PCN Issued Against Tradesman Using My Parking Bay

mazzadonna

Thanks for all the replies, they are really appreciated.

Sorry for the confusion in the terminology, I meant court claim, not a summons. 

I have notified the estate management company to cancel the ticket, but they will take another 9 days to respond according to their SLA and I doubt they will get the ticket cancelled. It takes a long time to get them to do anything. 

@coupon-mad - When you say write to PCM, do you mean with an actual letter or is email ok? Has writing this letter achieved any outcome for other people or is there another purpose to this?

The IAS just looked at my argument at insufficient signage and that I was not informed of the need for a permit. They completely ignored my argument that I am the freeholder and did not respond to it at all in their response. That's when I realised this was rigged. I will post the response in a following post. 

It's still unclear to me if the court claim will be against me or the trader. If it is against the trader then I cannot let this progress because it is unfair on him and he most likely won't accept receiving debt collection letters. I also assume it will mean that I could not fight the claim in person either on his behalf (not that I think he will allow it to get that far). 

@fruitcake - You mention he will receive an NTD, what does that stand for? He owns the car so does that not make him the keeper? 

mazzadonna

Here is the IAS response:

"It is important that the Appellant understands that the adjudicator is not in a position to give his legal advice. The adjudicator's role is to look at whether the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each particular case. The adjudicator's decision is not legally binding on the Appellant (it is intended to be a guide) and they are free to obtain independent legal advice if they so wish. However, the adjudicator is legally qualified (a barrister or solicitor) and decides the appeal according to their understanding of the law and legal principles.

The terms of this appeal are that I am only allowed to consider the charge being appealed and not the circumstances of other drivers or other parking events. The guidance to this appeal also makes it clear that I am bound by the law of contract and can only consider legal challenges not mistakes or extenuating circumstances.

For the avoidance of doubt, this charge has been issued on the basis that no valid permit was clearly displayed in the vehicle at the time of the parking event. I am presented with photographic evidence from the Operator that no valid permit was on display at the time the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued. The signage throughout the site makes it clear that the restrictions apply to all vehicles parked at this site and that if vehicles park otherwise than in accordance with the terms a charge will be payable. I am satisfied that there is no evidence of a valid permit correctly displayed, or displayed at all. Having considered the evidence provided I am satisfied that the Operator has the authority to issue and enforce PCNs at this location.

Whether a driver feels that they have permission to park or not, the contractual terms require a driver to properly display a valid permit and by not displaying properly any such permit they agree to pay the charge. The Appellant should have ensured that a valid permit was clearly displayed in the vehicle otherwise they should have parked elsewhere.

It is the driver's (rather than a third party's) responsibility to ensure that the terms and conditions of parking are complied with. The vehicle was secure, stationary and unoccupied with no valid permit correctly on display and therefore, in accordance with the advertised terms, the driver is liable to pay a charge. The signage on site complies with current regulations and is sufficient to have brought the terms of parking to the driver's attention. The signage is neither misleading nor unclear. The contractual terms require the driver to display a valid permit, otherwise by parking they agree to pay the charge. If for any reason the driver cannot display a valid permit they can either park elsewhere, or remain parked and agree to pay the charge. The Appellant chose the latter option.

I am satisfied that the Operator has proven their prima facie case. Whilst having some sympathy with the Appellant's circumstances, once liability has been established, only the Operator has the discretion to vary or cancel the parking charge based on mitigating circumstances. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed."

KoalaMSEF

Did the tradesman receive the letter of notice to keeper for the charge and gave it to you? Did he ask you to deal with it because he parked in your space?

You cannot appeal if you are not the keeper or the drive of the car. That charges were against the tradesman. 

IAS is a joke. They copied and pasted dismissal letters, word by word, without even realising that you cannot even appeal because you are not the keeper, nor the driver. 

The management company will try avoid doing anything, that's why you need to follow up, complain, complain again. This is your space (freehold), you are the landowner, why on earth do they think they can 'contract' out your land for their profit.

If not, in the future, any of your visitors come and park at your space will risk receiving £100 charges for parking on your land. 

Fruitcake

mazzadonna said:

@fruitcake - You mention he will receive an NTD, what does that stand for? He owns the car so does that not make him the keeper? 

Vehicle ownership is irrelevant (unless bylaws apply where an owner may be liable).

Acronyms and abbreviations common to this forum are given in the fifth post of the sticky Announcement for NEWBIES. NTD = Notice to Driver. Either placed on a vehicle or handed to the driver, or posted to the driver if they have been named by the keeper.

I'm still not sure how or why you able to appeal if you were not the registered keeper nor driver. Please explain because normally a NTD would have been given at the time but not to you, or a NTK would have been posted to the keeper, but not to you.

Coupon-mad

It is hilarious and so good that PCM ran with you as the appellant, despite knowing you were just the freeholder. Not the driver. Not the keeper.

Perfect. That's what I would have advised you to do.  They fell for it.

as the IAS said:

"It is the driver's (rather than a third party's) responsibility to ensure that the terms and conditions of parking are complied with."

Yep!

But daft PCM will continue to run with you in their sights.  Exactly what you want as long as they continue to hold your up to date address at all times.  Defending a court claim would be so easy and you could counterclaim if you fancy trying to make some money from it.

Coupon-mad

This wasn't telling you to only email PCM:

you MUST STOP PCM from policing your bay immediately.

Opt out of their useless moneymaking scheme NOW and refuse to display a permit and tell them in writing that this is trespass by PCM.  You never accepted their scheme.

Your land is not to be offered out to all-comers as a commercial car parking space at £100 per day. You are and were at all material times the freehold owner of that bay.  It is not 'common areas' and is not theirs to trespass in nor offer to the driving public under a jumped up contract.

That was mainly written for the MA. Email both and tell PCM to cease and desist.

mazzadonna

"Did the tradesman receive the letter of notice to keeper for the charge and gave it to you? Did he ask you to deal with it because he parked in your space?"

He had an NTD placed on his vehicle which he gave to me. We were both at my property at the time it happened and I had told him he could park in my space beforehand. I then responded to the NTD by appealing the PCN.

The most recent letter I have had from PCM notifying me that my appeal was rejected by the IAS and I have 28 days to pay, is addressed to me and it says 'you' when referring to any action, without a mention of the tradesman who is both the driver and the keeper.

It does seem at this point that they are taking action against myself unless they correct it later on when passing on to the debt collection agency.

I will most certainly write to PCM directly to cease and desist and cancel the ticket. If this goes to county court I would love to counter claim against them. I wish I could draw the IAS into it as they are complicit in this fraud. Their website deliberately prevents copy and pasting text into their form to try and prevent you even lodging a claim in the first place. It's like they are not even trying to hide the fact that they are with the PPCs.

Coupon-mad

I will most certainly write to PCM directly to cease and desist and cancel the ticket.

And opt your bay out and make it clear it was never 'in' by consent and you will no longer be displaying a permit (only ever done as a courtesy message to other residents) because it's your property (freehold demised bay)  and they are trespassing.  Cc in the MA.