IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.
PCN Headache
Options
TMTC
Posts: 3 Newbie
Hello everyone,
I do apologise if this isn’t the right place for this but having read through the boards until my eyes sting, I’m not sure where else to ask... I wanted to see what you guys thought about this situation, and also for your amusement see what POPLA said about the BPA Code.
I live in a residential development with an allocated car parking space to me (I have checked the lease and it is very vague about the parking arrangement - nothing about ‘enjoyment’ or a specific space mentioned etc.). I have resided at the location since the flats were built 8 years ago and have parked the same vehicle in my allocated space all of that time without issue.
On 8th September 2017 a private parking company issued my vehicle with a sticker stating ‘parking charge notice’. There was no paperwork with it so I waited until I received a PCN through the post as registered keeper, which I did on 02/12/2017 (85 days later) - (The date on the PCN was 29/11/2017 (82 days)). The reason for the PCN was that my parking permit was not on display. On return from holiday I did indeed find the permit in the footwell of the vehicle and not on the dashboard as usual. I took photos of this.
I made a DPA to the DVLA and was advised that the parking company had requested my details twice; on 16/10/2017 (38 days) and on 10/11/2017 (63 days). I was not the driver at the time of the ‘offence’ as I was on holiday, so I appealed the PCN as the keeper of the vehicle on the basis that my parking permit was in the vehicle at the time anyway (hoping common sense would prevail) and noted that the parking company had taken too long to send me the PCN in order for them to pass the liability onto the keeper anyway.
I was told that the appeal had been unsuccessful as my vehicle was not parked in accordance with the terms and conditions on site, and I had not provided sufficient evidence to show otherwise, even though I’d sent them the photos I had taken shown where the permit was.
As suggested by the parking company as an alternative appeals process, I appealed to POPLA. I was again unsuccessful. This is what they replied:
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued due to “Failure to display a Valid Permit”.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant says the bay is registered to his home address, and he pays a service charge for use of the bay. The appellant explains that his vehicle is the only vehicle authorised to park in that parking space, and he has had the relevant permit to show this displayed in his windscreen for the past eight years. The appellant says that on this occasion, the permit had fallen from the dashboard onto the shelf floor, landing besides the driver seat. He says it was still visible in this position. The appellant states that “the British Parking Association Code of Conduct, which stipulates under part 20.12 that the Notice To Keeper must meet the requirements under Paragraphs 6 (1) (b) and 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012; those including that the Notice To Keeper must be given by sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended” and highlights that the date of the contravention was 8 September 2017, and he received the PCN on 1 December 2017. The appellant states this is in contravention of the BPA Code of Conduct for sending a Notice to Keeper. The appellant has provided evidence to support the appeal.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
Firstly, I note the appellant makes reference to the BPA Code of Conduct, however the quote provided is actually taken from the BPA Code of Practice. In relation to the BPA Code of Practice, when issuing a PCN that is not utilising the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, Section 21.6 states that, “To give drivers early notice of your claim, you should apply to the DVLA for the keeper details promptly. Usually this would be applying to the DVLA no more than 28 days after the unauthorised parking event”. Section 21.7 further sets out that, “You must post the parking charge notice to the keeper as soon as possible. Your target is to send the parking charge notice to the keeper of the vehicle no more than 14 days after receiving the keeper data from the DVLA”. While I note the operator has issued the notice three months after the parking event, the BPA Code of Practice does not set out strict requirements in relation to this issue. It states that operators “should” apply to the DVLA promptly, however does not set out any strict time period. Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012 does set out time scales, however, as the charge has not been issued using PoFA 2012, this is not relevant to this appeal. PoFA 2012 sets out the provisions an operator must meet in order to transfer liability from the driver, to the registered keeper of the vehicle. The appellant has identified as the driver of the vehicle. As such, the operator does not need to send a notice using PoFA, as it is not seeking to pursue the keeper of the vehicle. Should the appellant wish to pursue any dispute regarding this matter, they would need to contact the operator, or the BPA directly. When entering onto a private car park, the motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage at the site sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. Therefore, upon entry to the car park, it is the duty of the motorist to review the terms and conditions, and comply with them, when deciding to park. The operator has provided evidence of the terms and conditions given on the signage, which state, “Parking is permitted for: Vehicles fully and clearly displaying a valid permit in the front windscreen and fully parked within the confines of a marked bay”. The signs indicate a PCN of £100 will be issued for failure to comply with this. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, parked at the site on 8 September 2017 at 14:40. The photographs show there is not a permit displayed in the front windscreen, as stipulated in the terms and conditions. The appellant says this was on the seat, and as such, has confirmed it was not displayed as per the requirements highlighted on the signs. Section 20.5b of the BPA Code of Practice states that, “In deciding whether a payment ticket has been visibly displayed on a vehicle you must do a thorough visual check of the dashboard and windows”. I am satisfied the operator has provided evidence which demonstrates it has done this. While I recognise the appellant pays a service charge for the parking space, this does not exempt them from the applicable terms and conditions. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. Upon consideration of the evidence, the appellant failed to display a valid permit, and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.’
I complained to POPLA requesting to know where I had identified as being the driver, given I was the keeper of the vehicle and had made this point clear. I was given this reply:
‘I have reviewed the assessor’s decision and I am satisfied that the assessor has made a judgement call and that the outcome reached is correct. I am satisfied that although you have stated that you were the keeper of the vehicle your grounds of appeal identified you as the driver.’
I even brought this matter up with the person at the managing agent who signed the parking contract with the parking company. Having seen my photos they emailed the head of that parking company requesting the ticket be cancelled. I have now received a reply today stating that they would not cancel the ticket but would reduce it if I pay it within 7 days as ‘a gesture of goodwill’. Obviously the managing agent does not want to get involved any further and I do not expect them to.
What do you all think of this? I have never experienced anything like this before and I find it absolutely disgraceful. What action do you think I should now take? I obviously have absolutely no intention of paying this company a penny and am fully prepared to take this through to Court if necessary in the belief that I am correct. I feel as though they are just hoping that I cave-in and pay them something.
In terms of POPLA stating that I had identified as the driver in my grounds for appeal, here are the grounds I sent them, from which they have deduced I was apparently the driver...
‘I am writing to appeal the Parking Charge Notice - Reference XYZ - relating to a XYZ with index XYZ, of which I am the owner. The reason for requesting an appeal is that the vehicle is parked in my own residents parking bay and has been the only vehicle parked in that bay for the past 8 years. The bay is registered to my home address, to which the PCN was sent, and I pay a Service Charge for the use of that bay. The PCN stayed that there is a 'Failure to Display a Valid Permit', however my vehicle has had the relevant permit displayed in the windscreen for the past 8 years without incident and on this occasion the permit happened to have fallen from the dashboard shelf onto the floor, landing beside the drivers seat. I discovered this on my return from holiday when I opened the door. I attach photographs showing the position I discovered the permit, which was just visible from outside the vehicle. You can see the time the photograph was taken on the file details, which was a considerable time before I could have seen the photographs that the enforcement officer had taken, none of which show the position it was laying. Furthermore as I understand it, the parking company, in order to manage parking on private land, must belong to an Accredited Trade Association in order to access keeper details from the DVLA, and in order to do so must adhere to the scheme's Code of Conduct. The parking company is listed as being part of the BPA and is therefore subject to abide by the British Parking Association Code of Conduct, which stipulates under part 20.12 that the Notice To Keeper must meet the requirements under Paragraphs 6 (1) (b) and 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012; those including that the Notice To Keeper must be given by sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended. The date of the contravention was 08/09/2017 and I received the PCN on 01/12/2017 (date of sending shown as being 29/11/2017); this being a difference of 82 days (or 2 months, 21 days). I believe this time-period is not only vastly inappropriate but in contravention of the BPA Code of Conduct for sending a Notice to Keeper.’
TMTC
I do apologise if this isn’t the right place for this but having read through the boards until my eyes sting, I’m not sure where else to ask... I wanted to see what you guys thought about this situation, and also for your amusement see what POPLA said about the BPA Code.
I live in a residential development with an allocated car parking space to me (I have checked the lease and it is very vague about the parking arrangement - nothing about ‘enjoyment’ or a specific space mentioned etc.). I have resided at the location since the flats were built 8 years ago and have parked the same vehicle in my allocated space all of that time without issue.
On 8th September 2017 a private parking company issued my vehicle with a sticker stating ‘parking charge notice’. There was no paperwork with it so I waited until I received a PCN through the post as registered keeper, which I did on 02/12/2017 (85 days later) - (The date on the PCN was 29/11/2017 (82 days)). The reason for the PCN was that my parking permit was not on display. On return from holiday I did indeed find the permit in the footwell of the vehicle and not on the dashboard as usual. I took photos of this.
I made a DPA to the DVLA and was advised that the parking company had requested my details twice; on 16/10/2017 (38 days) and on 10/11/2017 (63 days). I was not the driver at the time of the ‘offence’ as I was on holiday, so I appealed the PCN as the keeper of the vehicle on the basis that my parking permit was in the vehicle at the time anyway (hoping common sense would prevail) and noted that the parking company had taken too long to send me the PCN in order for them to pass the liability onto the keeper anyway.
I was told that the appeal had been unsuccessful as my vehicle was not parked in accordance with the terms and conditions on site, and I had not provided sufficient evidence to show otherwise, even though I’d sent them the photos I had taken shown where the permit was.
As suggested by the parking company as an alternative appeals process, I appealed to POPLA. I was again unsuccessful. This is what they replied:
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) was issued due to “Failure to display a Valid Permit”.
Assessor summary of your case
The appellant says the bay is registered to his home address, and he pays a service charge for use of the bay. The appellant explains that his vehicle is the only vehicle authorised to park in that parking space, and he has had the relevant permit to show this displayed in his windscreen for the past eight years. The appellant says that on this occasion, the permit had fallen from the dashboard onto the shelf floor, landing besides the driver seat. He says it was still visible in this position. The appellant states that “the British Parking Association Code of Conduct, which stipulates under part 20.12 that the Notice To Keeper must meet the requirements under Paragraphs 6 (1) (b) and 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012; those including that the Notice To Keeper must be given by sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended” and highlights that the date of the contravention was 8 September 2017, and he received the PCN on 1 December 2017. The appellant states this is in contravention of the BPA Code of Conduct for sending a Notice to Keeper. The appellant has provided evidence to support the appeal.
Assessor supporting rational for decision
Firstly, I note the appellant makes reference to the BPA Code of Conduct, however the quote provided is actually taken from the BPA Code of Practice. In relation to the BPA Code of Practice, when issuing a PCN that is not utilising the provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act (PoFA) 2012, Section 21.6 states that, “To give drivers early notice of your claim, you should apply to the DVLA for the keeper details promptly. Usually this would be applying to the DVLA no more than 28 days after the unauthorised parking event”. Section 21.7 further sets out that, “You must post the parking charge notice to the keeper as soon as possible. Your target is to send the parking charge notice to the keeper of the vehicle no more than 14 days after receiving the keeper data from the DVLA”. While I note the operator has issued the notice three months after the parking event, the BPA Code of Practice does not set out strict requirements in relation to this issue. It states that operators “should” apply to the DVLA promptly, however does not set out any strict time period. Schedule 4 of PoFA 2012 does set out time scales, however, as the charge has not been issued using PoFA 2012, this is not relevant to this appeal. PoFA 2012 sets out the provisions an operator must meet in order to transfer liability from the driver, to the registered keeper of the vehicle. The appellant has identified as the driver of the vehicle. As such, the operator does not need to send a notice using PoFA, as it is not seeking to pursue the keeper of the vehicle. Should the appellant wish to pursue any dispute regarding this matter, they would need to contact the operator, or the BPA directly. When entering onto a private car park, the motorist forms a contract with the operator by remaining on the land for a reasonable period. The signage at the site sets out the terms and conditions of this contract. Therefore, upon entry to the car park, it is the duty of the motorist to review the terms and conditions, and comply with them, when deciding to park. The operator has provided evidence of the terms and conditions given on the signage, which state, “Parking is permitted for: Vehicles fully and clearly displaying a valid permit in the front windscreen and fully parked within the confines of a marked bay”. The signs indicate a PCN of £100 will be issued for failure to comply with this. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle, parked at the site on 8 September 2017 at 14:40. The photographs show there is not a permit displayed in the front windscreen, as stipulated in the terms and conditions. The appellant says this was on the seat, and as such, has confirmed it was not displayed as per the requirements highlighted on the signs. Section 20.5b of the BPA Code of Practice states that, “In deciding whether a payment ticket has been visibly displayed on a vehicle you must do a thorough visual check of the dashboard and windows”. I am satisfied the operator has provided evidence which demonstrates it has done this. While I recognise the appellant pays a service charge for the parking space, this does not exempt them from the applicable terms and conditions. Ultimately, it is the motorist’s responsibility to comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. Upon consideration of the evidence, the appellant failed to display a valid permit, and therefore did not comply with the terms and conditions of the car park. As such, I conclude that the PCN has been issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.’
I complained to POPLA requesting to know where I had identified as being the driver, given I was the keeper of the vehicle and had made this point clear. I was given this reply:
‘I have reviewed the assessor’s decision and I am satisfied that the assessor has made a judgement call and that the outcome reached is correct. I am satisfied that although you have stated that you were the keeper of the vehicle your grounds of appeal identified you as the driver.’
I even brought this matter up with the person at the managing agent who signed the parking contract with the parking company. Having seen my photos they emailed the head of that parking company requesting the ticket be cancelled. I have now received a reply today stating that they would not cancel the ticket but would reduce it if I pay it within 7 days as ‘a gesture of goodwill’. Obviously the managing agent does not want to get involved any further and I do not expect them to.
What do you all think of this? I have never experienced anything like this before and I find it absolutely disgraceful. What action do you think I should now take? I obviously have absolutely no intention of paying this company a penny and am fully prepared to take this through to Court if necessary in the belief that I am correct. I feel as though they are just hoping that I cave-in and pay them something.
In terms of POPLA stating that I had identified as the driver in my grounds for appeal, here are the grounds I sent them, from which they have deduced I was apparently the driver...
‘I am writing to appeal the Parking Charge Notice - Reference XYZ - relating to a XYZ with index XYZ, of which I am the owner. The reason for requesting an appeal is that the vehicle is parked in my own residents parking bay and has been the only vehicle parked in that bay for the past 8 years. The bay is registered to my home address, to which the PCN was sent, and I pay a Service Charge for the use of that bay. The PCN stayed that there is a 'Failure to Display a Valid Permit', however my vehicle has had the relevant permit displayed in the windscreen for the past 8 years without incident and on this occasion the permit happened to have fallen from the dashboard shelf onto the floor, landing beside the drivers seat. I discovered this on my return from holiday when I opened the door. I attach photographs showing the position I discovered the permit, which was just visible from outside the vehicle. You can see the time the photograph was taken on the file details, which was a considerable time before I could have seen the photographs that the enforcement officer had taken, none of which show the position it was laying. Furthermore as I understand it, the parking company, in order to manage parking on private land, must belong to an Accredited Trade Association in order to access keeper details from the DVLA, and in order to do so must adhere to the scheme's Code of Conduct. The parking company is listed as being part of the BPA and is therefore subject to abide by the British Parking Association Code of Conduct, which stipulates under part 20.12 that the Notice To Keeper must meet the requirements under Paragraphs 6 (1) (b) and 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012; those including that the Notice To Keeper must be given by sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended. The date of the contravention was 08/09/2017 and I received the PCN on 01/12/2017 (date of sending shown as being 29/11/2017); this being a difference of 82 days (or 2 months, 21 days). I believe this time-period is not only vastly inappropriate but in contravention of the BPA Code of Conduct for sending a Notice to Keeper.’
TMTC
0
Comments
-
I even brought this matter up with the person at the managing agent who signed the parking contract with the parking company. Having seen my photos they emailed the head of that parking company requesting the ticket be cancelled. I have now received a reply today stating that they would not cancel the ticket but would reduce it if I pay it within 7 days as ‘a gesture of goodwill’. Obviously the managing agent does not want to get involved any further and I do not expect them to.
WHO is the parking company
Your managing agent is not off the hook. They are jointly
responsible for the actions of the PPC.
They instructed the PPC to cancel and the PPC is still
trying to scam you.
What's good for the managing agent in terms of
what they agree with will be suitable in court and therefore
tell the managing agent you intend to include them in
any court action
This normally provokes them to be firm with the PPC
that it is cancelled.
This is a case of the tail wagging the dog
Be firm and insist this is cancelled0 -
This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences.
Parking Eye, Smart and a smaller company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (who take hundreds of these cases to court, and nearly always lose), who have also been reported to the regulatory authority.
The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.
http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41
and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind most of these companies may well be put out of business by Christmas.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
Hi beamerguy,
I didn’t realise we were allowed to name the companies involved as per a sticky I read at the top, but if we are allowed to they are called ‘0ne Parking S0luti0n’. Apologies for not saying before. Every person I have spoken to about this is incredulous about the situation. I even caught a representative of this company checking the car park for further ‘offenders’ last week, having parked their vehicle directly over the words ‘No Parking’ on the estate! I took a photo and I’d consider sending the photo into them to see whether their employee will be receiving a PCN too for breach of contract.
A ‘Litigation Coordinator’ replied to the housing agent by e-mail stating that they were unable to cancel the ticket and adding, ‘Whilst I appreciate your concerns in regards to the amount of time, a notice advising of the parking charge was put on the vehicle at the time of the event, and all fair opportunities ie. to appeal and to pay a lower rate, were all still given to the motorist from the date of the postal PCN (not from the date of contravention). It was the motorist’s decision to contact you after all other means were unsuccessful – and unfortunately we have incurred extra costs during this period.’0 -
you dont owe a penny unless a judge says so, in your local civil county court !!
until a judge makes a judgment , its all smoke and mirrors and opinions only
check the BMPA ZENDESK to see if they ever try court
and IGNORE any debt collector letters , they are powerless
watch the House Of CVommons video to see what MP,s from all parties think about these sc@mmers , and read the Hansard transcripts too
do not be intimidated by these sc@mmers0 -
0ne Parking S0luti0n can be ignored. Their "Litigation Coordinator" must be one a ZHC as they don't litigate. Or perhaps they tell lies in the hope you will pay.0
-
Hi beamerguy,
A ‘Litigation Coordinator’ replied to the housing agent by e-mail stating that they were unable to cancel the ticket and adding, ‘Whilst I appreciate your concerns in regards to the amount of time, a notice advising of the parking charge was put on the vehicle at the time of the event, and all fair opportunities ie. to appeal and to pay a lower rate, were all still given to the motorist from the date of the postal PCN (not from the date of contravention). It was the motorist’s decision to contact you after all other means were unsuccessful – and unfortunately we have incurred extra costs during this period.’
A ‘Litigation Coordinator’... HAHAHA
A grand title for an office clerk, what will these scammers
say next :rotfl:
Regardless of what they say, it is the managing agent
who has employed them, he is the boss not the PPC.
Question now is, will the agent want to go to court to
advise a judge that he instructed this to be cancelled
and what would the PPC say about that
There was a case a while ago where the PPC tried to claim
for all sorts of expenses and the judge said "but these are
normal business expenses for you to carry"
Judges are getting very used to the rubbish these PPC's
come out with and they are not impressed.
Next time you see the PPC car parked wrongly, take a
picture and if it ever gets that far, give the judge a
good laugh .... it works both ways0 -
Their "Litigation Coordinator" must have one hell of a boring job :rotfl::rotfl:
http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/One_Parking_Solution.html0 -
IamEmanresu wrote: »0ne Parking S0luti0n can be ignored. Their "Litigation Coordinator" must be one a ZHC as they don't litigate. Or perhaps they tell lies in the hope you will pay.
Seconded.
I just told someone on another forum to ignore the daft ZZPS and QDR letters from this bunch.
Here, in your words below, IMHO you should have made it clearer to POPLA that although you opened the door and discovered the permit was on the floor on return from holiday, you were not the driver who parked the vehicle:
I think that's what made the Assessor assume you were the driver, and I think they were wrong to make that assumption, but you'd have won easily had you made it crystal clear, maybe saying 'a member of my family discovered it when we returned from holiday and opened the car door, but I was not the driver who parked the car and that person will not be named.'I discovered this on my return from holiday when I opened the door.
...at least you know how to win these, and spell it out to POPLA next time! And you know you have a non-litigious bunch of ex-clampers on site (better the devil you know).
But I would push the MA to remove the private firms completely, you DO NOT NEED a private parking firm at a residential car park, EVER.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Thank you for your thoughts chaps. It actually gets even more ridiculous when I looked at the email again. When I looked down I realise I had been sent the chain of emails between the managing agent and the parking company by the managing agent, and in it the parking company say they cannot cancel the ticket because, ‘POPLA appeals are free to the motorist but incur a cost on us. We would therefore be unable to cancel the PCN free of charge. We can allow the motorist to pay the reduced rate as a gesture of goodwill if this is paid by Friday. Please let me know if the motorist would like to proceed with this.’ The parking company were the ones who suggested I went to POPLA to appeal if I was not happy! They strangely never suggested ‘having a chat’ with the managing agent. And I don’t think that it costs them £60.
I completely agree that I should have made it clearer to POPLA - As I was away I had lent the car to a friend for the day to help him move flat, but I was not prepared to give the parking company his details. When I appealed to the parking company I used the option of the drop-down menu stating I was the keeper, not the driver and keeper, and I copied and pasted the same appeal to POPLA forgetting they did not have the same drop-down. Regardless, I did complain to POPLA that I found their decision defective but their decision may not have been accepted by the parking company anyway, so it was almost a pointless exercise.
What do you guys think I should say back to them; that I do not intend to pay for XYZ reasons, or not even bother replying at all. I don’t want to waste any more of the Litigation Officers time.0 -
POPLA costs them half that, but all PPCs bleat the same tuneless song:
''waaah, POPLA costs us money so it's too late to cancel''.
Course they didn't! They would NEVER encourage you biting the hand that feeds them. PPCs detest landowner complaints, which is why we encourage them every time, early, as PLAN A, not after POPLA.They strangely never suggested 'having a chat' with the managing agent
I am a chapess (!) and they do not have a 'litigation officer' (LOL!) and it's good to waste the time of any firm connected to this 'outrageous scam' (Hansard, 2.2.18).Thank you for your thoughts chaps.
What do you guys think I should say back to them; that I do not intend to pay for XYZ reasons, or not even bother replying at all. I don't want to waste any more of the Litigation Officers time.
Wow, why not, this is their fault. They allowed this scummy ex-clamper firm in to maraud among your cars and issue penalties for a jumped-up reason that has NOTHING to do with any of your interests.Obviously the managing agent does not want to get involved any further and I do not expect them to.
You need to read the threads by:
Daniel san
and
hairray
to learn why your MA is at fault, and why this PPC needs kicking out and not replacing. Do you know what, if I lived in a flat that had a PPC shoe-horned in by a MA, I would move for that reason alone. When my DD was looking for a flat to rent, I encouraged her to look for signs in the car park and consider the threat of a PPC as a reason not to sign up. She found one with no infestation.
Have you watched the Parliamentary debate, all over the forum in February, easy to find links to on loads of threads, as well as TD's post #3 above (watch the link, it is worth watching). You do need to get more fired up about what you are embroiled in, and the role of your MA in the mess.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards