PCN on demised parking space

polonium

Partner is leaseholder of a Surrey flat. The lease (1981, varied by deed in 2003) expressly demises a numbered parking space to her. The 2003 deed confirms all 1981 covenants remain in full force.

Note the flat parking space is expressly and exclusively demised. Management company powers regarding the car parking space demised to the flat are:

• limited to repair and maintenance “Subject during the term hereby granted to the right of entry for the Lessor the manager and the tenants of the other parts of the building and all others authorised by them upon the said car parking space at all reasonable hours in the daytime for purposes of inspecting repairing renewing and maintaining the buildings or surfaced areas contiguous with the said car parking space and subject also as aforesaid for the Manager to enter thereon for the purpose of renewing repairing maintaining and resurfacing the car parking space”
• limited to amenity lands “make and enforce such regulations (if any) as it may in its absolute discretion consider necessary and desirable to enable all residents on the Estate to enjoy the Amenity Lands”

Management company passed a MGM resolution in the late 2010s appointing UKCPM. Nothing registered at Land Registry. Partner purchased in 2021.

I’m the registered keeper. Permit fell off windscreen. Got a PCN.

Appeal grounds:
• Space is demised — management company had no authority to grant UKCPM enforcement rights over it
• MGM resolution cannot vary a registered lease (only a deed can)
• Management company bound by their own 2003 deed confirming 1981 rights
•Primacy of contract?

Questions:
1. Has anyone beaten UKCPM at POPLA on these grounds?
2. Any weaknesses we’ve missed

I know another flat owner had her appeal lost but not sure at what stage...

polonium

I will very much appreciate any help to avoid the charge. Thank you!

Coupon-mad

UKCPM don't use POPLA.

They are in the IPC.

The leasehold flat owner should IMMEDIATELY remove their bay from all enforcement and confirm that the vehicle was parked in their own demised bay under their authority, which is their exclusive right. They should add that they never acceded to UKCPM nor agreed to vary their rights and easements to any 'permit scheme', which does not apply to them, only to the 'Amenity Land' (see lease). Any implied consent argument is false. There is no consent and never was.

And you (registered keeper) should appeal to UKCPM and insist the PCN is cancelled or you/your partner will sue for harassment, breach of covenant and unlawful processing of your DVLA data.

Quote the IPC Joint code of practice about residential leases (there is a clause about not issuing such PCNs) and state that neither of you agreed to be bound by these onerous 'terms' and will never display a permit and will consider each and every charge as a course of conduct of harassment, trespass, private nuisance and a derogation from grant.

If still bothered by the eejits, sue UKCPM.

Send a LBC and see how they reply.

polonium

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81991647#Comment_81991647

Spoke with w neighbour. They got PCNed a few years ago and the adjudicator acted against them agreeing with UKCPM.. this is the main reason I’m worried. It sets a bad precedent and gives me little faith of success rate..

Coupon-mad

But nobody cares about appeals. There is no independent adjudicator.

Surely your neighbour didn't actually PAY?!

polonium

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81991907#Comment_81991907

they did! And it was 3 fines!

So I guess I must ‘mentally’ prepare that this will drag into small claims etc… will draft a letter and if you don’t mind post it here over the weekend.

Half_way

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81991931#Comment_81991931

To make it even better (or worse) those three fines you talk about were not even fines .

By Flushing your lavatory after 10:30pm at night you agree to pay a PCN (poo charge notice) of £100 reduced to £60 for early payment

daveyjp

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81991890#Comment_81991890

Thats not because the invoices had to be paid, it was because the resident didn't know how to prepare a proper appeal.

Car1980

You have exclusive use of the land. It's like a neighbour displaying a sign in their garden stating you must display a sign in your garden to demonstrate to them you have permission to use your own garden.

Otherwise you agree to pay them £100.

And tough luck if a windy day blows over your sign and they can't see your garden permit!

polonium

I wrote my Appeal (not yet submitted) and based it on these grounds:

Ground 1: The parking space No 5 is part of the demised property

Ground 2: No Landowner Authority for UKCPM Actions Exists Over the Demised Space

Ground 3: Leaseholder's right to park on demised space cannot be overridden

Ground 4: No contract exists between us

Ground 5: Lack of Notice to Driver at the time of alleged contravention

Ground 6: Parking permit displayed in the vehicle.

Ground 7: Multiple Breaches of the Code of Practice

Would be interested to hear if what I wrote makes any sense! Thank you.

Johnersh

Appeals rarely are successful. The same is not true of defences at court, where the material is considered with more care. That said, it is Litigation so nothing is guaranteed.

It will be useful to see the signage. The ukcpm model usually offers a contract to park (ie. Display a permit or pay £100 per 24hrs). Therein lies the case. On what basis can the managing company authorise a third party to sell a license to park in the landowners demised bay? That is not the regulation of the land it self evidently prejudices the owners use of their property.

Indeed even having to display a permit is arguably a step too far, but it is also true that the claimant will argue that the o/p has been doing that for some time already, without taking issue.