We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Multiple tickets from PCM over several months for my own leasehold space and car.
Options
Comments
-
My successful case from 2019 where the permit was in a side window:
UK CAR PARK MANAGEMENT LIMITED v MISS GFP (September 2019) not sure if I can post the claim number.Poole, Courts Of Justice, Deansleigh Road, Bournemouth, BH7 7DS.
Before Deputy Circuit Judge Chedgey at a hearing on paper. sitting at the County Court at Bournemouth AndUpon reading the Court file.
IT IS ORDERED THAT:1. The Claimant's claim is dismissed.Reasons1. The Claimant was entitled to bring the claim.2. The Claimant has not provided the head of loss of £60 on the balance of probabilities.3. The Defendant has not indicated who any other driver of the vehicle may be.4. The Defendant displayed the permit on a side window which is not "the front wind screen" .5. The Claimant did not produce evidence which on the balance of probabilities showed the sign exhibited was subsequently displayed. It produced an un-dated sight plan and no photographs of the signs or sufficient evidence in this regard.5. The Claimant's notice to keeper did not specify the period of parking as is mandatory under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 schedule 4 part 9 (2).Always remember to abide by Space Corps Directive 39436175880932/B:
'All nations attending the conference are only allocated one parking space.'4 -
As you tried to appeal and it was like banging your head against a brick wall:Please earn yourself £60 and help regulate the parking industry. This is an official thing and MSE Towers has agreed I can share it...
Short notice but do the survey now (and then a short & friendly video call next week) to tell the Government's consultancy outsourced firm your experience of 'appealing' and being told 'tough', then getting more PCNs and being sued:URGENT - help us push the regulation of the parking industry and new appeals service over the line.
There should be appeal (ADR) available at ALL stages to keep cases out of court. Your experience would be useful for the research.I will be v grateful if people pleeease take part in the research if you have tried to appeal,
The survey should keep working during May I think, because the online research is carrying on until early June. As long as the survey works, use it and be heard by the Government.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top or bottom of any page where it says:
Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Zbubuman said:Are you able to take a photo of their signs and put it on here ? Wanna see what their terms state on displaying permits. Does it specifically state permit needs to be displayed on the windscreen, or just that you need to display a permit ( in which case you are compliant with the terms, irrelevant where it is actually stuck - Front , back , side ).
The onus is entirely on them to prove that there was no permit displayed at all.4 -
The o/p has not said this, but since lots of tenancies require a vehicle to have tax and MOT, condition may be relevant.
The o/p should check the lease and not concede anything unnecessarily that may enhance C's argument.
1 -
Thanks everyone for all the help in here.
Just an update: On Friday I had a last crack at my management company to do something. Essentially the person who deals with my area cannot do anything themselves as PCM apparently doesn't even reply to them. After I explained the outline of why and how I'll defend the court claim they said they'll move it up the chain and try to contact their lawyers directly. Not holding my breath.
I've updated my letter to the solicitor with the suggestions in the thread and will give my housing company till Tuesday afternoon to make progress, if nothing seems to be happening I'll send it off then.
@Coupon-mad I'll be sure to do that thank you, I already sent an email to BBC watchdog but I'm happy to put my experience forward if it would help. This isn't the first time I've wanted to defend myself against these companies just the first time I had confidence that I could win in court.
It's ridiculous how convoluted the appeals process is and how often these companies can mislead or outright lie and see no repercussions. I honestly think even allowing tickets to look like copies of the yellow council tickets and calling them the same PCN acronym should be illegal. You're not allowed to open businesses which could be confused as part of the government, so why can they pretend to give council issued tickets?
@Johnersh So I double checked with the housing company just to be sure, but I have no tenancy agreement, It's just the lease and it's variations. I'm not sure if the whole block has the same lease I do though. It makes no distinction from my flat and garden to the parking space. So I essentially think it falls under all the same covenants and easements as the rest of my land?
I read through and it doesn't mention 'vehicle' or anything similar once, all it does is include 'parking space x' as part of my premises. I hadn't mentioned it, but the vehicle has been registered SORN for a while. I'm not sure on the rules on that but some of the tickets were while it was still road legal so I didn't want to see if I could argue on that basis.
@kryten3000kryten3000 said:4. The Defendant displayed the permit on a side window which is not "the front wind screen" .5. The Claimant did not produce evidence which on the balance of probabilities showed the sign exhibited was subsequently displayed. It produced an un-dated sight plan and no photographs of the signs or sufficient evidence in this regard.5. The Claimant's notice to keeper did not specify the period of parking as is mandatory under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 schedule 4 part 9 (2).
2
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 350.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.5K Spending & Discounts
- 243.8K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.8K Life & Family
- 257.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards