PCN on demised parking space

polonium

Recap of the situation:

• Got a PCN as the registered keeper from UKCPM for parking in Space 5 at a residential block.
• Space 5 is expressly demised to my partner under her lease — it's not a shared/communal bay, it's her own allocated space.
• The lease gives the management company only inspection/maintenance rights over that space. Apparently, the managing company hold a MGA were a vote was hold to appoint a parking scheme (that was before she bought the property but note there has been no variations to the lease)
• Permit was inside the vehicle face-up on the floor visible form the side window
• UKCPM appeal failed
• Update - IAS appeal failed (see response below)

Summary of IAS Respone

IAS appeal lost with the following summary of their arguments:
1 - lease rights: Accepts Space 5 is part of the leasehold, but says only partial documents were provided, so couldn't confirm the right was unrestricted.
2 - Even assuming I have an unrestricted lease right, adjudicator said I would still loose. By parking there / engaging with the scheme, I would be deemed to have "consented" to its rules (permit display), and can't cherry-pick when to follow them.

Next steps

So what now?…

Is there any legal advice I should get just to doublecheck my claims?

Do I just wait for the debt collector and for it to go to court? Do I not risk huge extra fees?

A bit anxious not gonna lie…

Would appreciate any word of advice - thank you!

Here is the full IAS response

"The Appellant should understand that the Adjudicator is not in a position to give legal advice to either of the parties, but they are entitled to seek their own independent legal advice. The Adjudicator's role is to consider whether or not the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each individual case. In all Appeals the Adjudicator is bound by the relevant law applicable at the time and is only able to consider legal challenges and not factual mistakes nor extenuating or mitigating circumstances. Throughout this appeal the Operator has had the opportunity consider all points raised and could have conceded the appeal at any stage. The Adjudicator who deals with this Appeal is legally qualified and each case is dealt with according to their understanding of the law as it applies, and the legal principles involved. A decision by an Adjudicator is not legally binding on an Appellant who is entitled to seek their own legal advice if they so wish.

In all Appeals the burden of proof is the civil one whereby the party asserting a fact or submission has to establish that matter on the balance of probabilities. If the parking operator fails to establish that a Parking Charge Notice was properly issued in accordance with the law, then it is likely that an Appeal will be allowed. If the parking operator does establish that a Parking Charge Notice was properly and legally issued, then the burden shifts to the Appellant to establish that the notice was improperly or unlawfully issued and if the Appellant proves those matters on the balance of probabilities, then it is likely that the Appeal will be allowed. However, the Appeal will be dismissed if the Appellant fails to establish those matters on the balance of probabilities. The responsibility is at all times on the parties to provide the Adjudicator with the evidential basis upon which to make a decision.

The Operator has provided evidence of the signs at the site. These make it clear any driver parking without clearly displaying a valid permit in the windscreen, will be issued with the parking charge notice.

The Appellant raises several grounds of appeal and I have responded to each below. 

1. The Appellant has demonstrated that space 5 is part of the leasehold property. However, they have provided only sections of the various legal documents and I have no way to know if any rights are without restriction. As explained above, at this stage, the onus is on the Appellant to satisfy me the charge is unlawful. In the absence of any evidence, I am not satisfied. 

2.The Operator's contract is with the original lessor in the head lease. Consequently, in the absence that the right in the lease is unrestricted I am not content to accept the proposition the Operator has no authority over this space. 

3, 4 and 5. Even if the Appellant does have an unrestricted right to park in their lease, I am unable to allow the appeal on this basis. I agree with the basic premise that a right in the lease would ordinarily have primacy, and the Operator could not unilaterally override this. However, this is not unilateral, as the Appellant has consented to it. 

By agreeing to display a permit, and take part in the car park management scheme, the Appellant does not relinquish their underlying right to park, but they are required to comply with its reasonable administrative requirements, including the display of a valid permit. The Appellant cannot take advantage of the scheme when it benefits them and disregard it when it does not. 

The Operator's relationship with the landowner has no bearing on the driver's ability to freely enter into a contract with the Operator. In any event the landowner authority is provided to me. If the circumstances were as described, the Appellant has my sympathy, but the guidance to the appeal is clear that I may only consider legal issues not mitigating factors. 

The Operator has provided photographic evidence of the Appellant's vehicle parked on the land they manage, and without a permit displayed e-permit held. The appeal is dismissed."

h2g2

Is this a case worth raising to the DVLA?

You have now demonstrated to both the parking company AND the IPC that you are the "owner or occupier" of the land and they have refused to cancel a PCN for you. If there is ever proof that the IPC's use of the IAS is worthless, here it is.

Even if the Appellant does have an unrestricted right to park in their lease, I am unable to allow the appeal on this basis. I agree with the basic premise that a right in the lease would ordinarily have primacy, and the Operator could not unilaterally override this. However, this is not unilateral, as the Appellant has consented to it. 

This is horribly insidious, and this attitude alone ought to be enough to revoke the IPC's ATC status, IMO.

This amounts to an open invitation for PPC's to rock up on anyone's property, start issuing parking charges to the landowner and essentially annex the rights to control parking if the owner ever decides to show a permit temporarily to keep the peace while they get legal advice.

I would be writing to the DVLA and your MP including your lease and the IPC's response here and demanding the DVLA do something about this.

(If you do that - lawyers help me here - would a GDPR counter-claim against both the PPC and the DVLA be in order should a court case arrive be worthwhile?)