(Sorry if this has been answered before but I am not great on the laptop and couldn't find any answer on the site.)

I have had a contractual breach charge left on my car in the car park of the flats I live in and wanted to get some advice.

I was displaying a valid permit but they claim I was parked obstructively( I guess because the only place free I could park was in front of the steps) but I had left plenty of room for people to walk behind my car.

Also, as the part of the car park where I parked does not have marked bays, isn't it up to the person parking to decide if they can park in a certain spot ( within reason of course)

I haven't contacted the company who issued the CBC someone called, ethical parking management and I would appreciate some advice as what I should do because I don't feel I have done anything wrong so I am reluctant to pay them. Thanks

too right.....

you have supremacy over their supposed charge under your tenancy

What do you mean?

ok thanks. So what should I do?

Fill this out

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?462118-Have-you-received-a-Parking-Ticket-(1-Viewing)-nbsp

As it is a ticket on the car the parking co has to follow the rules of the POFA and that menas that they allow 29 days for the driver to contact them and then they can send out a notice to the keeper of the vehicle and under certain circumstances make the keeper liable for the driver's actions.

You do nothing for the moment, wait for the NTK but in the meanwhile you need to do a bit of homework .

Firstly, is parking mentioned in the lease for the flats (assuming private development) and secondly what do the signs there say about parking conditions

. For the former it is unlikley that the lease says anything about paying a bunch of muppets for parking badly and for teh second point, if parking is restricted within the lease then I bet the signage they have to rely on doesnt specifically say that you agree to pay the same muppets for parking obstructively.

None of this is about parking or how and where you park, it is all about the right to form contracts and whetehr they are then breached, so if the signs doent specifically say anything about obstructive parking then they cant claim you have breached that contractual condition.

Supremacy of contract via the lease will normally defeat any such claim even if the signs mention everything under the sun as they dont apply to people who live there as their rights trump the muppets sign.

Let us know about the above 2 things and we will be able to compose something suitable for when the letter drops through your door.

Thanks for that. When I get home from work I will look at my tenancy agreement and see what it says about parking and also see what the wording is on the sign.

what is in your tenancy agreement doesnt matter, it is what is in the lease that counts.

That can be found via the Land Registry for £3 if your LL wont help you.

breaches of the tenancy or lease conditions are nothing to do with parking co.

Also, the parking co wont have a legal contract it can enforce as it will have signed up with managing agents in return for some consideration.

That is with a disinterested third party so not binding on anyone.

ok thanks

Hello, I have ( I hope) uploaded a photo of the sign from the car park of the flats

Also, as suggested I looked at the land registry deeds but I see nothing about any parking contract or anything that I can see as relevant

the land owner is?

dx

no T&C's on that sign and it says they are below...

so you are expected to trawl the car park and find them......

Ok thanks.

I will wait for the NTK and then see what you think I can do

Thanks to everyone who has helped

If there is anything in your tenancy agreement about parking, for example, you are entitled to park within the area, this would overrule Ethical (cough!!!) You will need to read it fully.

While I was looking at the Pranksters website, a court claim piqued my interest.

http://nebula.wsimg.com/c269da31b314e7cc17e383a625b5ae23?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

This was a case where the parking signage could not overrule the tenancy agreement.

the problem with their signis that it refers to a contractual charge and then says that it is a breach of contract.

It cant be both otherwise everyone and no-one has to pay.

The reality is that this is undoubtedly a matter for supremacy of contract and I still bet that the agreement to let these imbeciles loose on your estate was signed by someone who doesnt have the right to.

I have never seen a lease agreement that allows coboy parking co's any rights, even those that mention bad parking or parking conditions in the lease. So, supremacy of contract reighns supreme.

So, show us one of the NTK,s and we will tell you if you should let them know no keeper liability or whetehr they should get lost as no right to create contracts.

Their signs wont have planning permission either......bunch of criminals and you cannot enter a contract with people breaking the law.

Ok thank you as soon as I receive the NTK I will post on here.

It will be a while as I only received the bcc last week

Thanks again

the other elephant in the room for them is that there is no such condition as "obstructive parking" just gumf about permits being in the front window. Therefore there cannot be a breach of this condition as there isnt such a condition.

They really are more stupid than they look.

Wait for the NTKa nd then let them have it with both barrels.

Hello,

I haven't posted before as nothing further happened.

today when I got home from work the ntk was waiting for me.

I will post it on here and hopefully someone can tell me what I should do next.

Many thanks,

Hope you can see ok

The Title Deed to the property will probably not mention anything about a parking contract (as they never exist), but the plan of the property may well include a red line around a parking space as well as the dwelling itself.

That's what you need to be looking for.

Also type up here (word for word) the Register of Charges.

attachments hidden

you need to redact the ref number out

and also upload

OK date on the letter and date on the postmark on the envelope.

Also can we see the NTK as the wording must be absolutely correct to create a keeper liability.

In your case this may not be especialy relevant because you are arguing about your right to park in your space but you may wish to make them look even more incompetent than they are so far .

Ok sorry will read up how to do and post the attachments again(may take me a while) many thanks.

But for now I can tell you the date on the letter is 30th Nov and the postmark is the same

convert-jpg-to-pdf.net_2016-12-02_23-36-10.pdf

convert-jpg-to-pdf.net_2016-12-02_23-54-26.pdf

The signs say bay/space. Space means anywhere (IMO)

There is nothing in the signs that state you cannot park elsewhere in the parking area.

Have you checked your lease/tenancy agreement with regard to parking spaces. Some leases state you can only park in a numbered space whereas others will state that you can park in the car park.

Have you contacted the landowner/agent. You need to find out who the Ethical made the agreement with. If it was the agent and that agent is not the landowner then Ethical have a problem.

I suspect that if an agent is managing the area, no specific clause was entered into the contract with the landowner.

Edit: What date was the original parking event?

Hello, the original parking event was on the 26 October

The tenancy agreement just says that all residents must display a valid permit ( which I do) there are no actual marked out spaces.

The agents are not at all helpful.

please note that the tenancy agreement is between you and the leasholder of your flat so not applicable to the matter in hand.

The agents will be unhelpful for several reasons,

primarily they dont want to get involved as it will just be grief for them and no money earnt and there may be a clash of interests anyway.

Minor point about the NTK,

they use a PO box number rather than a service address.

If the signage has the same then they cant claim keeper liability as they havent given the address of the creditor.

If one is being picky this is enough to beat a claim but anyone taking a pragmatic approach would say that a PO Box number is an address when it isnt but may decide that the rest of the letter si good enough so it is a proper NTK.

I would be using this non-existent address as support to other arguments should things need a bit of pushing in a general direction of whose evidence is the more believeable.

The real point here is that there can be no breach of contract because therie is no clause in the contract that says you can only park in a certain way and no contractual obligation to park in a prescribed manner.

In short they dont know the difference between monies owed under a contract or monies owed for breach of contract.

the 2 are not the same and they still fail to mention this supposed transgression in the signage anyway so it doesnt exist.

Should you appeal?

As it is POPLA they will have to pay a fee to POPLA for your appeal and it will be binding on them but not on you so yes is the answer to that.

when you appeal state that you are the keeper and do not say "I" anything but use the third person so "the driver at the time" and "the keeper".

Your appeal is that there was no breach of contract because no mention in the contract regarding obstructive parking.

Send copy of the signage.

Keep the other points to yourself regarding the difference between contractual obligation and breach of contract and the duff service address.

You may need to use these at some point in the future so dont give them the chance to change their time in the meanwhile.

Thank you very much I will send the appeal on Monday giving the reasons you say.

I will post their response when I get it.