Resident Parking

markudman · 8 January 2018 at 10:44PM

Hi I have found the bottle to start a thread, I have read the Newbie’s Thread and followed some of the advice,
Here is my story, I moved into a new flat with my wife and kids, in Sept 2017, the parking cowboys, PCM mismanage the parking, I am off work sick due to an autoimmune disease which means I have problems with pain all over my body so cannot always help my wife with, Kids Shopping, etc.

I had 3 cars, (sold one now) but got about 8 tickets, for different reasons, but all the usual reasons, PCM would not issue permits until they got the V5 in my address, this took a few weeks, we asked for temp permit which after a fight with the managing agent got them, also we got scratch cards and displayed them in the cars, but still got tickets,
there are 3 entrances to the estate, only one (the back one) has signs on them .
I have talked to the landlord and are not interested in helping, but have not spoke to them yet about quite enjoyment.

So after reading lots of forums, decided to play a game with them, I appealed knowing that they would get rejected, I then used different letters and appeals to IPS, I am waiting for their rejections.

The main reason for appeal was signage or lack of it, they say they have 63 signs throughout the estate, (it’s a big estate) which may or maybe not be true, but there are no signs on 2 of the entrances and have photos to prove, a total of about 20 photos showing the entrance and a walk through to the parking etc,
a few signs can be seen, one which is about 20 foot away from the parking area, over a grassed area which cannot be read from the parking area, and one which is next to one saying resident parking only, so confusing.

I have checked the size of the signs and they are not bigger that 0.3 sqm so no advertising consent needed, I am checking planning soon.

I have 2 NTK from them, for the same car, one to the hirer, and one to the keeper? Both say they got the details from DVLA, and my wife is a Mr, but the V5 is Mrs,

I have asked them for proof that they have a contact with the land owner.

On their Prima Facie Case they say that they have a contact with Merton Council since 2009, the land was sold to a housing association in 2010? I have checked this with land registry and downloaded the plan.

The other point which I am hoping will be a winner if all else fails, (I have not gone along this line yet with the appeals) is my tenant’s agreement, it has no referents to parking in it, but says:
Common Parts,
Means any part of the building containing the property and any land or premises which the tenant is entitled under the terms of this tenancy to use in common with the landlord and other owners or occupiers of other flats in the building.
As in:
In Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.

In Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016] it was also found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.

Coupon-mad · 9 January 2018 at 2:44AM

You might find PCM back down in some IAS appeals, as another poster said they did, last week. If not, then the IAS will likely not find in your favour but you don't then pay.

You'd almost certainly win in court if they try a small claim; that's the more winnable stage (with forum help here).

markudman · 9 January 2018 at 9:47AM

Many thanks Coupon-Mad,:beer: I have a bigger goal too, after talking to other tenants, and the fact over Christmas a lot of the signs where defaced, there is a massive unease with PCM, I may get a group thing going, lets see what happens to my stuff first

The_Deep · 9 January 2018 at 10:30AM

Have you read Davies v UKPC, Jopson v Homeguard and the many posts about residential harassment on Parking Prankster's blog. in so many cases, PPC get their noses bloodied in court when they try to interfere in residents' rights to peaceful enjoyment.

markudman · 9 January 2018 at 3:45PM

Thank you The Deep I'll go research now

markudman · 9 January 2018 at 8:44PM

Tips UKPC v Masterson
1. Issuing claims with limited information or no information is a common trick by parking companies as it puts a defendant to a significant disadvantage. So you have to find a way round it by chasing the parking company or whoever hired them
2. Signs are always open to interpretation so it is best to get your own copies as soon after as possible. Another trick that is played, is that different signs from the ones that were at site are produced with the parking company claiming an "error" or "rogue operatives". This latter excuse was used when UKPC "rogue operatives" - a lot of them - were found to be changing the timestamps on photographic evidence.

Tips UKPC v Peenith
1. UKPC will try to hide their contract and may not even produce it unless challenged. You must always continue to press UKPC for a copy of the contract at every stage. You can even chase your Managing Agents for a copy under s20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
2. In a later case, Pace Recovery v Mr N, the tenant had a copy of their own lease/rental agreement and was able to show that that agreement had primacy over the later introduction of parking enforcement. So it can't be stressed enough to get your own lease/rental agreement and check it.
3. Multiple tickets will always get the parking company excited and will usually lead to a claim. As soon as you get one or two tickets, get involved in clarifying your lease and what it gives you. There are plenty of sources of free housing advice. It will save you money in the long run.
Often with a Leasehold situation, you can get a claim from a parking company hired by a Managing Agent about which you have no details. The parking companies will claim to be there to keep trespassers out but more often than not end up charging residents for small errors when parking on their own land. In fact some parking companies only exist to penalise residents.

If you want to see what arrangements your Managing Agent has made with the parking company and for what purpose send a "S.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985" notice to the Agent asking for details of the "Long Term Service Contract" they have made with the parking company. They have 21 days to reply.
A "Long Term Service Contract" is defined in law as contracts for services that last for more than one year and cost any one leaseholder in a block more than £100 per year. At the same time, ask for the Managing Agents own contract as that falls within the definition too.
If the site is considering using a parking company, you have a right to be consulted under S.20 of the Landlord
and Tenant Act 1985 which means you should receive information before the contract is signed.
The first notice of intention must describe what the agreement is about, and the second notice of proposals should list the cost estimates and tell you where you can inspect them. So ask for the cost estimates too.
County Court case on the primacy of a lease over a parking contract.

Link Parking v Parkinson
There is no evidence before me to suggest that they have in any way undertaken steps to vary the lease, and I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that section 21 applies such that by engaging the company they have applied new and binding regulations on the leaseholders. A mere letter regarding permits would not, in my judgment, suffice in this regard.

Jopson v Homeguard
In June 2015, Laura Jopson was unloading furniture and parked directly in front of the communal entrance to the flats on Wolverton Park Road, rather than use her designated parking space because it was too far away
The case rested both on the fact that under the terms of the lease, Laura Jopson (a resident) had a right of way to the block’s entrance which new parking regulations disregarded; and that the new parking regulations imposed by the parking company did not come to Laura’s attention.
The Judge found that under the terms of the lease, the resident and her fellow tenants (as well as people making deliveries or those dropping off children or disabled passengers) have a right of way to the block’s entrance and that the parking company’s "regulations" disregarded these rights.

Pace Recovery v Noor
This case is for Residential claims where the lease does not have a requirement to show a permit.

markudman · 10 January 2018 at 9:22PM

Got this email today
What do I need to do?

You now have until 16/01/18 23:59 to complete the next stage in the Arbitration process. If you fail to action it within this time; the matter will be sent directly to an Adjudicator who will determine liability based only on the information already supplied by you and the operator and you will lose the ability to make any more representations or upload any more evidence.

Your TWO OPTIONS are:

1) SUBMIT YOUR RESPONSE - You can respond to the operators comments and evidence by making any representations that you consider to be relevant as to the lawfulness of the charge by uploading any extra photographs or other evidence that you may have. After you submit your response, and the operator doesn't provide any more information you will not have the ability to add to or amend your submission. If the operator provides more information or evidence you will then have another chance to respond.

- OR -

2) REFER THE CASE STRAIGHT TO ARBITRATION - If you think you do not need to add any more information or evidence, for example if you consider that the information provided already is capable of showing that you, on the face of it, are not responsible for the parking charge, then you may choose this option. Neither party will have the opportunity of making more representations and the Adjudicator will decide, on the balance of probabilities, whether you are liable for the parking charge.

Yours Sincerely,
The Independent Appeals Service

markudman · 10 January 2018 at 9:26PM

The operator made their response on 10/01/2018 09:15:42.

The appellant has raised as an issue that we do not have the required authority to operate on this site. We would refer the Adjudicator to the signs which form the basis of this charge. It will be noted that the charge arises out of a relationship in contract and that we are the principal (not an agent) in the contract. This site has been audited by the IPC and a copy of the landowner’s authority has been provided to them as part of the audit process. However, whilst we maintain that we do, in fact, have the authority of the landowner to operate upon this site (being the principal in the contract); the existence of this document has no legal bearing on the contract with the motorist. See Vehicle Control Services v HMRC [2013] EWCA Civ 186, para 22 per Lewison LJ.As this is a commercially sensitive document, and is irrelevant to the issues at hand, this is not provided as evidence in this appeal. A copy of the agreement has been provided to the assessor.

Under the KADOE system, the operator may seek keeper details with a “reasonable cause”. The operator maintains that this ‘reasonable cause’ was satisfied under Reason Code 00CH – the vehicle breaches the terms and conditions of the signage of a private car park.

All other relevant points have been answered in previous submissions.

beamerguy · 10 January 2018 at 9:49PM

This really stinks of SCAM

How can the PPC be the principal unless they are
the landowner as well

If there was really an audit, then the IAS must prove this

This all sounds like collusion between the IAS and the
parking operator

markudman · 10 January 2018 at 9:56PM

Beamerguy Can I send that reply LOL

markudman · 10 January 2018 at 9:57PM

Hay I got my 10 post Badge today, most exciting thing to happen today, but the night is young LOL

Resident Parking

Comments

Categories

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