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

Fruitcake

It's not a case of whether or not a ballot took place. It is that an application to vary the lease must be made in accordance with the Act, and there must be a majority of greater than 75% of landlords and tenants combined for the variation, with no greater than 10% of landlords and tenants combined objecting.
Whilst the end result would be the same, it isn't that a ballot takes place, it is that every landlord and tenant must be individually consulted.

In your case, no such application nor consultation occurred, therefore the lease was never varied, therefore the (terms of) original lease as agreed still stands. 


You just need to state the PPC is not the landowner, and does not have a contract with or flowing from the landowner, but you and all the other residents do, and that contract (your lease) has not been varied because no application to vary your lease was made nor approved in accordance with the Act.

PoPLA are unlikely to consider the L & T Act, but must consider the lack of contract.

Umkomaas

POPLA won't get dragged into property legal issues. Just use the template points from the NEWBIES FAQ Announcement, third post, including (as listed by forum stalwart @Fruitcake):

1) Non-PoFA compliant NTK/NTH (if appropriate)
2) Not the driver/not the person who may be liable for the charge (if non-PoFA)
3) Not the landowner/ No landowner contract
4) No standing to issue charges in their own name
5) Inadequate signage
6) BPA CoP failures (if appropriate)

A detailed POPLA appeal can often cause a PPC to withdraw, but even if POPLA find against you, there's no requirement for you to pay. Only a judge can order you to pay, and if it gets to a court claim, a judge will be the most appropriate person to which property legal points can be made. 

Coupon-mad

POPLA will not consider property law.  The Assessors are nail technicians, wannabe authors and other 'twelve year olds' in their first job.  No legal assessment takes place.

Why are you trying POPLA? I tell my relatives not to. Your position is better under the radar.

FUDbyDesign

Coupon-mad said:

POPLA will not consider property law.  The Assessors are nail technicians, wannabe authors and other 'twelve year olds' in their first job.  No legal assessment takes place.

Why are you trying POPLA? I tell my relatives not to. Your position is better under the radar.

@Coupon-mad Thanks. If it's better to just stay completely shtum and let CCPC figure out the next move, I'm fine with that. My thought process was, since the leasehold hasn't been updated to reflect the use of a PPC, then there is no legal basis on which the PPC can issue PCNs to residents. I thought that would be something POPLA would adjudicate on, but perhaps I'm mistaken. 

Fruitcake

None of this means you should not fight the property owner/landlord(s) and the MA, both of whom are responsible for the actions of sub-contractors operating at the site.
It is to them whom you and your neighbours should be directing your ire regarding your breach of your right to quiet enjoyment and derogation of grant regarding your original and still existing lease.

I do wonder in cases where there is an MA operating if the landowner is actually aware of what is happening on their land, and that they are jointly liable for the actions of subbies operating there.

Coupon-mad

POPLA will look at simple evidence only:

-  signs

-  a landowner authority document

-  the PCN and NTK.

They will not consider anything property related.  But a court would.

FUDbyDesign

Fruitcake said:

None of this means you should not fight the property owner/landlord(s) and the MA, both of whom are responsible for the actions of sub-contractors operating at the site.
It is to them whom you and your neighbours should be directing your ire regarding your breach of your right to quiet enjoyment and derogation of grant regarding your original and still existing lease.

I do wonder in cases where there is an MA operating if the landowner is actually aware of what is happening on their land, and that they are jointly liable for the actions of subbies operating there.

@Fruitcake Thanks. This is a share-of-freehold block so collectively all 30 leaseholders are the landowners. MA is just a local estate agent which has been appointed to manage the affairs of the legal entity. They've gone rogue in this instance and I agree I need to push back - which I am doing. I'm also looking at proposing we switch to another MA as quite a few of us are generally not satisfied with the level of service we're getting from the current bunch. Bringing it back in-house is also an option but I don't think there's much of an appetite for that.

Coupon-mad

Good.

Sounds like you should appoint a new MA and put it in writing that they do not have any remit to ever appoint nor contract with a private parking operator nor any firm imposing contractual terms on residents (parking, littering, any camera surveillance, a permit scheme to use your own loo - whatever - none is allowed).

More residents should insist on this, up and down the Country this sort of regime should be banned.  If the estate needs a gate, sobeit.  But not a PPC.

FUDbyDesign

So I have finally(?) received a "Letter Before Action (LBA)" from the "Collections Manager" of Debt Collection Bailiffs Ltd (DCBL). The other one is no doubt on its way. Evidently these people love their acronyms as much as they enjoy hassassing people. Anyway they've upped the amount to £170 now, payable within 14 days, and there's some blurb about a UK Supreme Court ruling form 2015. 

Out of curiosity, has anyone heard of Capital Car Park Control actually having taken someone to court and won?  

By the way, I've got nowhere with the building management company - I've instructed them to cancel these PCNs a number of times but they are just refusing to engage. Honestly, I think they know they screwed up but refuse to admit it.

Fruitcake

Debt collectors are powerless and can safely be ignored.

Remind the MA that they are jointly responsible for the actions of their agents, the PPC, and they will be joined in any legal action should the PPC take you and any other residents to court.
Have you read up on the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 for the requirements that must be made for an application to vary a lease to be made? Part IV Section 37 applies. Note that application must be put to all landlords and tenants.

Apathy amongst other residents is your worst enemy. They need cajoling and having things spelled out to them about the likelihood of them being taken to court as well, and that the values of their properties will be devalued by the infestation of this or any parking company.

Have you and any other of the like minded residents thought about forming a fightback group? Some residents have used leaflet drops and Facebook groups to do this with some success.