My Mother is 96 and has had a M&S CC for many years, used for phone and online shopping which also gave her a feeling of independence as she rarely left the house. She began displaying signs of dementia late last year following a stroke, then fell at Christmas suffering a v serious head injury and was not expected to survive. She was eventually stabilised, though only after two scary doubt-filled relapses. It was then immediately clear that her dementia had deepened v substantially, and to make a long and very evil story short my Mother has in just a few weeks been replaced by someone who looks like her but has no memories, doesn't retain anything she is told conversationally for longer than 30-60 seconds, has no retained awareness therefore of her circumstances or where she is, who never has a yesterday to help her understand today, is confused on a good day and distressed on a bad one, doesn't recognise friends/some-family, and only occasionally recognises me when I tell her who I am. She is now in permanent residential dementia care where we continue to visit a very frail stranger unable to look after herself and needing help with all aspects of daily life, and that we love very much but can do nothing to help, only ... observe. Anyway ... I am dealing with her personal affairs. I would like to know please whether a card-issuer - M&S in this case - has legitimate recourse to family if the card-holder is neither competent nor capable and is unable to settle an outstanding balance, in this case just under £2K. Today the State takes all of Mum's pension and benefits to offset some of the £900+ p.w. cost of her Care, with the exception of a few pounds as so-called pocket-money to provide "personal treats" like toothpaste and replacement clothes/undies etc. Treats? There is no longer any possibility of the outstanding balance being settled by Mum from any source at all, she has no assets and had been getting by just okay on her State Pension+ small benefits whilst in a sheltered-housing bungalow since my Father died. I have been far too preoccupied to bother with the M&S reminder-letters over the past three months, but should take control before things escalate. I don't have any problem ignoring DCs if M&S moves it along, however I'd rather put the brakes on with M&S before that stage. So, to repeat my question ... I assume that in Law M&S would have recourse to income or assets, however there are none and I am wanting to know if In Law there is then permitted-recourse to family for the debt? If they try to make noise instead of writing the balance off, I am perfectly capable of berating M&S very robustly about pursuing a 96 year old woman in residential care with dementia! However, before then I want to be clear in my mind about the legitimacy of any other channels they may claim to be entitled to pursue for recovery. In reality they would actually be unsuccessful that way also as I am 71, retired with no assets and only state pension income, and with debts and obligations of my own already after a past business-collapse. I'm not concerned with that just now however, just in knowing whether M&S would be on solid ground if they should respond by saying that in these circumstances the debt becomes the responsibility of someone's family to settle if their assets/estate isn't able to cover it. So can someone advise on that one point please? Thanks! Howard

My partner's residential permit expired two weeks prior to getting a ticket 19R. They did send a reminder to her previous address-also within the borough. However not only had she already changed her driving licence, registered her new address for Council Tax and applied for and and now possesses a blue Disabled badge. She is obviously at fault at missing the payment date. However they know she has lived at the new address since the last week of August because of Council tax and later her application for a disabled badge. One would have thought that the Council should have worked out her new address. Is it really realistic that when moving house one has to inform every Council department in order to cover oneself. Is there any hope that an appeal could be successful on those grounds?

I need some help in fighting a PPC that is harassing me for parking outside my home. Multiple tickets issued this year. Appealed to PPC for several of these tickets as I had been ignoring them, appeal failed. Did not appeal to POPLA. Now they are issung tickets without a NTD (ticket on windscreen) just photos of my car taken manually. The mutiple tickets before this all had a similar set of photos, but with a photo of the yellow NTD. They apply to DVLA for keepers details immediately and there is only 2 -3 days between date of alleged contravention and me receiving a NTK. This is the timeframe for ANPR tickets under PoFA, but the car park is not ANPR. As far as I am aware, there are only two ways of issuing tickets and thats manually or by automatic number plate recognition. The question is are PPC's allowed to issue tickets by post without a NTD? I've appealed to PPC on some of these but heard nothing back, but its still within timeframe. Grounds were ticket didnt comply with POFA and my deeds specifically state I can park there, and my deeds have primacy over their contract Any advice on how to stop this harassment ?

Hi guys I have an issue similar to a few others on here, involving the Swansea based Millennium Parking Services. My vehicle was parked in a residential area in Swansea, totally oblivious to any signs advising it was Private Property and Permit Holders Only. Received the PCN stuck to windscreen upon return to the vehicle. The original ticket charge of £100 has not been paid. As the registered keeper, I received the NOK a month or so later and have retained it. It has not been acted upon my me. More recently, I received a demand for £160 from Debt Recovery Plus. I have ignored all requests for payment so far. I'm quite comfortable going through the court process if it comes to that, but would you advise on any action I should take now that might help prevent being taken to court, or even assist with the defence if that day does come? I'd be keen to save myself on the hassle and time wasted in going to court if I can help it, for the want of a well worded letter of dispute. Cheers, Sham

Action plan to accelerate remediation of private high-rise residential buildings with ACM cladding READ MORE HERE: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/action-plan-to-accelerate-remediation-of-private-high-rise-residential-buildings-with-acm-cladding

I defaulted on a bridging loan and Receivers have been appointed. They have secured the property (changed the locks) and have asked me to book a time to remove my belongings (Torts Notice served). The property was and is my home and my only home but I have not lived there since taking out the bridging loan is because the loan was unregulated and I did not want to be in breach of the terms. However, it was never rented out; in fact, I never removed my belongings from the property. I have never desired to be landlord and the only reason for taking out the loan was to keep my home. This was declared to the lender from the very beginning; nonetheless, the product offered to me was an unregulated loan. As I was not eligible for a mortgage at the time and it was very unlikely that I would be by the end of the loan term, sale was my only option of exit strategy. This was a better option than having the property repossessed. The Receivers have said I must either remove my belongings or pay for storage. I have not abandoned my belongings or “left them behind”. I am in the process of remortgaging and they are aware of this, as I have kept them informed. The mortgage has been agreed subject to valuation which is due tomorrow. Can they force me to empty the property?

Open Consultation Banning the use of combustible materials in the external walls of high-rise residential buildings READ MORE HERE: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/banning-the-use-of-combustible-materials-in-the-external-walls-of-high-rise-residential-buildings Important please be aware this consultation closes at 11:45pm on 14 August 2018

Hi guys, I've recently received a parking charge notice from the Swansea based Millennium Parking Services. They have asked for £60 with the charge increasing to £100 after 14 days. I am currently a student, so I don't have the money to pay for this and I feel conned. I was using the street to park for my regional rugby training sessions in Llandarcy academy of sport. They don't always have someone blocking the carpark entrance but when they do they don't let me in even if I tell them that my team trains here!! There were no road markings or clear signage for me to know that it was a permit holders only area, if there was, it was 6pm in november and I did not see them, meaning they were inadequately lit! What action should I take from here? Any advice is greatly appreciated! Thanks, Natalia I have answered the questions I could from the forum the parking ticket forum; 1 The date of infringement? 04/12/2017 2 Have you yet appealed to the parking company yet? NO 3 Have you received a Notice To Keeper? NO 4 Who is the parking company? Millennium Parking Services 5 Where exactly did you park? Residential housing area - Heritage Gate, Swansea/Neath, SA10 6DF

New Private Residential Tenancy - Scotland Only https://beta.gov.scot/publications/scottish-government-model-private-residential-tenancy-agreement/ This come into force on 1st December 2017 and affects Tenancy Agreements from that date onwards only and will replace the Assured and Short Assured Tenancy Agreements for all new Tenancies. Changes will include: -- Longer notice periods, with tenants who have been in a property for more than six months receiving at least 84 day notice to leave, unless they are at fault -- Simpler notices, with a simpler notice to leave process -- The introduction of a model tenancy agreement which can be used by landlords to set up a tenancy -- No more fixed terms - private residential tenancies are open ended, meaning your landlord can't ask you to leave just because you've been in the property for 6 months as they can with a short assured tenancy. -- Rent increases - your rent can only be increased once every 12 months (with 3 months notice) and if you think the proposed increase is unfair you can refer it to a rent officer. These are just some of the new changes. If you had an Assured or Short Assured Tenancy Agreement before the 1st December 2017 then these Tenancy Agreements will continue until your landlord ends that tenancy agreement (using the correct procedure). (note if your Assured/Short Assured Tenancy is for renewal after the 1st December 2017 then you landlord will have to offer the new Private Residential Tenancy). Links of Interest: Scottish Government - Private Renting https://beta.gov.scot/policies/private-renting/private-tenancy-reform/ The Scottish Government Model Private Residential Tenancy Agreement http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2017/10/3669/2 Shelter Scotland - The New Private Residential Tenancy https://scotland.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/advice_topics/renting_rights/renting_from_a_private_landlord/the_private_residential_tenancy Housing and Property Chamber First-Tier Tribunal for Scotland https://www.housingandpropertychamber.scot/news/new-private-residential-tenancy

Hi, hope this is the most relevant forum, if not please move. Try as might, attempted to find out answer to my query but my LA does not give any details on this subject. Nor does there appear to be any legal website giving law surrounding! However,as the title says, due to parking problems some years ago, our road/close/avenue, is a residential parking permit area. In addition, each resident is allowed to apply for upto 2 visitor passes. Parking, even with permits, now seems to becoming a problem again. My question is quite simply, is it possible to apply for residential disabled parking bay within a residential permit parking area? Different LA seem to have different approaches to this, but as previously mentioned nothing on my LA website, merely blue badge information. I am in possession of blue badge, as are a couple of other residents, but the added difficulty is our next door neighbour who, if the opportunity arises, parks his vehicle over 2 spaces (there are no marked parking spaces), causing us to seek at times a parking space 2 or 3 times distance from where we are normally able to park as close to our flat, although still within residential parking area. Wondering if any readers had/have similiar problems ways or resolving. Grateful for any responses and advice.

I am 67 years old and severely disabled as a result of Polio contracted at age 9 Months. For the past 25 years I have been confined to a wheelchair full time. For this reason I sought and bought a bungalow on a flat and level site so that it could be easily adapted to meet my special needs. The bungalow which I now own and occupy is built on part of a site which was formerly an American Navy Air Force Base during World War 2. There are in excess of 150 similar such properties on this site. I bought the bungalow in 2002, and shortly after was fortunate enough to be given a “Disabled Facilities Grant” by the Local Council to install ramps to facilitate easy entry from the outside, adapt the bathroom, and install central heating. One of the conditions of that grant was that I remain “Resident” for at least 5 years. Therefore it came as something as a surprise when within a year I received an Enforcement Notice from the Local Council saying that I had to vacate on the grounds that I was contravening one of the conditions of the 1986 Planning Permission under which my property was developed which stated the property was “Holiday Use Only” and could NOT be utilised for residential purposes. Of course I fought the case which went all the way to Crown Court in December 2005. At that hearing the Judge threw the case out saying that the action taken by the Council was an abuse of the legal system and a waste of public money. Council did not really accept the Judge’s ruling and still held that the Enforcement Order was valid. However, Council did decide not to take any further action against me personally, but warned that if I ever vacated for any reason, they would take similar action against the next occupants if they deemed it necessary to maintain the conditions of the 1986 Planning Permission. Following that, and for almost 10 years, Council took no enforcement action against the many other occupants who had taken up residence in similar properties to mine developed under the same Planning Permission containing the “Holiday Use Only” condition. Until very recently that is, when they began issuing Enforcement Notices against a number of other properties whose occupants have been long term residents here. Since my case of 2005, I and a number of other interested parties have continued our research. What we have uncovered is quite interesting:- 1. In April of 1971, there was a Section 37 Agreement granted on all this land which was formerly an American Navy Air Force base. This Agreement permitted the development of “Dwellings” amongst other structures, but stipulated that the “Dwellings” may not be used for “Residential Purposes” for the period from 2nd January to 28th February in any given year. Note:- “Residential Use” was permitted for the remainder of the year – that is from March to December inclusive. My understanding of such Agreements is that they cannot be rescinded at the whim of a Local Council Planning Department without obtaining a “Deed of Release”. Something which to my certain knowledge has never been done. However, what Local Council Planning Departments do have the power and authority to do is “Lift” restrictions on such agreements. Some development took place and was successful, the properties sold well. Some years later, a new developer took possession of the land, and seeing the success the previous developer had enjoyed, that developer applied for Planning Permission to build bigger and better bungalows on the same land covered by the Section 37 Agreement. 2. In 1986, Planning Permission was granted to build the bigger and better bungalows, BUT, within that Permission the new and more onerous condition of “Holiday Use Only” was introduced. A good number of the bigger and better bungalows were constructed under this Planning Permission, mine being one of those. Note:- Council either did not realise or chose to ignore the previously existing Section 37 Agreement which was still in force and does allow “Residential Use” for 10 months of the year. Some years later, Council may have realised that the 1986 Planning Permission was flawed because of the previously existing Section 37 Agreement. 3. Planning and Development Committee Meeting of 4th March 1991. Here a resolution was floored. The intention was apparently to rescind the Section 37 Agreement, but they did not have the power or authority to do that. At that meeting, the resolution that was floored was worded in such a way that all it achieved was to relieve the restriction as to when the properties could not be used for residential purposes. This much was within their power to do – that is – relieve restrictions. Nevertheless, two days after that meeting, a Memo was sent to the Council Land Registry Department saying that the Agreement of April 1971 (Section 37 Agreement), allowing “Residential Use”, had been cancelled. I have copies of the notes of that meeting, including the wording of the resolution that was passed, and the memo to the Land Registry Department. Note:- There seems to be deliberate deception by the Officers involved. Planning and Development Committee did not have the power to rescind/cancel the Section 37 Agreement, so they amended it, then informed the Local Land Registry that it had been cancelled. This was a lie. Shortly after that Planning and Development Meeting, Council began issuing numerous “Enforcement Notices” on the grounds of “Contravention of Planning Conditions” under the 1986 Planning Permission, causing considerable worry, stress, inconvenience and financial duress to many people. Many, if not all of these actions by Council were successful, lots of families were evicted. Of late, since Council began issuing Enforcement Notices again based on contravention of conditions contained within the 1986 Planning Permission – some of these have been challenged by owners and occupiers of the properties concerned. We have it on record that Council have admitted that the Section 37 Agreement is still in force and has never been rescinded. Now, one of the new Enforcement Orders has been challenged by the owner of the property who pointed out that according to the original Section 37 Agreement of April 1971, and the “Lifting” of restrictions in the Planning and Development Meeting of March 1991, the property in question had the benefit of “Full Residential Permission” all year round. Council admitted in a telephone conversation that this was the position, and that the “Enforcement Order” had been withdrawn and the case closed. However, they refused to put this in writing. This is of great interest. Why do Council refuse to put this in writing? The theory is that if Council admit the Section 37 Agreement allowing “Residential Use” for 10 months of the year is still in force on all this land, then the 1986 Planning Permission attempting to introduce a more onerous “Holiday Use Only” condition is unenforceable. That would effectively mean that all the successful actions Council took for eviction on the grounds of “Contravention of Planning Conditions” under the 1986 Planning Permission, were in fact “Illegal Evictions”! It would also mean that following the Planning and Development Meeting of March 1991 when restrictions were lifted as to the periods when the properties could not be used for residential purposes – all 150+ properties have the benefit of “Full Residential Permission” all year round. So my position and question is this:- I have been arguing with Council over the years on many different levels and aspects of Planning Law that my property has the benefit of “Full Residential Permission”. Not least because it would significantly increase its value and make it easier to sell if I ever decide to re-locate. All of my arguments have been dismissed as irrelevant as in their view the 1986 Planning Permission stands and the “Holiday Use Only” condition is valid and enforceable. Now, of late, I learn that the original Section 37 Agreement allowing “Residential Occupation” for 10 months of the year still stands. I also know that the restriction on the 2 months of the year when it could not be used for “Residential Occupation” was lifted in the Planning and Development Meeting of March 1991. Thus allowing “Full Residential Permission” all year round. This means that the “Holiday Use Only” condition in the 1986 Planning Permission was never valid or imposable in full in the first place, and that since March 1991, well before taking me to Court, my property had the benefit of “Full Residential Permission” all year round. Council Officials were well aware of that before taking me to Court. My problem is how to get Council to admit that, put it in writing, and have that recorded in the Local Land Registry, and the National Land Registry?

Hi all, Thanks for giving this a read. Please let me know if this is not in the correct sub-forum and I'll flag for it to be moved. I'll try and keep this short and succinct: We have just returned home from our time away in another city for work and we kept our car in the private residential basement car park for our building - key fob / building access is required for entry. We noted that a number of external components had been stripped off our car and taken. The interior was not broken into as far as we could tell. Additionally, the wires to the CCTV unit which overlooks the whole car park had been cut and the unit taken away. The car park itself is quite small - fits about 8 cars and is rectangular in layout. We did what we could on a weekend: informed the police, put up posters and notices around the car park, and spoke to our neighbours. One person reported that the CCTV unit had been missing for more than a month. We also e-mailed management with regards to this footage and to also inform them that the security of this car park is compromised. The question: would 'management' be liable in this incidence? We pay a fairly significant monthly premium to them - £50 (an official letting agent) - in addition to rent, for a parking spot in this car park yet we were not warned to park at our own risk, nor are there any signs to highlight this. Plus no signs to highlight active CCTV monitoring. One would think that for such an additional amount, there would perhaps be more attention to maintaining the security of this car park (occasional checks of CCTV camera for faults, for example). I agree that parking the car down there for 4 weeks without checking it is questionable, but in consideration of the fact that we were away for work and such a car park requires key-fob access, there was a CCTV, it is private and in the basement, this may perhaps be forgivable. We are waiting for management's reply - hopefully by today, but just posting this in preparation for the direction we hope to take. Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Hi All, A month ago, I traded up an old car which had a personalised plate (Let's call it A12 OLD). The new one came with a standard one (XY65 NEW). It took about 5 days from the day I drove away the new car, to get the DVLA red tape sorted (documents received etc) so the garage could put A12 OLD on the new car. At the block of flats where I live is a car park, and each vehicle that "lives" there gets a permit, which bears the registration of the vehicle. It's managed by a company called Euro Parking Services Ltd. We put a note on the dashboard explaining the situation, and put the permit on the dashboard as always. But still, on the 3rd Day, we got a parking ticket. I've appealed this to the company (showing them the letter from the DVLA which explains that "A12 OLD can now be put on XY65 NEW") and they have rejected it. I have also gone through the IAS (Independent Appeals Service), and they have rejected the appeal. I've got all the documents since day 1, and I'll happily answer any questions. As an aside, the company's address is just up the road, is there any value in walking up there and having a face-to-face conversation with someone? Or should I just ignore it?

I've got some tenants running some sort of Pregnant Mother assessement centre, basically subletting the property on a residential AST. A lot of pregnant mothers have visited the property. As well as several large families. A confused pregnant mom was seen on the property, & then rushed off to hospital a couple of hours later. I've tried contacting ofsted, & they dont seem to care the tenants dont have the correct permission of the landlord. Can I get an injunction on the tenants or some other legal action, without having to file a section 8? I'm concerned about damage to the property, as well as the safety of the heavily pregnant mothers, as our building insurance doesnt cover business use of the property. Not to mention our mortgage contract.qq I'm also trying to contact the correct authorities, I'm contacting ofsted again, but I have no idea who to contact about the illegal planning permission granted to them. Does anyone know who I should contact about the illegal planning permission granted to them? & if I can get an injunction on the tenants or some other legal action, without having to file a section 8? As theyre subletting illegally, not to mention illegally dealing with vulnerable members of the public. Also because of the large number of families damage to the property. I'm based in London btw ... Thanks!!!

Please could I seek some advice, my wife was visiting friends today who live in a private block of flats. The flats have parking for residents, and a number of specific visitors spaces allocated. My wife parked in one of these visitor spaces and when returning to the car, after around an hour, found a ticket attached to the windscreen with a fine for £100 (£60 if paid within 14 days). While our friends have a parking permit for both cars, they were unaware that visitors needed a permit on display, and have lived there for many years. We're seeking advice from another neighbour, and a friend who also lives in the flats to see if they were under the same understanding (or lack of). The signage in the car park does say private property, permit holders only and spaces only for residents or visitors. What I would like advice on is whether, if residents are unaware that visitors need permits on display, and for years all have had visitors using the visitors spaces without fines, whether the fine is enforceable? Does the parking company (or owners of the flats) need to make a certain amount of effort to make the residents aware of the rules regarding visitors / how to obtain visitor permits? thanks in advance, David

My elderly mother moved into a care home around 7 months ago. Before she moved into the care home she was receiving high rate mobility DLA, because the care home was local authority funded her DLA entitlement was stopped. I received a letter from the DWP today and one of the paragraphs stated that there is a possibility of having her DLA re-instated, I have attached a scan of this paragraph. Has there been a recent change for this DLA entitlement for persons in residential homes?

On 30/9/14 I parked on Braddon St Manchester at its jnc with Oldfield St to go and watch Man City. This area was originally terraced houses and they have all since been demolished. Even the vast majority of street names have been removed. I have since been back and only one sign exists at Clayton Lane/Oldfield St with the resident parking restrictions which are only enforced on event days. However if you drive into the area from the other side Turner St no such signs exists, just old signs on lamp posts. Even Google maps in 2012 clearly show that the houses have been demolished. Ive appealed on this basis and i am just waiting the outcome. Seems not to be within the spirit of the regulations really. Fingers crossed.

Over the last 10 years there has been a significant increase in the use of HCEOs to evict tenants from residential property once an order for possession has been granted by the County Court. This increase has in large been due to underinvestment in the Court Service and the lengthy delays by the County Court Bailiffs at each court. In recent years these delays have been as long as 4 months Understandably landlords have looked for a quicker resolution to getting their property back. Step in the HCEO. However, for an HCEO to be able to enforce a possession order against anybody other than squatters he MUST transfer enforcement to the High Court using section 42 of the County Court Act 1984. Without this transfer, any eviction carried out is illegal and would no doubt lead to claims for damages to the landlord, the HCEO company and the HCEO personally. It should be remembered that once an order for possession has been granted the tenant should vacate the property by the date stated on the order. Unfortunately it is all too common for Councils to advise tenants to stay in the property until they get a letter from the County Court Bailiffs with an eviction date. A significant problem lies where the landlord has chosen to use an HCEO and no such notice is sent. At this stage, there is no requirement for an HCEO to send notice as the regulations only provide that the possession date has passed and therefore the writ is enforceable. In the circumstances, it would prudent for any tenant faced with a possession date to make any arrangements necessary before waiting for the bailiffs notice as this may never arrive and the first they will know is when the HCEO knocks on the door.

I am on a fixed 5 year lease. I am trading on a A1 licence (coffee shop). The landlord just put a application in to the council to change use (commercial to residential) however my contract is for another 2 years. The council did not make a decision yet, but due to the government changes they made it easier for landlords to get a change of use. What can I do?

I rented a flat from Alba Residental for 14 months. In those 14 months, the toilet flooded 3 times. Rather than replacing the shredder system they kept sending out plumbers who kept saying that there was nothing they could do to prevent any future blockages. When I moved in the flat was disgusting and nothing had been cleaned. Alba sent two cleaners who surface cleaned the flat. I ended up cleaning the entire flat myself after that. When I moved out, I left the place spotless. Alba came up with a massive list of items which they considered needed cleaning or replacement. The thing which outraged me most is the fact that they charged me £80 to replace a cracked freezer drawer (surely this is part of wear and tear, especially because the drawer wasn't actually broken, it had a minor crack in the handle, which still worked perfectly fine). The other thing they charged me for is "dusting the bed frame." This is ridiculous because I had hoovered AND dusted AND mopped the entire house. They also claimed that I had caused moulding in the bathroom, which was unventilated and did not have a window to air the place. Due to the fact that it is a closed bathroom, it is hard for water to evaporate. I used to leave the door open after having had a shower but minor moulding and minor stains appeared on the white rubbery bits between the bath and the wall. There is absolutely nothing I could do against this because there was no way for me to ventilate the bathroom properly. These stains are part of wear and tear and from time to time, the bathroom sealant just needs to be replaced. They charged me for this as well. There are plenty of other things which I was charged for, in addition to which Alba refuses to refund me the agency fees which they have unlawfully charged me. Does anyone have experience with this? I took photographs when I moved in but Alba is blatantly stating that they got cleaners in after I moved in (which is true) and that it is assumed that afterwards, the flat was in a satisfactory clean state. I would like to get my 25% back and I was wondering if anyone has had similar experiences and took the agency to a small claims court?

Hey guys, I was issued a PCN today when I was visiting a customer On First Avenue in Manor Park (Newham Council, London). It appears that they've recently introduced a Residential Parking Zone in July 2013, and as I've previously parked here when there weren't any restrictions, I didn't realise. What made it worse was that there were no road markings (i.e. no bay markings, no single yellow lines etc.), and I had to drive back onto the start of the road to see a small sign indicating the parking zone, and then I realised there were more sign posts on the road. Don't get me wrong, I'm not here to complain about my own fault for not paying more attention, but given my previous visit and no obvious road markings, I just didn't think twice to check parking signs. The photos below make show what I mean. I've also uploaded a copy of the PCN. For all the experts and more knowledgeable people on here, I'm just wondering if there are any grounds for appeal. Thanks for any contributions to this post! Here is the link to Newham Council's website (under Manor Park section) regarding the parking zone. Here is the google maps link of the road. Any advice or guidance would be very much appreciated! Thanks in advance.

Hi everybody. I have been living in my residential estate for the last 6 years. I have changed my car a couple of months ago and swapped my residential permit over to my new car, but unfortunately, I forgot to delete the old reg number and re-write the new one on it. Today I spotted a parking notice which says "parked without displaying a valid parking permit." It was issued by Park Direct Uk member of BPA. I was wondering if it is worth to appeal it or just pay it before the 14th day for a discounted sum of £60 from £100. Your advice would be very appreciated. Carl

My daughter currently resides in a supported living placement funded by housing benefit and gets full IB/DLA high care/low mobility, the placement is breaking down and she's dreadfully unhappy, something with more structure was recommended by social worker and this would have to be residential care which actually will suit her Autistic Spectrum Disorder. What would happen to her benefits, I was told she would keep her mobility allowance and another £28 a week for essentials like clothes the rest going towards the care home, or do social services totally fund the care package and any benefits would stop? Thank you.

Please delete this thread. Thanks. Owen.

Hi I am the occupier of a flat in a development where we have 70+ flats in my building but only 37 parking spaces which are all allocated to whoever paid for them. There are a LOT of people who park on the kerb or where they can find a space without blocking anyone in. This has worked without issues for many number of months until recently when we all got letters to advise parking enforcements were coming in. The letters were dated 20th May 2013 and the enforcement starts from 28th May 2013 and there are now signs on the poles threatening of £100 fine for any cars parked outside the bays or parked in the bays without displaying a valid permit. My flat does not benefit from an allocated space and I have not received a permit. Although I have heard that some people who don't own a space have been sent permits and I did see a car parked on the pavement with a permit in the window. I'm looking for some help here as I'm not keen on paying the £100 fine for parking my car outside my own flat where there is no other parking space available. I have the below questions in mind. 1. As a resident of the development who does not own a parking space, do I have not rights to park a car anywhere here or have anyone visit me and park their car outside? 2. Should I expect a resident parking permit although I cannot really use it because I do not have an allocated parking space. 3. Even if the above 2 questions are answered in negative, are the developers in breach of any planning guidelines because they provisioned only 37 spaces in a building that has over 70 flats? 4. Lastly, even if the answers to all of the above go against me, is 7 days considered reasonable notice period to advise residents who do not own a parking space to stop parking their car outside which effectively means either dumping the car or moving out. I have a job and my wife is pregnant. It is not easy for me to move out in an instant. If I do get a parking charge notice, what are my chances to fight it off in court? Appreciate any URGENT help I can get on this one as the parking enforcement starts tomorrow morning and I fear I'll find an ugly PCN stuck on my car window tomorrow. Thanks.