1. To assume liability and responsibility for carrying out obligations in relation to the Amenity Land and to the persons entitled to the use thereof (being the owners or occupiers for the time being of the dwelling-houses and garages intended to be erected on XXX) on such terms as may be thought expedient.
2. To make regulations for the use of Amenity Land by owners and occupiers of XXX, their families, servants and friends."

Any views on whether this would give the directors of the Company the power to insist on the use of parking permits and/or a PPC?

KeithP

Apollo18 said:

Thank you so much for that helpful information pinkelephant12

Looking at the Memorandum of Association that were written when the company was incorporated, I can see two points which may relate to giving power to contract parking contractors:

<<<snip>>>

I could set up a company with the objective of selling Buckingham Palace but I am pretty sure that doesn't give me the right to do that.

So they have objectives, but do they have the rights to be able to meet those objectives? I suspect not.

Coupon-mad

They can bring in reasonable regulations but your point is that this regime operates unreasonably, as it is penalising genuine residents yet there is a £15 PCN cancellation clause that ISN'T being offered or even mentioned, when it could easily resolve disputes and avoid stressful court claims against residents.  It is wholly unreasonable to withhold that option.

Worse than that, the regime itself operates against the prior rights of leaseholders' leases and attempts to offer parking at a daily £100 cost, overriding rights that probably already exist in your lease... 

fisherjim

Flashpark are a cheap end fly by night company that have hit on an internet based parking ticket scam with maximum return for very little outlay, I doubt they would want their scheme outing in court.

They don't even visit sites, the signage is posted out and the self ticketing operation is done by a web portal.

I am surprised that they are allowed to get away with it by the BPA (or maybe I'm not).

In my view they contravene so may principals of the BPA COP.

Where are the site audits

Where are the self ticketing training records.

Where are the registration details of all the self ticketers.

Do the self ticketing agents get a back hander it is stickily forbidden.

If this went to POPLA I would ask them to produce their site audits and training records required by the BPA COP.

5.4 Self-ticketers must be registered with the BPA before
they are able to issue a Parking Charge or their operator
can request keeper data relating to a parking incident.

15.5 All operators offering self-ticketing will be required
to register the organisations that they look after with
the BPA and supply photographs of the locations that
they manage, showing the signage in place within their
registration documentation.
15.6 All self-ticketing sites should be visited by the operator
prior to any enforcement action being taken, unless there
is an exemption by the ATA.

15.8 The practice of offering financial incentives relating to the
quantity of parking charge notices directly to the person
who issues a parking charge notice or gathers evidence
for one, in a self ticketing or similar arrangement is
prohibited.
15.9 Operators are required to ensure that the self-ticketing
organisations that they have responsibility for, undertake
appropriate training.

Mouse007

I think your right is an easement. You as the owner and your tenant as the resident have the right to use the Amenity Land.

The company was formed 50 years ago and then for 42 years you and previous owners enjoyed continuous unrestricted and unconditional access and use. That is well in excess of 20 years required by the Prescription Act 1832.

Threaten to sue the Management Company for Derogation from Grant and tell the director he needs to get urgent legal advice if he does not understand what that means.

https://emgsolicitors.com/relocation-parking-spaces-amounted-derogation/

https://www.christophercant.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Dont-mess-with-parking-rights-Corporate-Briefing-–-September-2012.pdf

https://cms-lawnow.com/en/ealerts/2001/01/interference-with-parking-rights