PPM Windscreen PCN operator smart phone pixs - my guest parked in my own parking bay - appeal advice

[mangoseason]

Hi all, and thanks in advance for taking the time to read and reply.

 

Situation: A guest of mine received a PCN from Parking & Property Management Ltd for parking without a permit in my parking bay of my car park in my development. £100 and £60 if paid within first 14 (2 days left for that).

 

Context: I’m aware the company patrols the roads within the development and the car park, but given car park requires fob access I didn’t think they’d even be checking the inside of the car park (I’ve lived here for a while and hadn’t seen a patrol of the inside so never even thought about the permit when a guest has been over and parked in my bay. On the p&p website the evidence is photos taken from smart phone of the patroller of the car from various angles not displaying the permit, and of the signage that displays t&cs close to the car.

 

Homework so far:

Contacted management company about it - they say they brought in parking enforcement after residents complained about other people parking in their bays, and weren’t of much help (i’ll tackle the management company about the use of the company separately..)

 

I’ve read previous threads and looked at my lease, and believe they have no authority given primacy of contract. Lease says the following (and I’m not aware of any amendments made to it since)

 

“Parking space” the parking space numbered 155 on Plan 1

 

1. The right for the tenant and all persons authorised by him (in common with all other persons entitled to the right) at all times for reasonable purposes connected with the residential use of aoocuption of the Property and Parking Space only yo go pass and repass with or without vehicles (as appropirate) over and along the Buildings Common Parts and External Landscape Areas over which the tenant requires rights in connected with the Estate together with the rights set out in clause X of the transfer dated Y made between A & B referred to in title number C.

 

8. The right to park one vehicle not exceeding two and one half tonnes gross unladen weight in the Parking Space

(I can’t see anything about future changes to the lease..)

 

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

 

My understanding of the next steps I should take: Guest should wait for a NtK, and then appeal. Is this correct?

 

Issue here is guest doesn’t really want to wait around for letters to be sent (concern that escalation will affect credit rating) and wants to take action within the 14 days.

 

Could someone explain the reasoning for waiting for a letter and whether anything is lost by responding to the PCN now?

 

My appeal draft for review:

I couldn’t find a template so drafted something based on what I could find in existing posts.

Should I appeal as myself (the leaseholder, not owner of the car) or as the guest who I have given permission to park?

Not sure how to do it, as the parking spot isn’t there’s its mine, but I’ve let them park there?

 

Please withdraw the parking charge as I had parked a guests car in my own bay (or alternatively: I was parking in the bay of a family member) where the lease says the following (also attached):

 

[insert lease text from above]

 

It is therefore denied that the parking of vehicle X in my own parking space was in breach of any parking conditions or wea not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and leaseholder of [address], whose tenancy agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land. I aver that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant allocated bay, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or the requirement to display a parking permit.

 

Given the primacy of contract, there is a large body of case law which establishes this:

 

In Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011 it was found the managing agent could not reduce the amount of parking spaces available to residents. In Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E, on appeal it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to temporarily stop near the building entrance for loading/unloading.

In Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.

In Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016] it was also found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.

 

If this appeal is not granted then please provide me with registration number so that I can continue my case with POPLA.

 

Sincerely X.

 

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

 

 

 

 

Thanks very much in advance for your input.

[dx100uk]

please complete this:

and scan to PDF the windscreen PCN he got.

 

 

DO NOT APPEAL.

Private parking speculative invoices do not show on credit files.

DON'T totally ignore them ....IF they issue a letter of claim...comeback here

 

await the NTK.

 

[brassnecked]

And send no appeal as yet, the PPC are on a very sticky wicket if they continue this given its gated with key fob entry, there have been  liveried delivery vans delivering in to a specific property where the occupier has opened the gates for the driver given tickets in this sort of development., DPD or Yodel, FedEx would bash them severely if they tried court.

This case is persuasive and almost mirrors your scenario,

 

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

[mangoseason]

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

 

1 The date of infringement?

08/07/20
 

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

No
 

has there been a response?

NA

 

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

No

 

what date is on it

NA

 

Did the NTK provide photographic evidence?

NA (Link on PCN does have photos of car in bay without permit taken on smartphone)

 

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

NA

 

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]

NA

 

5 Who is the parking company?

Parking & Property Management Ltd

 

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

Private bay of small gated resident car park, London

Back_side.pdf Front_side.pdf

 

Thanks,

[brassnecked]

If one takes your lease as conferring right to derogate permission to a visitor to use your designated space, as shown in that case on Prankster that Windscreen Ticket is Toilet paper, and they traspassed on your space to issue it. fact its gated with fob entry weakens any case they could concoct also.

 

No doubt ericsbrother, FTMDave, and Lookedinforinfo, along with DX will have further thoughts to pass on.

[FTMDave]

Yes, follow the excellent advice from dx & brassnecked.

 

It's only natural to first think of appealing.  Indeed in any sort of regulated industry operating with even a modicum of integrity, that would be the way to go.  But here you're dealing with conmen.  The entire industry is based on shysters sending out demands for money they know full well isn't owed, but most people don't know the law and are terrified of the idea of going to court so cough up.  Every week we have a thread from someone who was naive and appealed - the appeal is always rejected and most of the time the motorist outs themselves as the driver and throws away their protection under the POFA 2012 law.

 

Sorry to disappoint your guest, but the PPC have got their details from the DVLA and over many months will send out letters which are supposed to be threatening both directly and via various DCAs.  Nowt that can be done about that.  But all these letters will just be willy waving from paper tigers and are to be laughed at.

 

You're sussed out you're legally in the right due to primacy of contract so stick tight and ignore the silly threats.  Well done on all the legal research you've done.  The only letter not to be ignored is if they send a Letter Before Action.

[mangoseason]

Thanks very much for your response and to all those of previous posters.

 

Can you explain what the process is then going forwards? 

 

From what I understand the NtK will be a letter which outlines what the windscreen notice said (ie the same £100 with £60 'discount' if paid in 14 days), after they've got details from DVLA, and gives me a chance of nipping things in the bud if they haven't complied with POFA. 

 

Is this when I appeal over the original issue (lease not covering permit)?

 

Or if not the case (if so why?) when do I then respond?

I note you said the only letter to not ignore is Letter Before Action but unsure where that fits into the process. 

 

Also I would have no issue with ignoring letters but am conscious this is an family member that I don't want to put under unnecessary stress, so would be good to understand what I should be expecting,

 

also whether the strategy that is being outlined by above posters is likely to be able to result in having this dropped before a court case becomes necessary, as I don't want said family member to have to be involved. 

 

 

[dx100uk]

IF it ever got to court.......

as the registered keeper of the vehicle the driver used to enter into the private area , there is no way the registered keeper would not be involved.

 

as for a letter of claim.

 

i suggest you get reading up here on CAG

as thats the only was you will understand a PAPLOC and why it must never be ignored

and all your other issues/questions to come.

 

use our search top right

or 

the enhanced google searchbox here on CAG page.

for

PCN letter of claim

[brassnecked]

I Think this from your Lease trumps anything the PPC can do

 

"1. The right for the tenant and all persons authorised by him (in common with all other persons entitled to the right) at all times for reasonable purposes connected with the residential use of aoocuption of the Property and Parking Space only yo go pass and repass with or without vehicles (as appropirate) over and along the Buildings Common Parts and External Landscape Areas over which the tenant requires rights in connected with the Estate together with the rights set out in clause X of the transfer dated Y made between A & B referred to in title number C.

 

8. The right to park one vehicle not exceeding two and one half tonnes gross unladen weight in the Parking Space

(I can’t see anything about future changes to the lease..)"

 

especially given the case on prankster where occupier has right to derogate permission to use the space to bona fide visitor.

[FTMDave]

Your relative will get the Notice to Keeper at some point.

 

After that the PPC and debt collectors will send various letters, probably pretending that the sum has magically increased, then later offering some discount, all trying to get your relative to pay money s/he doesn't owe. 

 

It's important that your relative understands that these letters mean nothing.  The only person who can force payment is a judge after a court case.

 

They may then give up, but they might send a Letter Before Claim which is a formal notice of intention to start court proceedings.  That is the time to give them both barrels about supremacy of contract and warn them they will be humiliated in court if they are daft enough to continue.

 

dx is right that it is essential to read similar threads.  You keep mentioning appealing.  Do you really think these con artists give a toss about POFA, supremacy of contract, etc?  Any appeal would get the reply "Our signs clear state a permit must be displayed, therefore the PCN is valid".  Even worse, your relative would show their hand too early and probably throw away POFA protection.  Never appeal!

[ericsbrother]

So their lease if perfectly clear, you cant obstruct the common parts without good reason ( so removal van will be exempt from this clause) and one car may be parked on your space. not YOUR car but any car you authorise.

 

As it is YOUR space the parking co have no say over what happens there and the freeholder may apply some sanction if you abuse the space, which you aren't because the visitors car falls within the terms of the lease. Even if the visitors car was outside the terms of the lease it is nothing to do with some mickey mouse parking bandit but between you and the landlord and no-one else. The management co may shop you to the LL but they can do diddly squat themselves.

 

As long as your relative is happy to play along with this charade then they are perfectly safe from  losing a claim but the parking co will be spending money on a wild goose chase.

 

Trying to appeal will make them think they are important and they have something to say when they don't.

their fault for taking on a contract they cant earn money from legally but they know this and instead rely on other people's ignorance to tell lies and harass them into paying monies that aren't due.

No appeal then.

[brassnecked]

As a lateral thought, as OP is lessor, could they tell the PPC to Foxtrot oscar  as they gave permission and their ciSupremacy trumps the PPC, citing the 2 cases highlighted on Prankster, than the guest winning their case later?  Would need a forensic examination of lease though. Danger is the PPC being a muppet might also try to sue the OP by mistake.

 

Just a thought, if OP wants to not put their relative through the mill.

 

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

[ericsbrother]

Indeed, that is what I was saying in a roundabout way if the guest is too scared to stand up for themselves.

Suing the OP might be something to invite by getting the guest to name the OP as the driver and then let the fun begin ( if you are up for a long game OP)

You never know, the parking co might catch a bout of common sense when they get the returned naming of driver

[brassnecked]

In the circumstance illustrated by EB, above the PPC will say, they should have told them in an appeal that they  were driver, and in any case as not notified a different car used   invoice still stands. at which point they are in an unenviable position of arguing Supremacy of Contract with those 2 cases as evidence they are on a loser.  Played correctly it might cost them more than OP's costs, and a tolchocking from ICO. Management Agents are also in frame then, as if fob access anyone parking is likely there on legitimate business. so why a PPC needed anyway?