Parking tickets issued on private parking space

[Unicorn69]

Hi, 

I hope someone can help with my query. 

Since March (Covid-19) I have been staying with my partner at his flat. He has a private parking space in a multi storey car park which he acquired on purchasing his flat. (The car parking space came with the flat). 

He doesn't drive or own a car so I have been parking in his space. 

 

I display a parking permit but last week forgot to do so and as I haven't used the car in over a week, today I went to use it and have been issued with 2 x parking tickets. 

 

Legally where do I stand? Do I have to pay these tickets? 

[dx100uk]

please complete this:

 

 

short ans in NO,

but never ignore a Letter of Claim

[FTMDave]

Your partner has Supremacy of Contract.  He owns the space, he can do what the hell he wants there as can anyone he gives permission to use the space.  Don't pay these fleecers a bean.

[Manxman in exile]

Out of curiosity, is it really possible to give such definite and certain answers to the OP on the basis of the bare information she has given?

 

For instance, she says her boyfriend purchased his flat and the parking space came with it, but is she in a position to be absolutely certain* of that?  Is that sufficient information to be 100% sure that "He owns the space, he can do what the hell he wants there as can anyone he gives permission to use the space"?

 

What I'm getting at (for my education as much as anything) is that the OP may sincerely believe that her boyfriend "owns" the flat and associated parking space, but as she's not her boyfriend she may not know or fully understand his relationship with the property.  Surely it's quite possible that he does not "own" the parking space and that his use of it may be subject to various T&Cs including, eg, displaying a permit.  (NB - I'm not suggesting that what the OP says cannot be believed - rather I'm suggesting that she could easily be mistaken as to what she thinks are the facts).

 

As I say, I'm interested to understand the legal position that allows such clear-cut and definitive responses to be given without caveat or without asking for further information from the OP for clarification.  I'm sure the OP would find that explanation useful too - rather than just being told "No - don't worry about it."

 

*I seem to be vaguely aware that occupiers and owners of flats can often be under misapprehensions about their rights to use parking spaces they thought they owned.  If they can be wrong at first hand, I'm sure others can be wrong third hand

[dx100uk]

well even if it were not true, and there are no examples of this not being the case in the 100's of residential private parking issue threads already here, it doesn't change the fact, nor change any legalities surrounding the enforceability of, a mere speculative invoice.

[FTMDave]

Firstly, the site is about encouraging & empowering people to fight back and not just accept they have to give in when hassled for money by puffed-up bullies.  Something I've seen you're superb at doing - although in areas of the law that I confess I know very little about!!!

 

Then we can only go on the info we're given.  The OP states "He has a private parking space in a multi storey car park which he acquired on purchasing his flat. (The car parking space came with the flat)".  That is what the OP has stated and therefore he can do what he wants on his own property (short of murdering someone ).  Obviously if that info later turned out to be incorrect then the advice would change.

 

I've never known a PPC win on these Supremacy of Contact cases.

 

Recently someone in a similar position was asking for advice and I dug up these two cases from the Parking Prankster's blog which I think are very useful 

 

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

Edited November 19, 2020 by FTMDave
Typo

[Unicorn69]

Thank you so much for all the advice. 

 

My partner's parking space is rented from the management company who manage the grounds etc.

This same management company have an agreement with the parking company. 

 

Legally does this make a difference if we appeal? 

[honeybee13]

Please don't rush to appeal until the guys have thought through your case. Appealing can make things more complicated, depending on the issues involved. I'm sure people will be along soon.

 

HB

[dx100uk]

we need you to complete post 2 please

then we will be better placed to assist.

 

 

[Homer67]

Don't appeal, you may remove your rights under POFA, complete the info and wait for a response.

[brassnecked]

If it is their space, they can demise the right to you most likely as you also now live there this general take reinforces the points and cases linked by FTMDave

https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/residential-parking.html

 

An appeal might be counter productive at the moment.

[Manxman in exile]

On 19/11/2020 at 00:25, FTMDave said:

Firstly, the site is about encouraging & empowering people to fight back and not just accept they have to give in when hassled for money by puffed-up bullies.  Something I've seen you're superb at doing - although in areas of the law that I confess I know very little about!!!

 

 

I hope you mean I try to help people stand up to bullying - and not do the bullying!   I'll assume it's a compliment!

 

On 19/11/2020 at 00:25, FTMDave said:

...  The OP states "He has a private parking space in a multi storey car park which he acquired on purchasing his flat. (The car parking space came with the flat)".  That is what the OP has stated and therefore he can do what he wants on his own property (short of murdering someone ). 

 

Well - that sort of demonstrates that you've not understood my point and (perhaps?) haven't actually read the OP?

 

My point is that it is not the boyfriend (the supposed "owner" of the car park) who is posting, but his girlfriend who believes that he "owns" his car parking space.  Yes - it usually makes sense to believe that what the OP is posting is the truth, but in this case there is every reason to believe that there is a possibility that the OP might be mistaken about her boyfriend's ownership of the parking space, because...  well, how would she know for sure whether he does or not?  He might be boasting or lying or simply mistaken.  (My understanding is that many people who "own" flats are often under the mistaken apprehension that they "own" a parking space when they don't.  All the more reason then that somebody else other than the "owner" might be even more mistaken).

 

I suppose what I'm getting at is that I was a bit surprised that both you and dx100uk were able to give such definite and certain answers to the OP without exploring her situation a bit more fully and ensuring that she fully and correctly understood her boyfriend's rights in respect of the parking space in question.  I was simply concerned that without getting more information from the OP, then the replies given to her might prove to be less than useful.  I wouldn't want her to leave thinking that there was absolutely nothing to worry about and then find out there was because she'd been misadvised because she didn't understand whether her BF "owned" the space or not.

 

Of course, it may be that my concern here makes absolutely no difference to the answer that needs to be given to the OP because it doesn't matter whether her boyfriend actually "owns" the parking space or not, which is fine.  But sometimes I think it would be helpful to the OP (and other readers like myself) if some of these legal niceties could be spelled out rather than left unexplained.

 

 

[dx100uk]

to @unicorn69

can we please have the questionnaire completed..

 

 

[brassnecked]

12 hours ago, Manxman in exile said:

 it may be that my concern here makes absolutely no difference to the answer that needs to be given to the OP because it doesn't matter whether her boyfriend actually "owns" the parking space or not, which is fine.  But sometimes I think it would be helpful to the OP (and other readers like myself) if some of these legal niceties could be spelled out rather than left unexplained.

 

 

A short answer is that the Legal occupier, usually has an allocated parking space in that sort of development, and it would be available to use for any other occupant living there with the leaseholder/Tenant, assuming Tenant has no vehicle of their own, that such a right to park can be demised to a visitor even has been proved details on Prankster's blog. Of course you are correct to indicate caution which is why we ask people to check documentation and T & C's in Tenacy, & lease agreements specifically on parking.

[lookinforinfo]

Even if the boyfriend doesn't have parking rights this case below illustrates that there are other reasons to avoid paying the crooks. IE  what the landowner arranges with the parking company and trespass too of course. Also not having a permit means that no contract can be formed because of the doctrine of impossibility of performance.

 

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/06/pace-given-pasting-in-manchester.html

[brassnecked]

Good point there, so more than one way to skin the cat. Wonder if the development is gated or some other restriction on access to unauthorised vehicles?

[FTMDave]

Manxman in exile,

 

of course it was a compliment!  When I have time I try to look at threads on other sections of the site that I know nowt about to widen my knowledge, I often see you giving superb advice and encouraging posters to fight back - such as the great advice you gave Howler today.

 

On the PPC section we continually have people thinking they've been fined, that DCAs really can increase what they have to pay, that they will end up with huge legal costs, etc., etc., so it is a battle to show people they don't have to give in and yes, maybe sometimes we come down too much on the side of optimism.

 

Regarding the OP's partner "He might be boasting or lying or simply mistaken" I disagree with you, unless it's blatantly obvious an OP has mistaken something I think we can only proceed with the info. we're given.

 

Yes, I did read the OP's post.  Before I came across this site I knew nothing about Supremacy of Contract but have read several residential parking threads here and on the Parking Prankster's blog (indeed I've read the whole of the Parking Prankster's blog) and I haven't seen one case where the PPCs won on Supremacy of Contract, even when the resident passed this "right" to their visitor.  So yes, when things become repetitive you begin to see automatically the legal position the OP is in.  Indeed I read somewhere (can't remember where) that several of the PPCs don't want residential parking contracts because they aren't able to rip off residents any more having been tonked so many times in court.