Cancellation from Landowner's perspective

Nellymoser

When searching for a better PPC don't just look at the company's glowing website check out their reviews eg. Google Trustpilot or do a search on here for the PPC, that should expose problems with their practice.

Coupon-mad

il--ya said:

After I sent another email to them threatening to terminate the agreement, they actually cancelled the PCNs. They also promised not to issue PCNs to vehicles with valid permits, regardless of where they are parked. However, I suspect they may have made similar promises before, which has led to this confusion.

I will now wait for the upcoming AGM, where we hope to retire the problematic director and appoint a better parking company with a new board.

I would appreciate any suggestions, although I realise this forum might not be the best place to seek recommendations for good parking companies. 😀

Beware any private message. At least one of the posters on your thread is in the parking industry (he gave away who he is this week).

DO NOT appoint any PPC. You really don't need one and they will target residents and delivery drivers, visitors, family etc.

And although the RTM is the leaseholder that quite possibly makes the RTM the 'servient owner' of land that may well be subject to an easement (allowed parking plus rights of way granted to residents).

IANAL but would suggest there is a proper consultation needed with all flat owners. Not just a show of hands at an AGM which doesn't include all residents.

P.S. Tips about PPCs (if you must):

1. Whatever you do, DON'T appoint any firm that is a member of the IPC (this is my opinion - you did ask!). Only consider larger BPA firms, as they are marginally better and offer POPLA.  The alternative (IAS) is not fit for purpose in our long experience and IMHO isn't impartial.

2.  And when looking at BPA firms do NOT allow them to set it up with CCTV or ANPR. Not camera operated. Wholly inappropriate and intrusive and not fit for residential areas. ONLY a BPA firm who would operate with ticketers on foot, and never in the middle of the night (only have 'hours of operation' during the day/evening, NO ticketing overnight).

3.  Just don't do it! Explore alternatives. Self-ticketing if you REALLY must.

4. Do URGENTLY remove the firm you are using, asap.  They are not BPA, so there's no appeal worth trying. Now they have got wind that the contract is under threat they will up the PCNs issued, especially at night/over Christmas.  This is what the industry does.


P.P.S.  Well done on getting the PCNs cancelled and having the nous to come here first and for taking a reasonable stance re residents' parking in the shared areas.

h2g2

How feasible would it be for the RMC to set up their own enforcement, with their own T&Cs, with any profit offset from the management fee (and any shortfall, if there is one, covered by it if necessary)?

There would be no perverse profit incentive to issue tickets, and much of the enforcement could be done by residents self-ticketing. Use of paper permits to ease administration, by identifying an unfamiliar car as a resident could help.

il--ya

Fruitcake said:

As for the problems you are having with the current parking company, did they obtain advertising consent for any signs greater than 0.3 m²? Not having it is a criminal offence. If they haven't, you could report them to the council and ask that they be charge for carrying out an illegal for-profit operation, and without a valid contract.
Alternatively, you could suggest the PPC removes any signs and ceases operations if the don't have consent. Do you/the other directors have the right to take action by removing illegal signs (and safely storing them for collection by the PPC), or to simply cover them up?

Thanks for bringing that up. I'm not certain if the signs exceed 0.3 m², but I haven’t seen any planning application for them. I’ll look into this further.

@Coupon-mad, thanks for the tips.

@h2g2 The admin and legal costs of self-ticketing would be too high for us. Parking companies manage this efficiently because they can do it at scale, keeping the costs down.

Fruitcake

il--ya said:

Fruitcake said:

As for the problems you are having with the current parking company, did they obtain advertising consent for any signs greater than 0.3 m²? Not having it is a criminal offence. If they haven't, you could report them to the council and ask that they be charge for carrying out an illegal for-profit operation, and without a valid contract.
Alternatively, you could suggest the PPC removes any signs and ceases operations if the don't have consent. Do you/the other directors have the right to take action by removing illegal signs (and safely storing them for collection by the PPC), or to simply cover them up?

Thanks for bringing that up. I'm not certain if the signs exceed 0.3 m², but I haven’t seen any planning application for them. I’ll look into this further.

@Coupon-mad, thanks for the tips.

@h2g2 The admin and legal costs of self-ticketing would be too high for us. Parking companies manage this efficiently because they can do it at scale, keeping the costs down.

Although it comes under the remit of planning approval, it is actually Advertising Consent that is needed.

From poster, Marktheshark.

"It is written CONSENT they need under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 section 222 + 2007 section 225 amendment for permission to erect advertising signs.
Consent can not be retrospectively given and conspiracy with the advertiser to do so is misconduct in public office.

Failure to obtain consent is a criminal offence and failure to enforce the criminal offence is also misconduct in public office.

If you are to complain, get it right and make sure you inform the officer dealing at the council you expect the legislation to be followed to the letter of the law.

Offering a parking service conveyed by signs is advertising a genuine offer.

Parking eye went to great lengths at the supreme court to insist they were making a genuine offer. UKSC 2015/0116

Both The landowner and advertiser are jointly and severely liable for the offence."

That means that if ad-consent hasn't been approved, the dodgy director is also liable for the offence.
The downside is that only the council can pursue such a charge, but at directors of a MA/RTM, you may be able to persuade them to take action.
However, I would politely mention it to the PPC that this action will be taken if they don't cease operations before trying to get the council involved to take action, but you would need to contact the planning department to confirm whether consent has been approved. There may be an online portal to do this.
0.3 m² isn't very big. A fraction under 0.5m x 0.5m.

Also note that not having Ad-consent is a breach of Schedule 4 of the PoFA 2012, para 12. Useful for any keeper who gets an unfair PCN. 

nigelbb

Fruitcake said:

il--ya said:

Fruitcake said:

As for the problems you are having with the current parking company, did they obtain advertising consent for any signs greater than 0.3 m²? Not having it is a criminal offence. If they haven't, you could report them to the council and ask that they be charge for carrying out an illegal for-profit operation, and without a valid contract.
Alternatively, you could suggest the PPC removes any signs and ceases operations if the don't have consent. Do you/the other directors have the right to take action by removing illegal signs (and safely storing them for collection by the PPC), or to simply cover them up?

Thanks for bringing that up. I'm not certain if the signs exceed 0.3 m², but I haven’t seen any planning application for them. I’ll look into this further.

@Coupon-mad, thanks for the tips.

@h2g2 The admin and legal costs of self-ticketing would be too high for us. Parking companies manage this efficiently because they can do it at scale, keeping the costs down.

Although it comes under the remit of planning approval, it is actually Advertising Consent that is needed.

From poster, Marktheshark.

"It is written CONSENT they need under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 section 222 + 2007 section 225 amendment for permission to erect advertising signs.
Consent can not be retrospectively given and conspiracy with the advertiser to do so is misconduct in public office.

Failure to obtain consent is a criminal offence and failure to enforce the criminal offence is also misconduct in public office.

If you are to complain, get it right and make sure you inform the officer dealing at the council you expect the legislation to be followed to the letter of the law.

Offering a parking service conveyed by signs is advertising a genuine offer.

Parking eye went to great lengths at the supreme court to insist they were making a genuine offer. UKSC 2015/0116

Both The landowner and advertiser are jointly and severely liable for the offence."

That means that if ad-consent hasn't been approved, the dodgy director is also liable for the offence.
The downside is that only the council can pursue such a charge, but at directors of a MA/RTM, you may be able to persuade them to take action.
However, I would politely mention it to the PPC that this action will be taken if they don't cease operations before trying to get the council involved to take action, but you would need to contact the planning department to confirm whether consent has been approved. There may be an online portal to do this.
0.3 m² isn't very big. A fraction under 0.5m x 0.5m.

Also note that not having Ad-consent is a breach of Schedule 4 of the PoFA 2012, para 12. Useful for any keeper who gets an unfair PCN. 

I would like to see your arguments as to why this might be true. AFAICS para 12 is regarding the ability for provisions to be made that define exactly the form that signs must have but isn't currently used.

pustit

Fruitcake, Just a minor point on the dimensions of a sign. 0.3 square metres is fractionally bigger than 0.5m x 0.5m = 0.25 sq. m.