Link Parking Windscreen PCN - residetial Parking in Owned space - Appeal Failed..

[ssm90]

Hello,

Firstly,

I am a few steps into this whole process so unfortunately I have missed out on the advice which states what I should have done initially.

I am hoping I can still salvage my situation from this point.

Facts-
- I own the flat and the parking bay that comes with it.
- The management company have hired a separate company (LinkParking) to manage the parking.
- I have a permit for my car but my car was elsewhere which is why I couldn't give the permit to anyone else.
- My girlfriend parked her car in my bay without a valid permit, instead we had a photocopy of the original permit

- I realise this is where I went wrong but the original permit itself was printed on a piece of A4 paper AND when I bought the flat I was never told about requiring a permit and had issues with these guys before.

Unfortunately we appealed to LinkParking with a substandard appeal (I realise this was substandard after reading through everything else on these forums).

They of course denied it.

We then appealed to IAS directly based on guidance from other websites, copy of the appeal is below-

I was issued with a parking ticket on 20/12/2019 but I believe it was unfairly issued.

I have responded to this notice and 'LinkParking' have denied my appeal and have requested I contact the IAS.

I am writing to you as per Section 7.4.2 from the IPC Code of Practice and would therefore like appeal this notice on the following points

The car was parked in my own car parking bay which I OWN.

I was still unfairly issued with parking tickets.

The lease agreement does not state that I require a permit to park in the bay as I own the property and the parking bay that comes with it as per the HM Land and Registry register. This lease has primacy of contract over any agreement the management company may have with LinkParking and therefore legally is invalid.

The large sum demanded amounts to a penalty and/or is not an accurate reflection of any loss suffered so it is not a reasonable charge.

The monetary claim is disproportionate, punitive and unjustifiable in total.

It may also be an unfair term and therefore in breach of Schedule 2 of the Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

The contractual breach can have caused no financial loss whatever to LinkParking or to the land owner.

 

Once again, the car was parked in my OWN bay and therefore did not cause damage to any third parties.
The Parking Charge Notice constitutes an invoice for payment.

 

Accordingly the invoiced charge must include an element of VAT.

However, the parking charge notice does not state either a VAT registration number or an invoice reference number and so cannot constitute a lawfully valid demand for payment.

Having examined the parking charge notice further I believe it is a non compliant demand for payment as the notice wrongly requires payment to be made “within” 28 days of issue which is contrary to statutory requirement that provides a period of 28 days from the date of receipt.
As a sign of good faith, I had purchased a permit anyway to avoid any unnecessary hassle for both parties but have been issued a notice anyway which is unacceptable.

 

I understand that LinkParking are appointed to monitor the car park to prevent trespassers and I agree with this but it seems it is the residents that are being 'ticketed' without good reason for parking in their own bay.

I look forward to hearing from you.

 

We have now received the following response today-

The operator made their prima facie case on 27/01/2020 14:10:48.

The operator reported that...

The appellant was the driver
The appellant was the keeper
The operator is seeking keeper liability in accordance with PoFA..
A manual ticket was placed on the vehicle
The ticket was issued on 29/12/2019
The charge is based in contract

The Operator made the following comments...

The appellant parked their vehicle on land we manage and incurred a charge as they were not displaying a valid permit.

Our signs clearly advertise the terms of parking and the charges which apply if they are met.

 

The appellant chose to display a very poor copy of one of our permits, it is a fraction of the size of a valid one.

We are unsure why they chose to do this and to date we have not received an explanation.

 

We do not have to prove any loss and invoice does not have to have a VAT number on it if the issuer is not VAT registered.

Our PCNs have passed audits by the IPC and DVLA.

 

In addition to this I have also looked through all my documentation with regards to any requirements to require displaying a permit in the contract and I can't find anything. I've owned the flat for almost 2 years now and I do not believe I was given any documentation which mentions this.

I have also looked at the HM Land Registry document which doesn't state I need a permit and I believe this ties in with the Primacy of Contract (my law understanding isn't the best).

I have also contacted the management company last week to request all information from them with regards to giving me copies of documentation which covers car parking, building services etc. so I have everything.

What really annoys me is that I didn't cause anyone any damage AND I WAS PARKED IN MY OWN BAY!!!

I really hope I haven't messed it up too much and this can be salved.

 

Any help for a response is greatly appreciated!

Thanks!

[dx100uk]

please copy/complete the windscreen section of this q&A back here:

 

post up your ticket and their NTK bothsides too to one multipage pdf following our upload guide carefully.

 

you don't need to do anything further..

 

await/if they get one of the fake/tame paperwork only solicitors to send a letter of claim.

 

you are safe to totally ignore any DCA letters

a DCA is NOT A BAILIFF on ANY debt.

and have 

ZERO legal powers on any debt.

 

dx

 

[ssm90]

1 The date of infringement? 28/12/19 and 29/12/19 for same car parked in same car bay

 

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

 

E-mail to Link.pdf  Unfortunately we used a photocopy of the original permit here but only because the original wasn't at hand. In addition, the original itself was posted to us printed on an A4 piece of paper.

 

if you have then please post up whatever you sent and how you sent it and the date you sent it,

suitably redacted. [as a PDF- follow the upload guide]

 

has there been a response?

please post it up as well, suitably redacted. [as a PDF- follow the upload guide]

E-mail from Link.pdf

If you haven't appealed yet - ,.........DONT ! seek advice on your topic

 

Unfortunately, I have already appealed to the IAS at this point.

 

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?

[scan up BOTHSIDES as ONE PDF- follow the upload guide]

 

Haven't received this yet, only the PCN and the comments on IAS appeal page.

 

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

 

N/A

 

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]

 

N/A

 

5 Who is the parking company?

 

Link Parking

 

6. where exactly [Carpark name and town] did you park?

 

Car parking in my OWN bay for the flat that I own in a block of flats. 

Cardiff, wales.

 

 

.............................

 

I haven't received a NTK yet, just the PCN.

 

PCN 29.12.19.pdf

 

 

[brassnecked]

You own the space, if there is nothing in the deeds allowing anyone to put terms and conditions onyour property, and as you say you have primacy of Contract over the MA and their PPC, do as DX says ignore until a letter of Claim, then a ericsbrother style letter stating why they will fail if they persist in their madness would be a good move.

[FTMDave]

7 hours ago, ssm90 said:

I have also looked at the HM Land Registry document which doesn't state I need a permit and I believe this ties in with the Primacy of Contract (my law understanding isn't the best).

 

On the contrary, your understanding is superb - well done on looking up and understanding Primacy of Contract.

 

Follow brassnecked & dx's advice.  You won't be paying these chancers a penny.

[brassnecked]

Just a note that these appeal Trade Associations, are bodies these fleecers belong to so they are allowed to operate, appeals almost always fail, and by appealing important protections under POFA are lost as the appeal almost always identifies the driver.  Irrelevant in your case as you own the space, and the PPC have no rights in law over it.  POPLA appeal could also fail as POPLA wouldn't look at primacy of contract and the fact you own the space so can tell the PPC to Foxtrot Oscar. Whole Private Parking Industry is a money machine for unscrupulous ex cowboy clampers.

[ericsbrother]

As you say, you own the space so they have trespassed on your land to slap the ticket on the car in the first place.

You should not play their game but stick to the law. The management co cant force you to display a permit and they cant authorise the parking bandits to do anything on your land.

 

Is it in your lease that they get to choose who may visit your flat or how about what you have to eat ? No chance and the same goes here.

By giving them any credence and appealing you have just made it more likely they will continue with this stupidity but the result will aways be the same, they will lose.

Look up the case where a person in your position sued the parking co for trespass and won I'm sure it was UKPC who were the losers of that. Whe they send their next demand tell them that you are minded to sue them for the trespass and harassment and perhaps they should get a good solicitor to advise them on the law as Will and John at the IPC are incompetent and too self-interested to be any use.

Dont be polite

[brassnecked]

It's Link here EB, not UKPS, but same precedent, I think this is one of the two we know about on Prankster's blog where they lost in very similar circumstances when they tries a County Court claim against a Resident who owned their space, they lost a further case against a guest permitted by the Resident  to park in their space they sued in the first case.

 

These would be very persuasive if Link are silly enough to ignore a snotty letter telling them to Foxtrot Oscar as they have no legal claim for Diddly Squat after  they stupidlya Letter before Claim.  Might also be GDPR implications later for unlawfully asking DVLA for your details and then unlawfully processing the data. Also Questions for the managing agents foryourself and other Residents as to their right to even bring in the PPC.  Is the development gated, or any retrictions on access?

 

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/05/ukpc-lose-residential-case-will-vicim.html

 

https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/07/ukpc-lose-residential-case-tenant-can.html

[ericsbrother]

aware of that but my scribbles will hopefully make the court case easier to search.

 

The managing agents may or may not have the authority to offer and enter into contracs with third parties dependant upon ther contract with the freeholder but that still doesnt give them the right to tell anyone what to do in their own property hence the comment about having a say in what you have for tea.

judges often get tied up in the relationship between the freehold and the managing agents so clarity is key on this point as parking is sometimes allocated rather than part fo the lease. The drawings on the deeds will make that clear enough for even the greenest judge

[brassnecked]

Great EB, you have provided the direction for ssm90 to look regarding kicking stink into touch

[ssm90]

Thank you for your help so far.

 

Reviving this post as I was told to come back here if the next step was to take this to court.

 

I have had a final response where they have denied the appeal and at this point I am lost as I am not sure what else I can do.

I have uploaded the whole chain here -

(removed - dx)

 

but the final response is posted below...what really annoys me is how Link dismissed all my queries and I was forced to answer everything, real double standards!

The adjudicator made their decision on 26/02/2020 17:12:49.

The Appellant should understand that the Adjudicator is not in a position to give legal advice to either of the parties but they are entitled to seek their own independent legal advice.

 

The Adjudicator's role is to consider whether or not the parking charge has a basis in law and was properly issued in the circumstances of each individual case.

 

In all Appeals the Adjudicator is bound by the relevant law applicable at the time and is only able to consider legal challenges and not factual mistakes nor extenuating or mitigating circumstances.

 

Throughout this appeal the Operator has had the opportunity consider all points raised and could have conceded the appeal at any stage.

 

The Adjudicator who deals with this Appeal is legally qualified and each case is dealt with according to their understanding of the law as it applies and the legal principles involved.

 

A decision by an Adjudicator is not legally binding on an Appellant who is entitled to seek their own legal advice if they so wish.

The Operator has provided evidence of the signs at the site, which make it clear any driver parking without clearly displaying a valid permit and parking in the correct allocated bay, agrees to pay the parking charge.

The Appellant claims that they had a valid permit but fails to provide evidence of the same.

However, the Operator concedes a permit has been sent to the address.

 

The permit displayed at the time the notice was issued though was a copy and therefore not valid.

This is accepted by the Appellant this was a copy, the reasons for this are irrelevant.

 

The terms are clear. If the Appellant was unable to display a valid permit, for whatever reason, they must park elsewhere; assuming they wish to avoid the charge.

The Appellant claims they have rights under their lease.

The Appellant has not provided the full document; therefore, I cannot be satisfied the rights granted are not restricted by other provisions.

 

Even if the Appellant does have an unrestricted right to park in their lease I am unable to allow the appeal on this basis.

Whilst the Appellant is correct that a right in the lease would ordinarily have primacy, and the Operator could not unilaterally override this, by agreeing to display a permit, and take part in the car park management scheme, the Appellant has agreed to have waive any rights they had to park without restriction. The Appellant cannot take advantage of the scheme when it benefits them and disregard it when it does not.

Loss is irrelevant since the charge is the amount the Appellant agreed to pay.

The signage at this location clearly indicated to motorists the level of charges that were in force and the Appellant had the option to go elsewhere to park if they felt that the terms and conditions were excessive or unreasonable. In view of the fact that the Appellant chose to park there it confirms that the Appellant agreed to park in accordance with the clearly displayed terms and conditions including the level of the parking charge if it arose.

 

In addition the recent case in the Supreme Court of Parking Eye and Beavis dealt in part with this issue and decided that that the amount of the parking charge was justified in view of the Operator's overheads and expenses as well as by comparing the charges with those made in the public sector.

The consumer contract regulations are not breached because the amount being sought by the parking operator was clearly communicated by the signage on site. If the Appellant considered the charges to be excessive they had the option to reject it by parking elsewhere or by parking on this site in accordance with the terms and conditions displayed on the signage. The Appellant chose not to park in accordance with those terms and therefore is deemed to have agreed to pay a charge if any breach occurred.

VAT is an issue between the Operator and HMRC. It has no bearing on the lawfulness of the charge. I can see no problem with the wording of the notice. The position of other vehicles, or historic issues with obtaining a permit have no bearing on the lawfulness of the charge.

As a genuine permit holder the Appellant has my sympathy, but the guidance to the appeal is clear that I may only consider legal issues not extenuating circumstances. The Operator has provided photographic evidence of the Appellant's vehicle parked on the land they manage, and without a valid permit displayed.

 

The appeal is dismissed.

[FTMDave]

The rejection of your appeal changes nothing.  The IAS, the IPC and the solicitors most of the PPCs use (Gladstones) are run by the same people - no conflict of interest there!  The IAS were never going to accept your appeal, it is a kangaroo court which never, ever, ever accepts appeals - ever.

 

Reread the advice everyone has given you above.  You're the one legally in the right, whatever these crooks say.  So sit back and relax - unless they send you a Letter Before Action, and in that case come back here.

[ssm90]

What is my next step? How do I battle this? If I refuse to pay, I'm sure it is just a matter of time before they issue a court case and I have no idea how to deal with that in terms of know-how.

[brassnecked]

have you checked your lease as to what it says regarding the parking, there may well be superiority of your right to the space over the PPC, irrespective of what the managing agent allows a PPC to do.

[ssm90]

Hi brassed, 

 

Yes, I have, it doesn't specify anything about requiring a permit to park and I have already used this in my appeal and stated Primacy of Contracts and the apeal was still denied.

[FTMDave]

They have to send you a LBA before any court claim. 

 

The next step is to ignore them (afraid to say you should have ignored them from the start rather than wasting time with kangaroo courts).

 

You're miles from court yet, and if they are stupid enough to eventually issue court action you will smash them with Supremacy of Contract.

[ssm90]

I know, unfortunately I only realised that I had to ignore them after it was too late!

 

Okay, so for now, I should just sit tight? What does the LBA stand for, is that the pre-action protocol?

[FTMDave]

Yes, part of it, Letter Before Action (sometimes called Letter Before Claim or Letter Of Claim).

[FTMDave]

What will probably happen - no guarantees but probably - is that they will send you various "scary" letters, and get debt collectors to send other "terrifying" letters.  They may then give up or might send a LBA.  At that point you reply to them, saying you've sussed them, you have Supremacy Of Contract, and you look forward to giving them a good kicking in court.  After which they'll probably go away and hide under their stone.

[dx100uk]

upload link removed.

1 its totally unredacted

2. its on a hosting site.

3. its docx with all your pers details showing in document properties.

 

only upload using PDF please after reading upload guide

[ericsbrother]

understand something very simple,

they are crooks and have a taste for your money as crookedness is the only way they can feed.

they are not going to go away just because you are right.

They dont care and in most cases too thick to actually understand the niceties of the law.

Their Trade Association will tell them they are right because that is what they need to hear.

 

So when you ignore them you will get a series of letters from then and from debt collecting agencies demanding the money plus another £60 unicorn food tax. They add this because people then think the bill will go up and up and pay up as it is less than £200 without asking why the money has been added in the firstplace. there is no lawful reason for this additional demand and they know it but like their dishonest charge they plough on or go broke.

 

The last stage will be a letter before action or letter before claim.

You respond to this in a forthright manner. you have the right to sue them for trespass and harassment.

As for not being prepared to defned, you have done most of the work already.

 

As for their adjudicators decision

- it is worthless and is also a distortion of boththe law and the matters of fact.

 

A photocopy of YOUR permit not valid?

who says so?

is there a specific condition in the contract  you have with the parking co that says only the original permits may be displayed?

No but as the appeals people work for the trade association they have to be creative in their lies to keep their customers happy.

 

If they do sue you one thing you will never see produced as evidence is this determination because not only would it be laughed out of court the IAS may well get a court order slapped on it not to make such determinations in the interests of justice.

 

I feel the lawmakers realised there would be problems with the appeals services or they would have made them binding on the motorist

[ssm90]

Thanks all.

 

Sorry dx100uk, completely slipped my mind about the uploads, thanks for removing the file.

 

Ericsbrother, you have made a very good point which I didn't think about before...so I'll definitely be bringing this up.

A photocopy of YOUR permit not valid? who says so? is there a specific condition in the contract  you have with the parking co that says only the original permits may be displayed?

 

 

My only concern is the fact that they've said I waived any rights I had by displaying a permit in the first place- which to be honest I did because I wasn't familiar with any of this. I only realised the ins and outs when I started researching all of this recently.

Just so I understand, do I need to build my own case when I get the letter in the post?

Is there individual help available anywhere or do I need to collate all the info by reading all the posts?

 

Just curious. (Apart from the LBA guide that FTMDave provided earlier).

 

[FTMDave]

Remember that the only person who can make you pay this money is a judge in a court case, if it gets that far.  The kangaroo courts and threatening letters are just a load of hot air.  The parking companies don't really want to go to court.  They're likely to lose.  Even if they win, the money won't cover their expenses.  That's why they try it on with all this smoke & mirrors before hoping you'll give up & cough up.

 

If the worst comes to the worst and the thickos really are so stupid as to take you to court, of course the site members will guide you through the process.

 

If you want some fun bedside reading have a look through the PPC Successes thread (the first on the forum page), especially the ones won at court, and see how these fleecers have been thrashed time & again.

 

Please come back here if they do send a LBA, that is the time to take them seriously.

 

 

[dx100uk]

all the info is here to read in many many posts

the easiest way, which will pay you 1000's over if things do progress

is to read as many PPC threads in this forum as you can.

it will all sink in and then become clear.

 

in reality, what you need to say is very simple, but the ethos behind it all is wide ranging and sometime difficult to comprehend at first.

 

[brassnecked]

The Appeal is always denied otherwise they wouldn't make any money by scaring people into paying.  there are several prinacy of Contract own Space defeats on CAG and the Parking Prankster's Blog, which is one that has useful background information and reports of PPC's being tolchocked in Court  This one might be helpful along with others see how it fit with your circumstances, but remember every case is unique but other cases can be cited in any defence.just read up in case they are daft enough to try their luck

 

https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/search?q=ticket+in+own+space