New parking regulations at home...

Coupon-mad · 19 February 2016 at 3:59PM

WE responded to my email and told me they didn't have a "Whitelist", and they had no intention of creating one. They did, after further emails, agree to remove my parking space from the scheme on certain conditions, all of which I rejected after advice here from someone who suggested I tell them I was not inviting them to negotiate, I was TELLING them to whitelist my vehicles., but UKPS continued to issue PCN's to a vehicle in my space as they were when parked elsewhere in the car park.

Well POPLA don't know that and UKPS haven't shown any such thing in their evidence I assume. So your points stand. Glad to see you got in a decent rebuttal of the Beavis case showing the driver offered nothing by way of consideration etc so it can ONLY be a matter of trespass which the Beavis case makes clear can't be claimed by a parking firm as a charge!

Oh, incidentally, I noticed in one pdf evidence file there was an excerpt from an email from WE to UKPS which wished them good luck with these cases against me. Charming huh!

That is TERRIBLE. :mad:

Daniel_san · 19 February 2016 at 4:21PM

What UKPS have said, in only 1 evidence pack I might add, is that I requested my parking bay to be exempt from the patrolling, which I've rejected as untrue and stated yet again that I reject ALL terms and the scheme itself. I've noticed they twist things in their favour in a clear attempt to mislead POPLA into believing I have agreed to something, or have "confessed" if you like..... Stating I've requested my "bay" be exempt is a clear attempt to say "hey POPLA, we're no longer ticketing the guy in his bay, but this van of his isn't in the bay, so he'll have no problems paying this one, right *thumbsup*" and their constant statements saying I have admitted to being the driver, which is nonsense.

As for the managing agents.....they're worse than our old ones, OM! They took over, got us RTM, seemed great, then along with a sole director, did whatever they wanted, without consulting anyone! I can't get added as a director in order to oppose things as they won't do it, the sole director won't appoint me either - no doubt because I oppose the parking scheme which she agreed to, and I had a massive pop at her when she started her own cleaning company and awarded that company the cleaning contract in the building, increasing the cleaning costs by 50% a year! Massive conflict of interest! Yet I was just picking on her... I've requested an AGM many times and they refuse, yet none have taken place in 3-4 years since the RTM co was formed. So frustrating!

Anyway, rant over. Thank you again so much CM, let's see what happens next here! I think POPLA are waiting their own decision on my 1st appeal before ruling the rest, as I've only heard back from them on that 1 appeal so far, and I now have 20 in progress!

dazster · 19 February 2016 at 4:37PM

I'd stop paying the management charges if I were you, or at least a proportion of them. See if they are prepared to sue you and have their corruption examined in a court of law.

Daniel_san · 25 February 2016 at 5:37PM

Finally.....POPLA decision on 3 PCN's issued Sept / Oct / Nov 2015

I WIN
I WIN
I WIN

Decision: Successful
Assessor Name: Sirak Solomon
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant did not display a parking permit.

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that the operator does not have the authority to issue parking charges on the land in question. The appellant states that the parking charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
After reviewing the evidence provided by both parties, I am not satisfied that the appellant has been identified as the driver of the vehicle in question at the time of the relevant parking event. The operator is therefore pursuing the appellant as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle in this instance. For the operator to transfer liability for unpaid parking charges from the driver of the vehicle, to the registered keeper of the vehicle, the regulations laid out in the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012 must be adhered to. The operator has not provided me with the full copy of the Notice to Keeper that was sent to the appellant. As such, I cannot confirm that the Notice to Keeper has complied with section 9 of PoFA 2012. Therefore, I cannot confirm that the parking charge has been issued correctly. I note the appellant has raised other issues as grounds of appeal. However, as I have allowed the appeal for this reason, I did not consider them.

Half_way · 25 February 2016 at 6:21PM

While its a win,. it reads asa a cop out to me, they have allowed it on keeper liability and the PPCs inability to follow POFA
, as opposed to the no authority from the land owner/leas holder to pursue parking charges on that land.
I would be tempted to collect a few more PCN's and if all is clear with the lease ( which i beleive it could well be ) go for a single point appeal based on My land/My space

bod1467 · 25 February 2016 at 6:26PM

Did you mention POFA/NtK in your appeal? Or has the assessor just dreamed it up? (The assessor's summary/title doesn't mention NtK at all, just the assessment does).

Daniel_san · 27 February 2016 at 8:16PM

Yes, it's a hollow win at this stage really. I'm now up to 11 wins, all on the same basis. From what I can tell, through checking back over the evidence packs, I'm due 1 more win on the same basis.

Strangely, the latest 3 evidence packs, issued to me 19th/20th Feb, all have the NTK included in the pack. It's almost as if the PPC were tipped off by POPLA that just 5 days later, they would lose 11 cases because they'd failed to include the NTK in the pack...

I really need a "no authority" or a "non contract" as it was clearly rejected from the start by way of an email I sent the management company. Without the contractual element, they're left with trespass, and its not their land.

Regarding the NTK/POFA 2012. My initial appeal to the PPC included:
"(d) Your written 'notice' fails to comply with the POFA 2012."

Which obviously was good enough for the 2 different POPLA assessors that have ruled so far.

Redx · 27 February 2016 at 8:56PM

well done sir !! and possibly 2 different POPLA`s as well ?

been going on for a long time this, they must be really stupid to have 11 fail at popla at a cost of over £330 , possibly + vat ? talk about thick , head bangs wall - head hurts - they dont stop , the head hurts more ; lol

lets hope you get 20 wins or more and cost them over £600 , or 30 wins for a grand or so

there is a saying they have failed to follow , it ends in "stop digging"

Daniel_san · 31 March 2017 at 3:57PM

Well, the peace and quiet lasted almost 1 year! I got a handful of windscreen PCN's early last year, none were followed up with letters and I've heard nothing since. I think the PPC finally got the message. Their contract ended in December 2016 and was not renewed or they opted out, I'm unsure which.

Fast forward to 2017 and some new signs are erected in the car park.
a51f59eb-de64-4b71-7176-a0ae80971b0a?section=activity_public

a51f59eb-de64-4b71-7176-a0ae80971b0a?section=activity_public

It seems Warwick Estates have contracted with Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd of Berkshire SL1 2XF this time around. This is now the 3rd PPC they have contracted with. This time, I have received no permit and no letter to notify me of their appointment. Full disclosure, to save anyone reading back over this long thread, they are not ticketing me this time for my vehicle parked in my allocated space, but are still ticketing me for my vehicle parked, in a non space, in nobody's way, which nobody has EVER complained to me or the MA about (to my knowledge) and has been parked there regularly for 9 years and 4 months now.

From what I understand, this PPC are not BPA members, so POPLA is out this time. I gather the appeals process is akin to a "kangaroo court" as it has been put several times by people, so I intend to follow the newbies thread for the next step and fully expect them to reject my appeal.

Firstly though, having received 3 invoices this week already, and having previously had over 50 PCN's and fake court papers sent to me, and having appealed and won all of them, I've elected to email Warwick and check that this is an error, it must be, right....? They wouldn't intentionally keep doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results, would they?

I'm currently checking through various articles I've found linked here, thank you as always :beer:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/residential-parking.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/tenancy-agreement-not-overruled-by.html

and a few others I don't have opened right now.

Any advice very much appreciated as always, thank you. I shall keep this thread updated. Week 1 of scheme, 3 PCN's. Good start for them!

DoaM · 31 March 2017 at 4:08PM

I would also email PCM UK to advise them that you've many received PCNs from the previous parking companies that thought they could infest this site and had them all quashed! Respectfully suggest they put your VRM onto a whitelist to save both you and them the time and hassle of the folly of trying to recover these invoices.

New parking regulations at home...

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free