PCN for parking on own property, from parking company contracted by building management company.

KeithP

Firstly, I would send the template appeal unchanged. 
Amongst other things it will tell the parking company that you are receiving help here.

Secondly, choose any option that doesn't include the word 'I'.
By using that word, you are telling them who was driving - not a good idea.
I would choose option B. If nothing else, it will send them scurrying off looking for an exemption list.

FUDbyDesign

KeithP said:

Firstly, I would send the template appeal unchanged. 
Amongst other things it will tell the parking company that you are receiving help here.

Secondly, choose any option that doesn't include the word 'I'.
By using that word, you are telling them who was driving - not a good idea.
I would choose option B. If nothing else, it will send them scurrying off looking for an exemption list.

Thank you, that makes sense. I have two PCNs so they'll have a bit more scurrying to do.

fisherjim

B in my opinion, they have deliberately made up that list to trap people for their own ends or to make it not fit your situation. 

FUDbyDesign

So, an update on this.  After sending countless reminders, I finally received the AGM minutes - half a year late!  Turns out only 5 of the 30 leaseholders were in attendance. No mention of a ballot; in fact the minutes only mention the follwing in relation to parking matters:

  The question of ‘Parking’ was discussed and, after discussion, it was agreed that car

  parking control measures should be put in place for the garage and visitors parking

  areas in view of the continuing abuse of the ‘Visitor’ car parking by residents etc. It was

  subsequently agreed to issue 10 scratchcards per flat initially for visitors to park on site (up

  to 24 hours).

Also I have now received a rejection letter from the PPC to my initial appeal against the first of two separate charges (for which I used the template letter in the Stickies).  They have given me until 7/5/2024 to pony up £100 or alternatively appeal to POPLA.  I was surprised by the following paragraph in their letter though:

  As the parking requirements stipulate that there is No Parking, Waiting or Stopping in this area;
  meaning that no grace period is provided. Together with the evidence collected at the time of the
  parking contraventions shows that the vehicle was stationary in an area contrary to the displayed
  terms and conditions.

Indeed, none of the evidence they've provided shows that a grace period was applied.  But isn't the grace period a legal requirement? 

Half_way

But isn't the grace period a legal requirement?

The private parking industry is unregulated, they make up their own rules to suit themselves. They could say you can only park blue cars on a Monday, red on a Tuesday, grey on a Thursday and so on if they want to

 

FUDbyDesign

Half_way said:

But isn't the grace period a legal requirement?

The private parking industry is unregulated, they make up their own rules to suit themselves. They could say you can only park blue cars on a Monday, red on a Tuesday, grey on a Thursday and so on if they want to 

Doesn't it matter that CCPC are members of the BPA, whose code of practice states under Section 13 that a grace period should be provided?  (I'm guessing the word "should" rather than "must" is key here...)

nopcns

Your lease has primacy of contract. The lease cannot be varied on a whim or by a meeting arranged for the residents/leaseholders. There is a complex legal requirement that involves a tribunal to get a variation in a lease. I would place money on the fact that the MA has not complied with the requirements of the Landlord and Tenant Act and so should nt be paying a penny to the scammers.

If the PPC is a BPA member, you should have received a POPLA code with your appeal rejection. You now need to appeal to POPLA with your main point being that your lease has primacy of contract and you are under no obligation to comply with the third party PPCs terms and conditions.

You should also inform the MA and the PPC that they should refrain from any further action on these PCNs and any future ones.

Fruitcake

The L & T Act applies to Landlords and Tenants, and they must all be consulted if an application was made to change the lease.
If there was one owner, whether an individual or a company, and 30 flats/leaseholders, then there would be a total of 31 landlords and tenants, and all must be consulted if an application to vary the lease is made.

If half the flats were individually owned and leased, and one person or company owned the remaining 15 flats, then there would be 16 landlords and 30 tenants. If an application to vary the lease was made in those circumstances, then a total of 46 landlords and tenants should have been consulted, and so on.

The questions therefore are, who owns the flats/how many landlords are there, and were they all consulted as well as all 30 leaseholders.
The numbers of those for and against must be taken from the total number of landlords and tenants, not just the number of tenants.
Does your landlord even know what is going on? 

What your lease doesn't say is just as important as what it does say. If there is no mention of a parking scheme/PPC/PCNs/paying PCNs/court, then there is no requirement for you to abide by the PPC's made up Ts and Cs unless a variation of your lease was approved as per the L & T Act. Your lease would normally have a clause about your right to quiet enjoyment as well, and being ticketed for parking in your own space/car park is a breach of that right, as is having to fight a PPC and the MA.
Look up derogation of grant. If you have a right to do something, then introducing a PPC is not offering you anything you don't already have, and making you pay for something for which you already have an unfettered right to do is taking away your existing rights.

Many people in your situation form a Fakebook or similar fightback group, do leaflet/information drops through letterboxes etcetera to to kick the PPC out, and even kick the MA out and install their won. 

Half_way

FUDbyDesign said:

Half_way said:

But isn't the grace period a legal requirement?

The private parking industry is unregulated, they make up their own rules to suit themselves. They could say you can only park blue cars on a Monday, red on a Tuesday, grey on a Thursday and so on if they want to 

Doesn't it matter that CCPC are members of the BPA, whose code of practice states under Section 13 that a grace period should be provided?  (I'm guessing the word "should" rather than "must" is key here...)

The British Parking Association limited, is a private members trade association. The purpose of a trade association is to look after its members - i.e the parking companies and  to further the aims of the parking companies.- ie more parking charge notices equals more money, keeping the government off their backs so they can continue as they are ( by kicking certain hits of proposed legislation into the long grass) and so on

 As a trade association the BPA limited, is not a regulatory body or any sort of authority, the "code of practice" is little more than lipstick on a pig, although it can be used to beat a PPC the CoP shouldn't be seen as anything other than a means to hoodwink the DVLA into allowing the PPCs access to the DVLA database.

FUDbyDesign

nopcns said:

Your lease has primacy of contract. The lease cannot be varied on a whim or by a meeting arranged for the residents/leaseholders. There is a complex legal requirement that involves a tribunal to get a variation in a lease. I would place money on the fact that the MA has not complied with the requirements of the Landlord and Tenant Act and so should nt be paying a penny to the scammers.

If the PPC is a BPA member, you should have received a POPLA code with your appeal rejection. You now need to appeal to POPLA with your main point being that your lease has primacy of contract and you are under no obligation to comply with the third party PPCs terms and conditions.

You should also inform the MA and the PPC that they should refrain from any further action on these PCNs and any future ones.

Thanks @nopcns
I have pointed out to the MA that there is no indication a ballot took place at the AGM, and that in any case this would amount to a variation on the leasehold agreement, which legally requires the consent of >70% of the leaseholders before it can be implemented.  I have also asked them to instruct the PPC to quash the two PCNs I have received. 

Regarding the POPLA appeal, I am thinking of wording it as follows:

By appointing a private parking contractor, the building management company has introduced a variation on the leasehold without first balloting and obtaining consent from a majority of leaseholders in the property. This is contrary to their obligations under the Landlord and Tenancy Act. Since the terms of the leasehold take primacy over those of any separate agreement between the building managment company and the private parking contractor, the "Terms and Conditions" imposed by the private parking contractor and any associated penalty charges cannot be considered valid.

Thought I'd keep it relatively simple.  Does that look about right?  TIA.