Parking Control Management (PCM)

[Mollierose8]

Hello, I am writing on behalf of my granddaughter

who received a PCN from a management company as above subject (PCM) for not displaying her permit.

 

 

Her car had been in for repairs and the permit on the floor of the car.

She wrote to the company and explained; but she received a refusal back.

They do not dispute she holds a valid permit but the

"operative was unable to determine whether the car was allowed to park there" .

 

They say in the letter she has a number of options:-

Pay the £60 charge within 14 days, if not it increases to £100.

If she believes the decision is incorrect she can use www.theIAS.org to appeal.

If she uses this service the offer of a discount would be withdrawn!

 

She is 19 and gets the minimum wage.

Her mother purchased 3 of these parking permits when she moved in last year.

Does my granddaughter have a leg to stand on.

 

 

Any help would be gratefully received.

 

 

The letter from them is dated 23 March so the 14 days has gone by

because she said she didn't think she could do anything about it

but I said I would get some advice from you.

[Mollierose8]

Hello, I am writing on behalf of my granddaughter who received a PCN from a management company as above subject (PCM) for not displaying her permit. Her car had been in for repairs and the permit on the floor of the car. She wrote to the company and explained; but she received a refusal back. They do not dispute she holds a valid permit but the "operative was unable to determine whether the car was allowed to park there" .

 

 

They say in the letter she has a number of options:- Pay the £60 charge within 14 days, if not it increases to £100. If she believes the decision is incorrect she can use www.theIAS.org to appeal. If she uses this service the offer of a discount would be withdrawn!

 

 

She is 19 and gets the minimum wage. Her mother purchased 3 of these parking permits when she moved in last year. Does my granddaughter have a leg to stand on. Any help would be gratefully received. The letter from them is dated 23 March so the 14 days has gone by because she said she didn't think she could do anything about it but I said I would get some advice from you.

 

 

I have just read some posts and it seems it would have been best if she had not written to them. The parking is not allocated as Ericsbrother asked in a post.....

[havinastella]

What doe's the lease say about parking. Who owns the spaces.

 

Tell her NOT to pay it.

 

What do the signs say?

[caro]

Her tenancy probably says she can park there and that contract will take priority over anything PCM say. She'll get a few letters and then they'll give up.

 

Disgusting that she's been charged for permits.

 

Agree that she must not pay.

[Mollierose8]

Her tenancy probably says she can park there and that contract will take priority over anything PCM say. She'll get a few letters and then they'll give up.

 

Disgusting that she's been charged for permits.

 

Agree that she must not pay.

My daughter is the owner of the property. Will ask about the contract with the Housing Assoc. Probably had to buy the permits because its a close and not a street or road.

[Mollierose8]

Havinastella ......will ask about ownership and the signs tomorrow.

[ericsbrother]

the reason for refusal is interesting as the company now knows she was entitled to be there they should have cancelled but didnt. This will get them into hot water if they persist in following the matter up.

Also the discount period is not automaticcaly withdrawn by using the appeals procedure, they are enshrined in law so that is misdirection at best and attempted fraud at worst.

I hope this shows the type of business that you are dealing with so I would urge her to do a bit of reading about how to challenge these claims and then come back and tell uis about the land, signs and the dates of the conntafcts and we will sort something out.

[Mollierose8]

Thanks Ericsbrother, knew you would come up trumps. She took a 'photo of the sign and is staying the night with me so I will show her these posts and do as you have suggested.

[ericsbrother]

well done, it is often enough to stop any serious action being taken by parking co as they realise they have been rumbled regardless of what the nodding dogs at the IAS say.

[Mollierose8]

Here's the sign that PCM have put up - Is there any loopholes?

[ericsbrother]

I like the bit where they say retrospective authority will not be accepeted, well, a person has authority or they dont, it is not PCM's right to make that decision.

 

Who sells the permist for casual parking?

 

However, more information would be helpful such as who is the landlord and do they use managing agents. There are many ways of defeating these claims and a good one at the moment is the issue of planning permission for the signage. Before Beavis this was rarely used as it was really the last option for any particular site but now it is something we suggest that you find out about. The signs need planning permission under the Town and Country Planning Act, advertising hoardings display regs. This is a nod through at the council if the signs are no greater than a certain size but they must apply and get it granted. If they dont it is a criminal offence and you can NEVER create a contract that relies on a criminal act, even if you wanted to.

 

So more info from you please and we will then say whetehr she should appeal to the kangaroo court that is the IAS. Generally it is pointless as far as results go but worthwhile for creating a paper trail that damages the chances of the parking co to take the matter further, with the IAS often trotting out incherent garbage that defies the law as it stands with their cionclusions and assumptions.

Edited April 14, 2016 by honeybee13
Paras.

[mol0295]

Hi, We got our permits from London and Quadrant, who are the owners of the land. The managing agents are PCM. My mum is not a tenant but a home owner. Funnily enough we are at the end of terrace and L&Q or PCM placed one of their signs on our wall, to which my mum called them straight away to remove, as they had not asked for her permission! They also left the glue marks on the wall in the process, and thus damaged our property!

 

With all this information, could you guide me to whether I have a good base to appeal again?

 

Regards,

The granddaughter in question

[ericsbrother]

There is no mechanism to appeal again but if the keeper tells the parking co the name and address of the driver they have to address the matter to them and justice will not be served if they do not allow you to appeal. As no legal action has been started they cannot continue to chase the keeper once the driver is named.

I bet the contract is between the managing agents and the parking co so they wont have a valid contract to create a locus for making a claim.

so, go for it, see what they say and expect no great outcome and you wont be disappointed. The thing is you are creating a paper trail that will force them to reveal things they dont want in the open.

It might be helpful to post up a copy of the casual parking permit and if one is not being too cheeky photograph one of the residents permits in place in a vehicle so we can see if they have any features that make them unique to that person (apart from car reg for example) and whetehr they contain any info that may be part of a contract.

[ericsbrother]

Also, it would be helpful to expalin the position of the homeowner regarding the use of this land for parking. If she bought the house as part of a development then there will be something in the covenants that says what can and cant be done and if she has lived there more than 12 years and used the place for parking wihtout anyone saying she cant then she has created an easment and that cannot be undone by a parking co, L&Q or even a court

[mol0295]

My mum only moved in two years ago, when there was no parking restrictions. This only came into play around 18 months ago. All householders, be it owned or rented, were given two free parking permits each, one for a "visitor" and given the option to by more for £10 each, as according to London and Quandrant their tenants had complained that there was no where to park.

 

Apologies, I don't understand, are you saying I will have to go to court?

[ericsbrother]

No, I am saying that L&Q cannot create a contractual condition that takes away your rights of access etc. The permit scheme is supposed to be an administrative tool to quicly identify who shoulsd and shouldnt be there but the parking companies ALL use this as an excuse to create a revenue stream by abusing theier position and deliberately claiming rights they dont have to enforce their will on peopel who they have to right to interfere with.

 

Your rights cannot be undone by the parking co, L&Q or a court, none of them have the power to. It would be down to parliament to make a change of the law and that isnt going to happen as those rights have been tested time and again and those who wish to remove them have always lost.

 

Doesnt matter when you mum moved in, if the property owner or tenant has enjoyed those privileges for a continuous period of more than 12 years they are for everyone to enjoy for ever.

 

It would be helpful if you could give some detail of the layout of the land and how the house/parking are accessed.

Edited April 20, 2016 by honeybee13
Paras.

[armadillo71]

The signage states ' permit holders only '. Therefore anyone not displaying a permit can only be a trespasser... or own/have a right to park there.

 

PCM-UK signage does not create a contract. Which means most of the IPC signage is effectively useless....

 

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/pcm-uk-signage-does-not-create-contract.html#comment-form

[caro]

Interesting armadillo. Thanks.

 

In the link that you provide the judge refers to the signage being prohibitive which is different to the sign above, which incidentally is very similar to signs in a CP I've used. Does the case apply to all PCM/IPC signage or "contracts" or is it more specific to those cases?

 

Do you know if there will be a transcript?

[armadillo71]

Interesting armadillo. Thanks.

 

In the link that you provide the judge refers to the signage being prohibitive which is different to the sign above, which incidentally is very similar to signs in a CP I've used. Does the case apply to all PCM/IPC signage or "contracts" or is it more specific to those cases?

 

Do you know if there will be a transcript?

 

'Permit holders only' states the signage, so is that an offer to park? One down from ' No parking ' I'd say...

Of course it would come down to the signage at the specific site, the defence given, and the judge on the day if it went to court , but it should be included in the defence case.

[ericsbrother]

Landowner can sue for trespass, no one else. Parking co's have to rely on contract law but that doesnt stop them telling lies such as they are collecting the money on behalf of LL under an agreement. This has been seen on contracts with NHS trusts but then the company doesnt hand over all of the money so that is not damages for trespass. Most peopel who sign off these deald on behalf of NHS trusts, big companies etc dontactually know what they have signed, jsut believed what they were told by the parking co.

[caro]

Good points. Thanks

[mol0295]

No, I am saying that L&Q cannot create a contractual condition that takes away your rights of access etc. The permit scheme is supposed to be an administrative tool to quickly identify who should and shouldn't be there but the parking companies ALL use this as an excuse to create a revenue stream by abusing their position and deliberately claiming rights they don't have to enforce their will on people who they have to right to interfere with.

 

Your rights cannot be undone by the parking co, L&Q or a court, none of them have the power to. It would be down to parliament to make a change of the law and that isnt going to happen as those rights have been tested time and again and those who wish to remove them have always lost.

 

Doesnt matter when you mum moved in, if the property owner or tenant has enjoyed those privileges for a continuous period of more than 12 years they are for everyone to enjoy for ever.

 

It would be helpful if you could give some detail of the layout of the land and how the house/parking are accessed.

 

Hi ericsbrother,

 

Apologies for the delay in response, I have been away on holiday, and have returned to an intimidating Debt Recovery Plus letter demanding £160 or they will 'take me to court'.

 

The set up of the parking is 4 car parks, 2 either side of the terraced houses. The approach road is owned by Bexley Council, and the car parks are owned by PCM. If you type da7 4na onto google maps, Mason Close Bexleyheath you'll be able to see the set up of the car park (haven't posted enough on this forum to post links).

 

I understand there is not contractual obligation to pay this fine, however the wording in this letter is very intimidating.

 

What would you suggest is best to do? Try liaising with PCM or the debt collectors and explain that again I have a permit?

Edited May 17, 2016 by Andyorch
edited

[honeybee13]

Hello there.

 

Does the letter actually say they 'will' take you to court?

 

Is it possible you could scan up the letter minus identifying details please?

 

HB

[armadillo71]

Hi ericsbrother,

 

Apologies for the delay in response, I have been away on holiday, and have returned to an intimidating Debt Recovery Plus letter demanding £160 or they will 'take me to court'.

 

DELETED

 

I understand there is not contractual obligation to pay this fine, however the wording in this letter is very intimidating.

 

What would you suggest is best to do? Try liaising with PCM or the debt collectors and explain that again I have a permit?

 

First I would amend your post as you seem to have given your address away!

 

You cannot ' liase ' ( by which I think you mean reason ) with a PPC or debt collector who is only interested in getting money out of you...

 

You must NEVER phone a PPC or debt collector, any contact must be in writing with copies kept of all correspondence.

 

You are now in the ' intimidating ' debt collectors letter chain. Two or three from DR+, a couple from Zenith (same company), then probably one from a ' solicitor ' who is acting as a debt collector. All will be demanding various sums from you, which you can ignore.

 

A letter that is called letter before action or letter before claim must not be ignored though.

[ericsbrother]

No dca can do anything, so DR+ dont say they will take you to court because they cant. They make hints about such matters and you have been fooled into reading their letter as they wish it read, giving them some sort of credence when they have none.