REVIVING THE PRIVATE PARKING BILL

h2g2

Kaizen2024 said:

h2g2 said:

Kaizen2024 said:

Not at all, just anti-those that disrespect the wishes of a landowner then complain when they incur the consequences.

Just FYI I have PPC operating on land I own. 

I didn't ask for them to be there.  They were appointed by a stranger to the land who are supposed to look after the common areas of the estate (which does not include any parking).

I showed them my title deeds to the land and they insist I take it up their their principle. The IPC say they audited the site and don't want to get involved.  Their principle says they don't cancel short of a court order requiring them to.

If parking companies are there to serve the landowner's wishes, can you tell my I'm having to pay over £3500 in legal fees now to evict them from my land, even after they've seen proof I'm the legal owner? 

Or do you maybe think they only care about exploiting as much profit as possible from whatever poor sap they can on the vaguest excuse and trust that most people don't have the will or expertise to fight them?

I know nothing about your circumstances, but I am aware that some people claim to own land when in fact they lease the land.

Sometimes, not necessarily in your case, leaseholders are required to follows rules that are stipulated by the freeholder/management company; often after a vote amongst leaseholders.

Personally, I would have no issue removing your allocated bay from a permit scheme; but I would have sign(s) saying your bay was not subject to enforcement so you do not benefit from the deterrent against unauthorised parking that the scheme provides. 

You may soon change your mind though if you then can’t park in your own bay due to the unauthorised parking that gave cause to introduce the scheme.

Firstly, we have a gated area with a fob. The odd car sneaking in was occasionally a problem, but no-one ever found themselves unable to park.

Secondly, assuming I am correct (and I take this view from a solicitor who specialises in such matters) that the leasehold agreement does unambiguously make leaseholders the legal "owner or occupier" (and this is what my solicitor argues in our particulars of claim against the PPC) what would the appropriate outcome for the PPC be, in your view? Lifetime expulsion from the DVLA database for all the directors? The IPC have also got access to this evidence and refuse to accept there is anything wrong with their member's actions. Would it be reasonable to revoke their ATA status if they are supporting PPCs who flagrantly flout POFA2012?

zapoi

h2g2 said:

Kaizen2024 said:

Not at all, just anti-those that disrespect the wishes of a landowner then complain when they incur the consequences.

Just FYI I have PPC operating on land I own. 

I didn't ask for them to be there.  They were appointed by a stranger to the land who are supposed to look after the common areas of the estate (which does not include any parking).

I showed them my title deeds to the land and they insist I take it up their their principle. The IPC say they audited the site and don't want to get involved.  Their principle says they don't cancel short of a court order requiring them to.

If parking companies are there to serve the landowner's wishes, can you tell my I'm having to pay over £3500 in legal fees now to evict them from my land, even after they've seen proof I'm the legal owner? 

Or do you maybe think they only care about exploiting as much profit as possible from whatever poor sap they can on the vaguest excuse and trust that most people don't have the will or expertise to fight them?

I had a similar situation, the directors of the freehold company of which I am a shareholder appointed a PPC in the gated estate.
It was a change in terms of the lease as they said we needed to display permits, such a change requires the 75% of leaseholders to agree with no more that 10% objecting.  In our case with 21 flats I only needed 3 signatures to have the PPC removed.  Here is a snippet of the letter that I get signed and sent to the managing agent and directors.

Legal Position - Derogation from Grant and Breach of L&T Act 1987:

Your actions in imposing this parking scheme represent a derogation from grant and a breach of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. The clause in our lease (7(b)) explicitly states: "To keep use and occupy the parking space for the parking of one private motor vehicle only and for no other purpose". Imposing additional restrictions or charges through NPC is inconsistent with these terms and is, therefore, unlawful.

Critical Point on Leaseholder Consent:

It is imperative to highlight that as per Section 37 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, for any variation in the terms of our leases to be valid, it requires the approval of at least 75% of the leaseholders. Importantly, if even 10% of leaseholders object, such a variation cannot proceed. In our case, this means that if just 3 leaseholders out of the total of 21 in our block object, the variation is invalid. We want to make it unequivocally clear that we have more than the necessary 10% of leaseholder objection to prevent the implementation of this parking scheme.

LDast

It isn't a matter of a simple vote. Under Section 37 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, a landlord can apply to vary a lease — but only in certain circumstances and following a formal procedure involving the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (FTT).

The landlord must obtain written consent from at least 75% of the tenants and ensure that no more than 10% of the tenants have objected. They then need to prepare a clear draft of the proposed lease variation, apply to the First-tier Tribunal for an order authorising the variation and then serve notice on all affected tenants informing them of the application.

The Tribunal will then review whether the statutory thresholds (75% consent, less than 10% objection) are met. Then they will consider whether the proposed variation is reasonable and justified, and if satisfied, the Tribunal will issue an order that the leases are to be varied in the manner proposed (or as modified by the Tribunal if necessary).

If the percentages are not met, the landlord cannot use Section 37 and would either need unanimous consent or to apply under different powers (such as Section 35 if the lease is defective).

You can bet that in over 99% of the residential parking cases we see here, no lease variation has been conducted according to the legislation.

Nellymoser

Kaizen2024 said:

Tons of the articles will be complaints that have no merit i.e ‘poor me’ stories. The BPA may wish to demonstrate that the majority of them were issued fair and square.

This is one of the major problems with your industry and we must keep bringing it to Govt attention. Continually claiming motorists complaints have no merit. Even when evidence is provided it is ignored or some fabricated reason is churned out to dismiss it. (God I had some crackers from BPA AOS team). The 'admin/technical errors' excuse is frequently used somewhat embarrassing when your industry's business is to charge the 'poor me' motorists £100+ for alleged errors!!!

Kaizen2024 said:

Not at all, just anti-those that disrespect the wishes of a landowner then complain when they incur the consequences.

Thats the reason we should be contacting the landowner...it's their wishes.
You seem to disrespect the wishes of landowners when they want a customer's pcn cancelled. A few days ago you said 'the landowner was the weakest link (it's very easy to give away someone else's revenue).' ??

And it's also very easy for PPCs to deprive the landowner of their parking tariffs and/or on-site businesses of customers. Bad practices,  unworkable payment systems and pcns will stop customers returning to the landowner's car park and businesses.


I wholeheartedly agree with what C-mad said 'And if your 'parking management' worked, it would have almost eradicated the problem by now, not exploded to £2 billion+ profits.' 

Your industry cannot get away from the fact you've failed year on year to reduce pcn numbers, your management has allowed the figures to keep increasing. Your inability to even see this shows you need replaced not regulation.

kryten3000

Nellymoser said:

Kaizen2024 said:

Tons of the articles will be complaints that have no merit i.e ‘poor me’ stories. The BPA may wish to demonstrate that the majority of them were issued fair and square.

This is one of the major problems with your industry and we must keep bringing it to Govt attention. Continually claiming motorists complaints have no merit. Even when evidence is provided it is ignored or some fabricated reason is churned out to dismiss it. (God I had some crackers from BPA AOS team). The 'admin/technical errors' excuse is frequently used somewhat embarrassing when your industry's business is to charge the 'poor me' motorists £100+ for alleged errors!!!

Why be content with £5 income from a few hours parking when you can find some minor fault with the parking session and issue a £100 charge notice (with no reduction of the tariff paid)?  Even reducing this to £20 for a "major keying error" or omission to display a blue badge or permit is a lot more than the supposed "admin" that is required.

Minor keying errors should not result in a PCN being issued at all.
Retrospective proof of blue badge/permit eligibility should result in cancellation in full.
Major keying errors should result in a reasonable admin charge of no more than £10.
Electronic tablets should issue proper receipts.
ANPR cameras should be linked to tablets and/or payment machines making it impossible to pay for the wrong vehicle.
Payment machines should confirm the VRM before printing or better yet stop asking for the VRM at all, it's not necessary in most locations.
"No return within" terms should be restricted to a maximum 1 hour period and only apply if a vehicle parks for the maximum time and returns within that period, not if the driver exits after 10 minutes, returns and parks for the remainder of the maximum stay period.
I could go on.

Some of the above would be avoided with the "manual checks" that companies are supposed to carry out but plainly don't.

But none of the above makes sufficient profit for the greedy parking companies does it?

Kaizen2024 said:

Not at all, just anti-those that disrespect the wishes of a landowner then complain when they incur the consequences.

Thats the reason we should be contacting the landowner...it's their wishes.
You seem to disrespect the wishes of landowners when they want a customer's pcn cancelled. A few days ago you said 'the landowner was the weakest link (it's very easy to give away someone else's revenue).' ??

And it's also very easy for PPCs to deprive the landowner of their parking tariffs and/or on-site businesses of customers. Bad practices,  unworkable payment systems and pcns will stop customers returning to the landowner's car park and businesses.


I wholeheartedly agree with what C-mad said 'And if your 'parking management' worked, it would have almost eradicated the problem by now, not exploded to £2 billion+ profits.' 

Your industry cannot get away from the fact you've failed year on year to reduce pcn numbers, your management has allowed the figures to keep increasing. Your inability to even see this shows you need replaced not regulation.

The landowner should have the absolute right to decide who parks on their land but should also have the absolute right to cancel any charges issued by their agent who, at the end of the day is working for the landowner.

Properly run, effective parking management deals with the issue without affecting the genuine resident, customer or other user of the parking facilities, but all too often we see companies attempting to maintain their revenue by targeting the same people that the "management" is supposedly there to assist.

Car1980

Sounds like it's squeaky bum time in BPA towers. 

Coupon-mad

Car1980 said:

Sounds like it's squeaky bum time in BPA towers. 

I'm hopeful the backbench debate (90 minutes) will tear the industry a new one.

The conduct is noticeably worse since the Joint Code. And MPs know this, I hope.

Nellymoser

Martin Wrigley MP certainly seems to know it.

He's tabled many written questions to MHCLG not only on Govt CoP/regulation/appeals service but probing questions about MHCLG meetings with stakeholders. And he's thrown in few to DfT on the DVLA.

The Minister's 'in due course' reply is still churned out but some replies are a bit more informative. Sadly the MfT was well of the mark stating in her reply that "The DVLA monitors complaints and takes appropriate action, particularly where issues with operators or specific car parks appear to be recurrent." 🤥

The only thing DVLA monitors is revenue raised from selling our data.

Shocking how uninformed Ministers are.

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions?SearchTerm="Private+parking"&DateFrom=09/07/2024&DateTo=22/07/2025&AnsweredFrom=&AnsweredTo=&House=Commons&Answered=Any&Expanded=True

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions?SearchTerm="DVLA"&DateFrom=09/07/2024&DateTo=22/07/2025&AnsweredFrom=&AnsweredTo=&House=Bicameral&MemberId=5111&Answered=Any&AnsweringBodyId=27&Expanded=True

patient_dream

The BPA is a very dangerous organisation and NOT in the interests of the public.  Government must consider replacing them urgently. We cannot have such a membership club which is run by money scammers

The IPC should be terninated as a ATA  FOR THE SAME REASON PLUS WE DO NOT NEED TWO ATA's 

ChirpyChicken

Kaizen2024 said:

Not at all, just anti-those that disrespect the wishes of a landowner then complain when they incur the consequences.

Odd that, you seem to be all on the side of the landowner but you along with the industry have a real issue with people approaching landowners to instruct parking firms to cancel pcns