Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • When you get chance please upload a redacted copy of the agreement and also this termination notice included within the LBC.
    • Hope there is someone who can have a look at this please? 🤞Have to hand it in in like half an hour... THanks!   INTRODUCTION 1.      As a defendant in this case I make this Witness Statement to oppose the claimant application dated 19.09.23 to lift the stay on proceedings, for the defence to be struck out, for the Summary Judgment on the whole claim and the cost order to be made against me, the defendant in view of my Defence submitted to the County Court Business Centre in Northampton on 22 June 2019. 2.      The Claimant confirms that this claim issued through Northampton County Court Business Centre remained stayed since. 3.      Attached is a witness statement and a bundle of documents marked ‘LON2’. BACKGROUND 4.      The defendant confirms she entered into a contract with the Student Loan Company (SLC) under Loan Number ………….. on 28 November 1996. The original loan amount was £2035.00 with APR rate of 2.7%. 5.      The loan was regulated by SLC and during the time SLC was in charge of the account the defendant successfully deferred every year as she was always under the earning threshold. 6.      The defendant acknowledges receiving a copy of a loan agreement enclosed as pages [1 to 2] of ‘LON1’. NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT 7.      As per her defence, the claimant acknowledges receiving Notice of Assignment when the loan was moved over from SLC to Claimant on 22.11.2013. 8.      The Student Loan agreement is regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. 9.      As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights. This means that when an assignee purchases debts (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information). The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party. 2014 REMEDIATION 10.  Defendant received a remediation pack from the Claimant on 28th August 2014 named Remedy of Account enclosed on pages [1-34] of ‘LON2’.  The cover letter explained that there was an issue under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 that resulted in Defendant’s balance being higher than it should have been so the reduction of £441.47 was applied to the account. 11.  The enclosed replacement documents in the pack showed correct situation compared to the originals with the erroneous Sums of Arrears. 12.   The defendant found this Remediation pack confusing and worrying that CCA 1974 was breached on Defendant’s account, yet the Claimant brushed it off with vague explanation and an apology. 13.  This issue puts shade on the Claimant’s requirement to prove the allegation that the money is owed as claimed under the Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4), as the Defendant does not admit the allegation. DEFERMENTS 14.  The defendant was granted deferrals for all the years they were with the SLC and continued to be granted deferments by the Claimant when they took over the loan as the claimant was under the earning threshold at all pertinent times. 15.  Defendant was sent and completed deferment forms for 20 years, between 1996 – 2016 without fail and no payments were ever due. 16.  Defendant had not received the 2017 deferment forms 8 weeks before the due date or the subsequent reminder that is customarily sent. 17.  Defendant had not been reminded by email about the deferment. 18.  When the Claimant noticed the Defendant’s deferment form was missing and this was unusual considering they have been at the same address for more than a decade and are on the electoral register, the Claimant did not make an attempt to call or email the defendant to communicate with them about the situation. 19.  The Claimant therefore did not treat the Defendant fairly. CCA REMEDIATON 2018 20.  As mentioned in Defendant’s Defence and not responded to in the Claimant’s Witness statement; the next communication from the Claimant that the Defendant received was the Remedy of Account pack on 1st September 2018 containing missing statutory notices that they are required to send within the prescribed timescales containing correct information to inform the client about their account as presented in pages [35-69] of ‘LON2’ 21.  Due to a system error between 2016-2018 the Claimant did not comply with this requirement and the correct statutory notices were not sent. 22.  This system error coincided with the dates the deferment forms were not received by the Defendant. 23.  The pack included annual statements some of which mentioned Sums of Arrears, much like the ones SLC used to send the Defendant in error – which was corrected by Claimant in 2014 as mentioned in points 9-12. The defendant was confused and googled the Remediation issue and found a - nothing to worry about – type of explanation on the Claimant’s website as it seems many accounts were affected. 24.  Claimant’s website stated: “What is remediation? During ongoing quality checks/reviews of our accounts, we identified an issue relating to communications that we are required to send customers as prescribed by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended) (CCA). Additionally, our review identified issues with the data on some of our customers’ accounts. Having reviewed all accounts for issues, along with rectifying the issues identified above, we are now in a position to resume our normal processes. We have begun writing to our customers who have had arrears on their loan(s) since 9 December 2015 (when Erudio took over the day to day management of the loans from the Capita Group). This is to ensure they have had all the required CCA notifications and their account data is accurate. This will involve sending the corrected documentation to affected customers and corrections to the data on customers’ accounts. If your account has been affected, you will receive this documentation where applicable. Any interest incurred since these issues arose will be deducted from your account balances. What does it mean for me? You don’t need to do anything. If you have been affected by any of these issues, you will receive a letter from us outlining what we have done to fix it. We will provide you with corrected regulatory letters for the period affected by these issues and inform you about any adjustments to your account balance or payment as a result of the removal of interest added to your account during that period.” 25.  The defendant concluded this error must be also why the deferment forms were not sent and trusted that the Claimant would fix the error and send the documents with an apology, after all, if there was a problem, the Claimant would have called or emailed to let the Defendant know. 26.  The Claimant was in breach of the CCA 1974 rules in letting the Defendant know about the arrears on the account, and subsequent actions taken were unenforceable as this was the Claimant’s error. LETTER OF CLAIM AND COURT DEFENCE 27.  However, Defendant was served with a Letter of Claim which was a shock. She had never been to court before and did not think she had a choice but go to court as the other option was to succumb to unreasonable offer by Dryden’s Fairfax lawyers representing the Claimant. 28.  Defendant therefore submitted defence to court. 29.  The Claimant’s witness statement has not addressed the CCA 1974 breach that was stated in point 15 or 16 of the Defendant’s defence. ADMINISTRATIVE STAY OF PROCEEDINGS July 2019 – May 2024 30.  As the Claimant’s Witness Statement reads, during the almost 5 year administrative stay, the Defendant was contacted by Drydens Fairfax layers representing the Claimant with offers to settle the ‘debt’, however the Defendant found the letters had a violent undertone, each one threatening with a CCJ unless the Defendant complied with demands. It was therefore unwise  to enter into any kind of relationship with such bullies who were well aware of the Defendant’s defence and that their client made serious mistakes and a breached CCA 1974 rules. 31.  As a result of these continual threats but the case still on administrative stay the Defendant experienced continual nightmares and stress related gut problems. She has seen the gut specialist who advised her the mind body connection and trauma can be connected with her type of gut issues and the defendant’s GP followed by referring her to trauma psychotherapy. 32.  On 8th of June 2021 the Claimant sent a letter with the statutory documentation they failed to send the Defendant even though her postal address had not changed. Again this was another CCA 1974 breach. 33.  On 16th December 2021 the Claimant sent another letter apologising for and error made in charging the Solicitor’s fees incorrectly, continuing with a series of blunders.    
    • I'm trying to unravel this – but I get the impression that there was no contract between you and EVRi and that you didn't even choose them but instead you decided use some third party parcel broker in the USA which organised the delivery. Is this correct? EVRi came into the picture because they would then eventually selected for part of the journey although you had no knowledge that it might be them and I suppose it didn't really matter as long as the item got to you. Secondly, I really don't understand the journey which this item made. You bought the item from somebody in the USA. They then were meant to dispatch it to you to another address in the USA but for some reason or other it came to the UK and then into the hands of EVRi at which point it was lost or stolen. More confusion here because you now tell us that EVRi marked it as being out for delivery but it was never delivered. This suggests that it was going to be delivered to a UK address but earlier on you said that it was going to be delivered to USA address. I think you need to look at the story. Maybe show it to a friend of yours who is not particularly where the details and ask them if they can make head or tail of it and then come back to us with clarification so that we fully understand. Also, I think we'd like to know what the item is, how was it declared, what was the value which was declared. You said it was a valuable item because it was rare and collectable. I gather from this that it is non-fungible. We need to understand more about this. Was an insurance policy purchased to cover it during the delivery process. I understand that this rare and collectable item be valued at £200. Have evidence this value. This could become very important. Also you have given is no idea when this happened. We need to understand the full timescale. There are a number of possibilities here including the possibility of the contract action against EVRi on the basis of your third party rights or an action for negligence but we need to know far more and we need to get a story that makes sense.   Finally, I understand that you have sent the letter of claim. What did it say? How much time did you give them? What did you expect to happen as a result of the letter of claim? Whatever the answers to those questions might be, clearly you had no idea how to proceed after having sent such a letter. A letter of claim is meant to be a serious threat of some legal action if some condition which you have stipulated is not complied with. You set a deadline for compliance and at the end of that deadline you issue the court action. Clearly you are not in a position to do that so your letter of claim is a bluff and undermines your credibility and it will find its way into the EVRi wastepaper basket – if it's not there already.  
    • Good morning. I just wanted to check something please. The other side have moved slightly and negotiated a full and final offer price to end this matter. I am happy with this. However, I want to make sure this is the end of the matter and am emailing the following over to them prior to payment. Is this enough to ensure they can come back for nothing else? Thanks -------------------------------------------------- Dear Sir.   With regards your last email below.   I am pleased to agree to the full and final settlement figure given below.   Can you confirm this payment will be in full and final payment with no further claim to be brought against me in this matter?   Best regards
    • 100% sure I didn't receive it, that why my first post is with the £100 letter.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

PPM PCN 4.11AM!! - residential parking space - no permit displayed


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1208 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi, (I hope i am posting this in the correct space and apologies to admins if im not)

 

I appreciate any help this forum/users can offer in advance.

 

I live in a new development (I rent been here for 4/5 years), I have an allocated space as per my tenancy agreement.

 

Recently (September) the management company introduced a new scheme by appointmenting P&P Management Ltd to regulate the parking of our development.

 

However the problem here is, instead of regulating the cars that park outside of bays (they don't have the legal right because the road is owned by the council) they now ticket cars in the private bays that don't display a permit issued by P&P Management Ltd.

 

We received a letter informing us that unless we send back the display permit and send an email to opt out we would be accepting any rules set by P&P. Like most, work, life etc got in the way and i forgot to send back the permit and write an email.

 

Low and behold i eventually received a ticket. I explained that I posted the permit back (must of got lost in the post....) and explained I didnt realise had to email as well. Nevertheless i also explained that I didnt give the management company nor the P&P to regulate my space, neither did my landlady. I followed their appeals process and they have written back to say in short, I owe them £60 going up to £100 if its not paid by a certain date.

 

Ultimately what im trying to understand is can they chase me, if they can what are the chance of the courts finding this case in their favour.

 

I've read that a Penalty Charge Notice is different from a Parking Charge Notice (Which is what they issued me with).

 

I'm happy to tell them with a few choice words where they can go and see them in court, but I also want to know if its worth just suffering the £60 and them now understanding and knowing I no longer participate in the scheme (not that I did anyways) and the situation being done with.

 

Appreciate this is long winded but thanks again in advance for your help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 151
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

please complete this:

 

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?462118-Have-you-received-a-Parking-Ticket

 

its in your lease, they'd lose hands down...rights of supremacy of contract..

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

we know that....

copy and fill out the relevant q's to here and answer each q at its end.[windscreen or ANPR ]

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

The link provided is for private parking tickets.

 

 

Without seeing any tickets which I would hope you will upload in pdf format it's hard to say what is likely to happen. I'm also assuming this was a windscreen ticket.

 

 

Was the company employed without any consultation?

 

 

As it stands, you have supremacy of contract as you have an allocated space within your lease. You do not have to show any permits whatsoever if you wanted to.

 

 

This parking company is a one man band and are quite likely to take court action (249 cases so far this year)

 

 

You could appeal to them if you wish but as they are members of the IPC, they will likely reject your appeal and after that it's pointless appealing further to the IAS as they are an 'old boys club' who are on the side of the parking company.

 

 

I would suggest that you appeal the first time and when they reject you, write back to them stating that should they wish to take court action, you will defend in full. Don't involve the IPC at all.

 

 

Hold fire for other opinions and if you can, let us see the ticket (suitably redacted of personal details and bar codes/reference numbers)

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

as your parking space is allocated to the property PPM have no authority to trespass on your vehicle to slap their ticket on it.

They may well say that they sent you a letter but that has as much value as me sending you a letter saying you have to sell your car to me for a £1 or i will sue. ( needless to say there is case law on this so they are stuffed)

 

Now they are there because the management co have invited them to be there.

They cant make any money out of people parking on the road so rely on inventing false reasons to chisel the residents out of cash.

the problem is that many will pay up and thus encourage this stupidity when a group action telling the to get lost would have been the end of it ( if everyone returned the permit they wouldnt have a chace at inventing a reason to be there)

 

Now, as they have issued a ticket for your vehicle you can wait and see what they do next and if it isnt the correct procedure they are stuffed by the law on private parkingas well as contract law.

 

Chances of court finding in their favour?

almost zero but that wont stop them trying because 85% of all court claims go undefended so it is a numbers game for them.

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

For a windscreen ticket (Notice To Driver) please answer the following questions....

 

1 The date of infringement? 12/10/2018 @ 04:11

 

2 Have you yet appealed to the parking company yet? [Y/N?] - Yes

 

have you received a Notice To Keeper? (NTK) [must be received by you between 29-56 days]

what date is on it

Did the NTK provide photographic evidence? No

 

3 Did the NTK mention Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) [Y/N?]

 

4 If you appealed after receiving the NTK,

did the parking company give you any information regarding the further appeals process?

[it is well known that parking companies will reject any appeal whatever the circumstances]

 

5 Who is the parking company? Parking & Property Management Ltd

 

6. where exactly [Carpark name and town] did you park? - In my private space, allocated to the flat I rent.

 

 

I hope I have filled that all in correctly.

 

Thanks again in advance for any help.

Parking Charge.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

1st page is a bit too pixelated..

 

04:11!!

are there photos of that?

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

We received a letter informing us that unless we send back the display permit and send an email to opt out we would be accepting any rules set by P&P. Like most, work, life etc got in the way and i forgot to send back the permit and write an email.

 

I don't understand what happened. Send back what permit? Can you clarify please.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They first made contact by sending a letter to all residents of the scheme basically saying in short 'return the permit attached and send an email to opt out of the scheme'. I sent the permit they provided back but they reckon they never received. I was naive enough to send normal 1st class with no proof of tracking.

 

I didn't email until I had received the above PCN. I will attach an image of the letter tomorrow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thread title updated

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm even more confused now!

 

The Managing Agent sent all residents a parking permit and said that if you didn't want to take part in their parking permit scheme you should return it and confirm you wanted to opt out.

 

So if they had received the permit back from you and the email confirming your opt out what then did they claim would have been the position? You could use the allocated space without a permit? You couldn't use the space at all? They'd take the space away?

 

Did the permit they sent you have your car reg number on it? (Presumably not, how would they know what it was?). The number of the allocated space? Or just the name of the development?

Link to post
Share on other sites

All of which doesn't matter..

Supremacy of contract over rules the lot

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would imagine from the opt out would mean that the parking space would not be covered so if an unauthorised car parked there, the parking company would take no action.

 

 

I find it disingenuous of PPM to say they didn't receive the permit back. That is the answer most would give when they did get the letter but don't want to acknowledge it. My opinion only. Why would any company accept an opt out when it is a potential money earner from it.

 

 

The parking scheme is supposed deter irresponsible parking, not the lawfully held parking space.

 

 

 

You are under no obligation ever to display due to primacy of contract. You were there before they were!

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 things, you rejected ther invite to be bound by their terms and also you have the right to park where you did without interference by them.

 

Now normally we would advise against appealing the receipt of a ticket slapped on a car but as this is about YOUR space you can show that you have tried to be reasonable but the parking co arent interested in your rights, they need to rob and cheat people to stay in business.

 

saying they did nt get the permit back cuts no ice with the law, it was deemed delivered and anyways,they have no rights to demand anything from you.

 

If the permit is supposedly their property they should ahve provided a prepaid envelope for its return or allowed you to glue it to the forehead of the idiot at the managing agents that signed them up in the first place.

 

Now the MA and the parking co will claim that they have done this with good intentions, protecting your parking space from random motorists but the reality is that they know this isnt where the money is.

 

If you sent a letter with the returned permt this would be helpful for burying them later but not essential.

Link to post
Share on other sites

PPM lost when they tried court in similar circumstances details on Parking Prankster blog

 

 

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/03/parking-and-property-management-ltd.html

  • Haha 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

PPM lost when they tried court in similar circumstances details on Parking Prankster blog

 

 

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/03/parking-and-property-management-ltd.html

 

 

Almost exact circumstances so thanks for the link.

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rj44, every time someone posts on here about parking schemes being imposed where a leaseholder has an allocated space lots of people pop up claiming that the scheme can't be introduced because of so-called "supremacy of contract".

 

But this is only partly true. In fact it's common for leases to say that use of the allocated space is subject to any regulations that the freeholder/lessor/management company might make for the use of the parking spaces.

 

If the lease for your development says something on those lines the management company may have the power to introduce parking permit schemes. Although if they have it was curious way to go about it, hence my earlier question. I appreciate you may have no idea what the lease say as you are not the leaseholder, your landlady is.

 

Of course even if such a clause is in the lease it won't automatically mean the PPC can do what they like. There are other things that have to be got right as well, not least the procedure for introducing it, the signage, how they issued the PCN etc.

 

They often get that wrong. And taking a case to court requires the PPC to prove in writing that it has the authority from the freeholder/leaseholder to issue PCNs and they often fail to do that either.

 

But you cannot say that if you have an allocated space under the lease the management company can never introduce a parking permit scheme. The actual wording of the lease has to be taken into account. Yes the wording of the lease is paramount, but it might allow the management company to introduce a permit scheme.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

Thanks again for all responding, finding your feedback very helpful.

 

see attached the letter initially sent by PPM.

 

Am I right to assume and ignore all further correspondence from them as they don't have a leg to stand on?

 

Does it matter that I rent the property? My landlady hasn't responded or accepted their terms either, im the only one whose has interaction with them and have lived there since the property was built. (approx 4/5years)

 

I have a copy of the permit and again will upload in due course.

Parking Letter.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well PPM claim that covenants in the lease permit the managing agent to introduce this scheme. Whether that's true would have to be established.

 

 

Why did you send the permit back and tell them you wanted to opt out of the scheme? They sent you a free permit and said if you don't display it you will get a PCN. I can't see what the disadvantage to you would have been to simply stick it in your car and avoid the potential hassle you now have.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I own more than one car, and the inconvenience of taking a permit out every time I or my partner or family/friends park in my space or even having to buy additional permits (£10 a pop) also didn't seem fair.

 

As I mentioned, I have lived there a number of years and never had an issue with someone parking in my space, its always been (and the reason they introduced the PPM to begin with) the people who park opposite the spaces which turned out to be council owned land that they couldn't regulate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ethel if OP or randomer had parked a pushbike in the bay bet PPM would have ticketed it. One thing is sure it's a minefield and untangling the legalese and other bits of a lease agreement is time consuming.

 

 

Without seeing the Lease we can't say definitively whether anything in there can be subordinate to a PPC.

 

 

And a PPC lost a court case on virtually identical facts.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

well, you opted out so they cant look after your health and safety whilst you are parked in your own space. If you think they could ensure your health and safety if only you had a permit you live in crazyworld along with the managing agents but that is by the by.

 

When you became a tenant you take on all of your landlords rights and responsibilities (with some exceptions).

 

contracts by lethargy arent fair or enforceable (or even completed) contracts as there must be acceptance so there reversal of the requirement that you must agree to something is unlawful.

 

Very old case law on it about a man who wanted to buy a horse an said if he didnt hear back by noon he would assume offer accepted.

Felthouse V Bindley 1862

 

So ignore the idiots unless they decide they want to lose some money on a court case. If they continue to ticket you can go after them for harassment as they have now got a letter saying they arent welcome to trespass on your space.

 

Again there are some good examples of this such as Davey v UKPC ( see both that and UKPC v Davey for full story)

Edited by dx100uk
Spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...