Private tenant PCN in own space

walrusbee_noodle

Happy new year! 

I received a NtK from PCM for not displaying a permit when parking in my own bay (“Parked without clearly displaying a PCM UK Ltd permit at time of enforcement ). My own bay is in a gated carpark for my apartment complex which each spot is numbered and assigned to each flat. Normally my permit is placed on the dash but it might have slipped, so PCM has taken photos of my car / dash not having a permit, as well as the very tall signs which said £100 charge to violation of parking rules.

I spoke to the managing agents of my apartment building to have PCM cancel the ticket, but when the managing agents reached out to PCM, PCM refused and repeated what they said on the NtK.

In the NtK I have 28 days to make an appeal to the charge or pay for it, and today is the last day to make an appeal. 

My AST mentioned parking with “You, the tenant(s), has/have the right to park one car on site during your tenancy.

Currently, space number X.” I appreciate in my landlord’s leasehold there might be clauses for parking that is more restrictive.

Should I still make an appeal to PCM for the NtK without naming the driver?

 Thank you very much!

ChirpyChicken

no your wasting your time.

Coupon-mad

walrusbee_noodle said:

Happy new year! 

I received a NtK from PCM for not displaying a permit when parking in my own bay (“Parked without clearly displaying a PCM UK Ltd permit at time of enforcement ). My own bay is in a gated carpark for my apartment complex which each spot is numbered and assigned to each flat. Normally my permit is placed on the dash but it might have slipped, so PCM has taken photos of my car / dash not having a permit, as well as the very tall signs which said £100 charge to violation of parking rules.

I spoke to the managing agents of my apartment building to have PCM cancel the ticket, but when the managing agents reached out to PCM, PCM refused and repeated what they said on the NtK.

In the NtK I have 28 days to make an appeal to the charge or pay for it, and today is the last day to make an appeal. 

My AST mentioned parking with “You, the tenant(s), has/have the right to park one car on site during your tenancy.

Currently, space number X.” I appreciate in my landlord’s leasehold there might be clauses for parking that is more restrictive.

Should I still make an appeal to PCM for the NtK without naming the driver?

No just ignore them. There's no appeals service with trying. Only steps to take:

- Tell them if you move house within 6 years.

- Download a full copy of your tenancy agreement now (to keep as evidence later) and take some damning photos of the signs now too. Dark, behind foliage, etc.

- Ignore the tedious £170 threatograms shown in pictures in the 4th post of the NEWBIES thread.

- Come back if you get a LBC as per the 2nd post of the NEWBIES thread. There is no risk in defending a claim.

Everything is explained in that Announcement thread at the top of the forum. No link needed. See my signature for how to navigate around. 

walrusbee_noodle

Many thanks! Will ignore them unless I receive a LBC

Mullerice

Just make sure that your tenancy agreement does indeed give you the right to park without displaying a permit. 

If unsure, you can you a land registry property title report and that could well be a clue. My space is mentioned on the Property Title Register

h2g2

After  taking Mullerice's advice and making sure your tenancy agreement makes no mention of permits, parking charges, or "subject to the parking conditions displayed in the car park"...

I would also recommend writing to the landlord saying that the requirement for a permit is not in the tenancy agreement; the parking charges certainly aren't in the tenancy agreement; and that someone is therefore interfering with their property.

Also make clear that you would never have signed the tenancy agreement if you were aware of a private parking company operating on the land.

Ask if they were aware of a private parking company operating on their land.

If the landlord says they were not aware of any parking company operating keep it, because it will be very useful in court if the parking company tries bring an action against you. If you make an appeal to POPLA/IPC include that important evidence that the landowner is not aware of any private parking company operating on their land.

If the landlord says they were aware you should tell the landlord that you will not pay any charges not in your contract and that you will expect the landlord to reimburse you for any expenses you incur as a result of the PCN.

---

On another thread judge somewhere ruled that the signs in the car park override the tenancy agreement. Almost certainly wrong, but it would be better to get the landlord involved early to either take your side or demonstrate that they don't care the contract has been breached.

If landlords are letting to tenants without putting parking charges in contracts (whether through indifference or not caring enough to know) they need to be held to account, and I say this as someone who has been "the landlord" in the past.

KoalaMSEF

walrusbee_noodle said:

My AST mentioned parking with “You, the tenant(s), has/have the right to park one car on site during your tenancy.

Currently, space number X.” I appreciate in my landlord’s leasehold there might be clauses for parking that is more restrictive.

You probably should speak to your landlord (leaseholder) and get landlord involved re h2g2's advice above.

The most ideal way is that the landlord to put pressure on MA who forces PPC to cancel the ticket. Sometimes, MA needs a bit more pressure to do so and it needs to go to the ranks within MA. The landlord may be willing to intervene, for example, because they did not put the parking charges in AST. The landlord (leasehold) could also get freeholder involved because in most cases, lease won't involve PPC and lease grants unfettered parking in allocated bay. 

Private parking cases are a chain of events that will end in court. The chain can be stopped when successful intervention happens, e.g., complaints that lead to cancellation. If not, it will be sorted out in court. 

I still can't fathom why residential cases like this keep happening in this high frequency. This also means it is a well trodden path. 

walrusbee_noodle

Thank you all so much for the advice! Will speak with my landlord to have them also apply pressure on MA to try and have PPC cancel the ticket.

Mullerice said:

Just make sure that your tenancy agreement does indeed give you the right to park without displaying a permit. 

Thanks - yes my AST tenancy agreement has only included the line below and has no other mention of parking. I've saved a copy of the tenancy agreement to my computer.

“You, the tenant(s), has/have the right to park one car on site during your tenancy. Currently, space number X.” 

h2g2 said:

If the landlord says they were aware you should tell the landlord that you will not pay any charges not in your contract and that you will expect the landlord to reimburse you for any expenses you incur as a result of the PCN.

---

On another thread judge somewhere ruled that the signs in the car park override the tenancy agreement. Almost certainly wrong, but it would be better to get the landlord involved early to either take your side or demonstrate that they don't care the contract has been breached.

If landlords are letting to tenants without putting parking charges in contracts (whether through indifference or not caring enough to know) they need to be held to account, and I say this as someone who has been "the landlord" in the past.

Thanks - yes I think my landlord is aware as they have asked the MA (not the PPC) to send me a parking permit when I started the tenancy.

Would you mind sharing the thread where the judge ruled in favour of the PPC? I was reading up parking-pranster's blog and was assuming that primacy of contract would be in favour of the defendant but would like to contrast their case with mine (sorry if misunderstood the content).

KoalaMSEF said:

I still can't fathom why residential cases like this keep happening in this high frequency. This also means it is a well trodden path. 

I totally agree - I thought the point of a PPC in residential car park is to deter non-resident from using the resident's bays, but somehow residents look to be ticketed much more than non-resident?

Coupon-mad

No need for the question mark or the word 'somehow' at the end there. You are always the deliberate targets. This is what the scammers do. Never live anywhere with a parking firm if you can possibly avoid it.

h2g2

walrusbee_noodle said:

Would you mind sharing the thread where the judge ruled in favour of the PPC? I was reading up parking-pranster's blog and was assuming that primacy of contract would be in favour of the defendant but would like to contrast their case with mine (sorry if misunderstood the content).

It's this one. The was mention of an appeal but I don't know what happened to it.

Fulhamwelsh1

This has been an interesting thread. I thought I would be the only one on this Forum who was a resident in car park covered by a private parking company.
3 years ago, I was an owner/occupier in an apartment block, where every flat had a designated bay. No permits were needed. Then a problem of some non residents using one or two bays to park their car, before walking the 100 yards to the beach, for the day. To try to combat this, the managing agents started to issue parking permits for the residents, although they were not specific to any particular bay. by and large, each resident would park in their designated bay, but occasionally, would park elsewhere if a visitor had 'nabbed' their bay. It worked very well.
Then, almost overnight, Alliance Parking had become the company overseeing the parking. Permits then became designated and signs were put up around the 2 carparks. There was also an underground, gated carpark for the owners of the penthouse flats, who had two bays each. entry was only by a fob key.
It was quite clear that Alliance saw this arrangement as a chance to make money, from the residents. The conditions to park, said nothing about who could use the bays and everything to do with 'catching out' the residents. Park straight, don't park on the line, display your permit, that type of thing. They were not contracted to manage the carpark, they just kept any money made from fines. I think you know where I'm going with this.
Instead of working for the residents, they worked against them. Most tickets issued were to the residents, very occasionally, a contractors van may have been ticketed. They checked the carpark at least twice a day, sometimes more and often late at night, 9 and 10pm. 
The non-resident parking issue was very small and certainly did not require that level of monitoring. I was issued with several PCN's in one week, which I will not bore you with, now. I appealed against them, which was turned down. I have done nothing since and have not paid them. The PCN's go back to 2021. Am I in doo-doo, or do I have a chance of winning, if I am taken to court (I have been receiving quite aggressive letters from Trace Debt Recovery.
Sorry if this is very long winded, I was trying to provide as much info as possible.