PCN from PPM at rental residence

Coupon-mad

square_coaster said:

Iceweasel said:

I see nothing in your lease about having to display a permit.

This much is true, @Iceweasel, however I'm not sure how much help that will offer in my defence, given that the parking is operated by PPM 

Eh?  It's the MAIN thrust of a residential case defence!  Of course what is in your lease or AST matters more than a third party scam operation.

You seem to be giving PPM a little too much respect. Read this:
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/residential-parking.html?m=1

You have primacy of contract.

Nellymoser

In the NEWBIES Announcement there's a link to a thread with pictures of parking firms NTK. To check if yours is POFA NTK or Non-POFA compare the wording on yours to the wording on the ones in this thread. 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6483542/a-thread-of-pictures-of-2023-parking-firm-ntks/p1

square_coaster

KeithP said:

It probably will be, but a claim hasn't yet been issued, has it?

The latest correspondence I have with bwlegal is a "Letter of Claim" dated on the 4th of September - that counts as a claim, right?

fisherjim

square_coaster said:

Iceweasel said:

I see nothing in your lease about having to display a permit.

This much is true, @Iceweasel, however I'm not sure how much help that will offer in my defence, given that the parking is operated by PPM 

Because a private parking company has come in and started operating free of charge to the landowner, trying to state that their made up signage can trump a residents lease agreement.

They should by the spirit of their ATA's COP and the PoFA accept your appeal as a resident and cancel the charge, but because they are nothing but greed infested vermin they won't.

As your lease agreement does not mention their presence, or their permits, or their charges you have no requirement to follow their demands just because they put up any old scammers signage they think fit.

Coupon-mad

square_coaster said:

KeithP said:

It probably will be, but a claim hasn't yet been issued, has it?

The latest correspondence I have with bwlegal is a "Letter of Claim" dated on the 4th of September - that counts as a claim, right?

Wrong.    

square_coaster

Nellymoser said:

In the NEWBIES Announcement there's a link to a thread with pictures of parking firms NTK. To check if yours is POFA NTK or Non-POFA compare the wording on yours to the wording on the ones in this thread. 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6483542/a-thread-of-pictures-of-2023-parking-firm-ntks/p1

Thanks @Nellymoser I have since checked and can tell that my NTK is PoFA compliant - I have also added the images to that thread as examples for Parking & Property Management LTD weren't shown on the initial post, so I hope that helps for future forumites.

square_coaster

Coupon-mad said:

Eh?  It's the MAIN thrust of a residential case defence!  Of course what is in your lease or AST matters more than a third party scam operation.

You seem to be giving PPM a little too much respect. Read this:
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/residential-parking.html?m=1

You have primacy of contract.

fisherjim said:

As your lease agreement does not mention their presence, or their permits, or their charges you have no requirement to follow their demands just because they put up any old scammers signage they think fit.

Morning both - I have since screwed my head on correctly and understand that indeed this is a very strong basis for defence, should it come to that. I have again pursued my landlady out of curiosity of what her ownership contract states in terms of permissive use of the parking area. Irrespective of that, my tenancy agreement (as shown earlier) makes no mention of permits, working in my favour.

Looking ahead at my next steps, I'm aware that given P&PM's membership to the IPC, appealing to the IAS is unlikely to achieve much (not that I'm within the time window for that anyway). However, in considering this pursuit, I noticed that their initial appeal rejection omitted any IAS or POPLA code with which to head down that route anyway. With that in mind, I have raised a complaint to the DVLA per the guidance of the Newbie thread post 5 - I don't imagine this will amount to much, but will hopefully serve to reinforce the bloat that P&PM have to deal with.

Coupon-mad said:

Wrong.    

As my current Letter of Claim from BW Legal is not a claim in and of itself, am I correct in thinking that I do not yet have an Acknowledgement of Service to complete? Instead, unless I am wrong again, I will need to contact BW Legal's solicitors, given the issuance of this Letter of Claim. From searching on the forum, I have found a slew of emails for them, but I'm unsure which one is currently live: 

• disputeresolution@bwlegal.co.uk
• parking@bwlegal.co.uk
• complaints@bwlegal.co.uk

I'm happy to knock something together based on the template in the Newbies thread, adding in mentions of the residential circumstances (mostly citing Parking Prankster's commentary) as well as other forum member points of key-fob entry. If anyone knows which email is best, please do mention - if not, I'll formulate an email and send it to all of them.

Many thanks again.

1505grandad

Opening post:-

"My partner owns the car we use, with me being an additional driver listed on the insurance."

In post above:-

"As my current Letter of Claim from BW Legal is not a claim in and of itself, am I correct in thinking that I do not yet have an Acknowledgement of Service to complete?"

Just checking  -  who is the letter addressed to?  -  if all remains the same the claim form AoS will have to be submitted by the named Defendant  -  your partner?

square_coaster

Yes good point @1505grandad, my partner is the Registered Keeper and the subject that the letters are addressed to.

To clarify however, she will not need to complete the AoS at this stage?

KeithP

square_coaster said:

As my current Letter of Claim from BW Legal is not a claim in and of itself, am I correct in thinking that I do not yet have an Acknowledgement of Service to complete?

That's correct.
Clearly you cannot acknowledge service of something that hasn't been served.