Please help. Private Parking Ticket in Residential Area

[vikx84]

Hi,

 

I have been reading through the forums and have picked up a lot of information but was hoping that someone could help me with the specifics.

 

I received a Fixed Penalty Charge (referred to as Fixed Penalty Notice on the other side of the ticket - see below) from Trustguard Security Ltd last Saturday when visiting my boyfriend who lives in a private development. It looked like this.

 

 

 

My boyfriend has a parking permit and an allocated bay. There are double yellow lines around the complex, but no designated parking spaces for visitors. I do not have a permit. My car was parked by the side of the road, where there are no yellow lines opposite some of the bays. My vehicle was not causing an obstruction, blocking anyone in or taking anyone else's parking space. I have parked my car there regularly over the last 5 months and was completely unaware that I have been in the wrong parking here, especially as I just assumed as there were no double yellows I was ok. On closer inspection of the parking signs after I received this ticket the contract terms do say not to park on any roadway/yellow lines as well as to not park without a permit.

 

I would like to know if I can still oppose this ticket as it's on private residential property, so it seems a bit different to overstaying permitted times in superstore car parks. I can honestly say I do not know whether I was driving when I parked my car on Friday night or whether it was my boyfriend. We both regularly drive each other's car and it could have been either of us. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle so when I get a demand to pay would I just still use the template letter about contacting the driver? If they have evidence that ascertains who the driver is and they provide this do we then have a leg to stand on?

 

Quite nervous about all this and would just like to explore all the possible avenues. I am very reluctant to pay this as I was genuinely unaware I was in the wrong and was not obstructing or being a nuisance. The fine is also for £80, which does seem extortionate. This increases to £125 if not paid within two weeks.

 

Thanks in advance for any advice and replies.

[Barnsley Boy]

The legal situation is absolutely no different from the supermarket tickets. Private "Residential" land as opposed to Private "Retail" land does not make for any real differences as to how these invoices should be treated.

 

No problems whatsoever in not paying the invoice itself. Thousands have ignored these private tickets and there has been no comeback. Watch out for the threat of being clamped / towed away the next time though - "Warning Trustguard have the authority to remove your vehicle offsite for any ticket fee outstanding"

 

Whilst this claim sounds extremely dodgy to me, it does not mean they might not do it.

 

Can you post up a picture of the sign? This constitutes their purported "contract" What is written on the ticket is all after the event and hence is meaningless in any interpretation.

[vikx84]

Hi,

Thanks for the quick reply! I will ask my boyfriend to take a picture of the sign this evening when he gets back from work and post it here then. I no longer park on the site itself when I am over there. If they contact the dvla they will find I actually live over 40 miles away. They would not be able to clamp/tow it from over there would they? Would they be able to do this legally?

[Mossycat]

Hi,

They would not be able to clamp/tow it from over there would they? Would they be able to do this legally?

 

Absolutely not.

 

They will probably get your details from the DVLA but they have absolutely no right what so ever to clamp your car anywhere else. So don't worry if they do find out your address they won't be coming round to you with a clamp

 

Mossycat

[vikx84]

Barnsley Boy,

 

Posting a picture of the sign as requested

 

 

Thanks for your comments.

[pin1onu]

Hmmm. This would constitute notice that towing away activities are taking place as far as the SIA are concerned. It might satisfy a judge under case law if you were towed away.

 

It might be worth checking that the principals of company are licensed by the SIA. They are required to have non-frontline licenses at the minimum.

 

I have checked the registered address for the company at companies house and it is different from the one listed on their "invoice". This is a breach of the Companies Act and you can report them to Companies House. Email [email protected] or you can ring them. Their Website has contact details: Companies House.

 

You could probably repudiate their contract with a sign of your own in the window refuting their t&c's with a contract of your own. Only problem is if they do tow your car then you have to go pay them to get your car back and seek to recover from them afterwards.

 

If they were to tow away for outstanding fees they would be IMO be acting unlawfully as the clamping case law is with regard to trespass and not to any alleged outstanding debt.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

They damn themselves by the inclusion of the word "penalty" in several places.

 

I doubt if clause 5 is UCTA compliant. They will have to take reasonable care.

[Barnsley Boy]

Agreed that the sign does indicate that towing activities are taking place. The sign seems adequate as far as non residents are concerned but is a joke as regards permit holders.

 

The only link between action & "penalty" is in the first paragraph.

 

What happens if a permit holder fails to display - note 3.?

 

You may be able to guess what the intention is but Trustguard certainly have not said that. If any permit holders have been towed away I'd suggest having a punt on MCOL based on inadequate signage?

[skbuncks]

Not to mention the grammar in that first paragraph is absolutely abysmal.

 

skb

[Conniff]

Under whose authority have they placed this sign? under whose authority are they issuing tickets?

[vikx84]

Hi,

I am trying to follow this but am getting slightly mixed up. I am a non-resident and have not parked on their land since the ticket and have no intention of doing so again. From Pin1onu and Mossycat's response as long as I do not park on their land again I should not be towed away for any outstanding debt to them?

 

I believe that Trustguard has been the subject of some complaints from the residents as my boyfriend recently received a letter from BBC Wales asking for people's experiences with the company and for people to get in touch with them.

 

This aside though, if I refuse to pay (14 day deadline is Saturday) and providing Trustguard do not have the right to tow me away as long as I do not park on their land, as far as I can gather from this and other threads they have no rights to tow my car away from my home address and I should just expect some nasty letters through the post to the registered keeper (which is me). I can then respond to these using the templates which are stickied even though I am not sure who was driving would I still ask them to provide evidence of the driver and that their contract is with them and not with me as the registered keeper?

Thanks very much for this guys - just trying to go through the worst possible scenario case.

 

If it does transpire that they can prove who the driver is would I be better just to pay up rather than risk going to court or are there then other lines of defence I could use?

 

Coniff - The property is managed by Peverel Management Co. I assume that they have employed Trustguard to manage the parking site.

[Barnsley Boy]

Vikx84

 

As long as you keep your car away from their car park in the future there is absolutely no way that they can legally clamp you.

 

You will get hassle through not paying the invoice in that you will get a certain amount of landfill through your letterbox. The risks of court really are miniscule. Our experience is that court is threatened all the time but pursued very rarely.

 

You have absolutely nothing to lose by using the template letters. If they have proof positive that you are the driver then by all means have a rethink. Bear in mind that the RK / Driver is merely the first line of defence, there is also the little matter of unenforceable penalties as well.

 

My guess is that the PPC will simply steamroller ahead, ignoring your reasonable requests for information and substantiation. This being the case you get to the "cease & desist" letter without delay.

[vikx84]

Thanks to everyone for their advice so far. I guess what I was really worried about was them towing my car away! I have decided to not pay the invoice that I have been issued and will keep you updated on any letters that I receive!

 

I am also quite interested in the breach of companies act that pin1onu mentioned about their registered office being different to that which is displayed on their invoice. As a slight aside is it also the case that if they were to provide any photographic evidence of my car which is not taken from cctv camera's that the company has to be registered on the data protection register?

[Zamzara]

[duplicate]

[Zamzara]

That sign doesn't really make sense. It just says everyone will be towed; there is no link made between the rules and towing or ticketing.

 

Also, if your vehicle (in future) were to be towed from your boyfriend's allocated space then this is likely to be criminal harassment of a tenant, and could leave the landlord liable to a prison sentence if the PPC is acting on his/her behalf.

[marc_30m]

I got 3 tickets from these clowns when I rented a flat in a development. I requested a permit dozens of times but it never materialised so I kept getting their "fines".

 

I wrote to appeal, which was surprisingly rejected !

 

I then wrote saying that their charges where completely unenforceable and to cease and desist contact or I would report them for harrassment. Never heard back from them.

 

If it ever happens again I wouldn't even bother writing, just ignore their bluster.

[Clubber-1980]

Trustguard have had their BPA membership revoked, DVLA suspended their access rights to their records and the BBC/DTI/Companies House are chasing them.

 

I sent a letter to the authorities about their breach...

 

Check this out!

 

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/203b1b12357c910e16be4baf80fabe8b/compdetails

Accounting Reference Date: 30/06

Last Accounts Made Up To: (NO ACCOUNTS FILED)

Next Accounts Due: 30/04/2008 OVERDUE

Last Return Made Up To: 30/06/2007

Next Return Due: 28/07/2008

 

I've looked into this and it seems if a member of the public complain to Companies House about the non filed documents then they will chase for compliance.. this could mean "striking them off" (doesn't sound good or even prosecution of the Director.

 

We should all fire off complaints :-p see how they like ACTUAL threats of court appearances hanging over their heads. (actually the person who would face prosecution would be the girlfriend of Martin Harries... the BBC state on their X-ray site he is change of the company, odd he has his girlfriend as the person who would legally take the fall if the company gets in trouble... he's either hiding a shady business past behind her... or is setting the poor lady up for a fall.)

 

Check out the BBC site http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/x-ray/sites/allarticles/updates/10p01_trustguard_security.shtml looks like the wheels are falling of their little money spinning enterprise. His girlfriend in breach of the Companies Act (a criminal offence, lets see if things get rocky at home if we get companies house to prosecute), debt collection agencies turning down his business, and everyone cottoning on to their unscrupulous practices.. He He! Power to the people

[Clubber-1980]

Ok. More Trustguard info.

It seems a company called "Parking Control" have taken over all Trust guards contracts (I wonder if the sites themselves have been notified of this change) and they will be persuiuing all Trustguards outstanding debts.

 

Parking Control is the Trading name of Magnaco Ltd a company who according to it's website http://www.workproductsdirect.com/ seems to sell a lot of parking related equipment but not do any acctual onsite enforcment.

 

Now I'm wondering if A) They have a BPA membership under either name

B) If there is any legal documented evidence of the debts" they have apparently "purchased" from Trustguard.

 

I smell an even fishier turn of events from Trustguard (oddly enough Parking Controls number is answered by the trustguard staff!)

 

Time for a bit more investigation I think.

 

(Oh and Parking control are up to date with Company House. Their accounts are due on the 31st May 2008 . I think this company House will be getting another public complaint about missing accounts if that date is missed.)