I received Multiple Tickets from Parking & Property Management LTD on my own parking spot.

ItayD

Coupon-mad said:

The IAS Assessor was talking out of their bum!  Permit schemes do not mean you have "waived your resident's rights". How dare an IAS Assessor (non-impartial, anonymous) newly qualified 'legal' oik suggest that!

Jeez, the IAS gets worse...

Such a massively onerous interference with lease rights and easements would be an unfair term (Consumer Rights Act 2015) and would be unenforceable.

Please show the full IAS assessment as I want to use it as evidence for the MHCLG.

I really hope you have rejected the permit scheme completely now.  You are paying for exclusive use of that bay!  You don't let a third party operate a commercial car park offer at £100 per day allowing all-comers to use your bay that you enjoy an exclusive right to use.

(Note that on this appeal I've attached the lease contract between the landlord and myself where it says:

"

1. The Landlord agrees to let to the Tenant, and the Tenant agrees to take a tenancy of the flat, known as and forming <Address>, London <PostCode> (the "Property"), for use as residential premises only. The Flat is rented as fully furnished and includes full kitchen appliances. Additionally, the rental includes a private parking space at bay <Parking Bay number> in the building's parking area.

   
   

   "

When writing: "Please show the full IAS assessment as I want to use it as evidence for the MHCLG."

Will this do?

IAS Appeal decision:

The Appellant should understand that the Adjudicator is not in a position to give legal advice to either of the parties but they are entitled to seek their own independent legal advice. The Adjudicator's role is to consider whether or not the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each individual case. In all Appeals the Adjudicator is bound by the relevant law applicable at the time and is only able to consider legal challenges and not factual mistakes nor extenuating or mitigating circumstances. Throughout this appeal the Operator has had the opportunity consider all points raised and could have conceded the appeal at any stage. The Adjudicator who deals with this Appeal is legally qualified and each case is dealt with according to their understanding of the law as it applies and the legal principles involved. A decision by an Adjudicator is not legally binding on an Appellant who is entitled to seek their own legal advice if they so wish.

I have previously determined the Appellant's appeal against PCN no. 106 and PCN no.106. Whilst each appeal is determined on its own merits, the Appellant appeals this PCN on the same basis as the aforementioned PCNs. Therefore my considerations are largely the same.

I am satisfied that the Appellant was parked in an area where the Operator has authority to issue Parking Charge Notices and to take the necessary steps to enforce them.

Images, including a site map have been provided to me by the Operator which shows the signage displayed on this site. After viewing those images I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to have brought to the attention of the Appellant the terms and conditions that apply to parking on this site.

The terms and conditions of parking at this location are such that drivers must fully display a valid permit in their vehicle which entitles them. In the photographs provided to me it is clear that no such permit was displayed. It is the driver's responsibility to ensure that they display a valid permit and otherwise conform with the terms and conditions of the Operator's signage displayed at this site. Whilst I appreciate the circumstances raised by the Appellant, this is not a valid defence. Mitigating/extenuating circumstances cannot be taken into account.

The Appellant claims to have rights under their lease. Even if the Appellant does have an unrestricted right to park in their contract/lease, I am unable to allow the appeal on this basis. The Appellant is correct that a right in a lease would ordinarily have primacy, and the Operator could not unilaterally override this. however, by agreeing to display a permit, and take part in the car park management scheme, the Appellant has waived any rights they had to park without restriction. The Appellant cannot take advantage of the scheme when it benefits them and disregard it when it does not. As a genuine permit holder the Appellant has my sympathy, but the guidance to appeal is clear that I may only consider legal issues not mitigating or extenuating circumstances. As such, on the basis of the evidence provided I am satisfied that the Appellant was parked in breach of the displayed terms and conditions and that the PCN was correctly issued on this occasion.

I have considered all the issues raised by both parties in this Appeal and I am satisfied that the Operator has established that the Parking Charge Notice was properly issued in accordance with the law and therefore this Appeal is dismissed.


I assume they might send a letter of claim.

Is there a recommended process I should follow? what to respond to and what not?

I am willing to spend the time and take those nasty people to court even if it cost me more eventually.

Le_Kirk

I think that @Coupon-mad would want to see the original letter or email as she wants to show it to MHCLG and, in its current form, anyone could have written that!

Coupon-mad

Screenshot of the decision would be ideal, thankyou.

And yes, the NEWBIES thread second post tells you at what stage to respond and how to defend a court claim, which is proper dispute resolution at no cost to you.

fisherjim

The Appellant should understand that the Adjudicator is not in a position to give legal advice

The dimwit then goes on to try to give legal advice:

.... by agreeing to display a permit, and take part in the car park management scheme, the Appellant has waived any rights they had to park without restriction

My answer to that gibberish would be that you were trying to be helpful to the parking company only, not complying with their made up scheme to target residents.

ItayD

fisherjim said:

The Appellant should understand that the Adjudicator is not in a position to give legal advice

The dimwit then goes on to try to give legal advice:

.... by agreeing to display a permit, and take part in the car park management scheme, the Appellant has waived any rights they had to park without restriction

My answer to that gibberish would be that you were trying to be helpful to the parking company only, not complying with their made up scheme to target residents.

Was thinking to write this to this BW legal thieves:

In reference to your recent letter, I note your statement:
"... by agreeing to display a permit and taking part in the car park management scheme, the Appellant has waived any rights they had to park without restriction."

To clarify, displaying a permit was intended purely as a courtesy to assist the parking company, not as acceptance of any terms or policies beyond my rights as a resident. I do not recognize the legitimacy of this scheme, which appears to unfairly target residents without valid grounds.

I will be seeking legal advice on this matter. Please also inform your client that, should they choose to proceed with court action, I intend to seek compensation for all time spent on this case, including my appearance in court.

Coupon-mad

I will be seeking legal advice on this matter.

You won't, so don't say that.

And recognise doesn't have a 'z'.

Coupon-mad

I think this 'landmark' case could also be useful to you. I found it yesterday when randomly Googling to read about Newman v Jones (an unreported case).

DUCHESS OF BEDFORD HOUSE RTM COMPANY LIMITED & ORS V CAMPDEN HILL GATE LTD [2023] EWCA Civ 1470

It reaffirms residential parking rights using not only a fair interpretation of the lease but also section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

It's a Court of Appeal authority (the Supreme Court refused an application to appeal it):

https://www.edwincoe.com/blogs/main/the-supreme-court-has-effectively-confirmed-the-approach-of-the-court-of-appeal-in-applying-the-rule-in-newman-v-jones-and-on-how-to-interpret-lease-clauses/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/6576d76952aae60ac079d0bd?utm_source=amp&target=amp_jtext

That case reaffirmed leaseholders' rights under section 62 to use 'first come first served' bays in a car parking area at their estate:

"The residents of Duchess of Bedford House are relieved and delighted at this decision. After having had their right to park restricted by parking tickets and even clamping for periods over the last 30 years, they can park in the road outside their flats with full confidence in their right to do so."

Even Shakespeare Martineau blogged about it:

https://www.shma.co.uk/our-thoughts/duchess-of-bedford-house-case-have-we-gone-parking-mad/

Coupon-mad

ItayD said:

fisherjim said:

The Appellant should understand that the Adjudicator is not in a position to give legal advice

The dimwit then goes on to try to give legal advice:

.... by agreeing to display a permit, and take part in the car park management scheme, the Appellant has waived any rights they had to park without restriction

My answer to that gibberish would be that you were trying to be helpful to the parking company only, not complying with their made up scheme to target residents.

Was thinking to write this to this BW legal thieves:

In reference to your recent letter, I note your statement:
"... by agreeing to display a permit and taking part in the car park management scheme, the Appellant has waived any rights they had to park without restriction."

To clarify, displaying a permit was intended purely as a courtesy to assist the parking company, not as acceptance of any terms or policies beyond my rights as a resident. I do not recognise the legitimacy of this scheme, which appears to unfairly target residents without valid grounds.

What happened in the end?