One Parking Solutions Windscreen PCN - private flat bays, share of freehold . - Durrington, West Sussex.

[lookinforinfo]

The NTK is pretty good at complying with the Act  as is the Notice to Driver so no help there. I seem to remember OPS getting hammered by a Judge [in brighton I think] so they seem to have tightened po their act since.

The organ grinder is the MA and the monkey is OPS.

[iamgnome]

Good on them for following the rules. They still haven't proven that I'm the driver though right?

I also checked the council's website and there's no planning permission for the signs.

No luck with the organ grinder. I think I'll need to take this to court and win to prove my point to the other freeholders.

[lolerz]

If it ever gets that far

[FTMDave]

Indeed.  It's them that will have to take you to court if they ever want to see any money.  They know full well how difficult it is for the private parking companies to win residential cases,. 

[iamgnome]

Thanks guys, that's reassuring.

Let's say hypothetically, I went to court and I beat them. What would be the potential consequences of that for them? Would they be forced to leave the residence?

[dx100uk]

no.

dx

[FTMDave]

Sadly - no.

They would have sued you because they reckoned you owed them the money they have invoiced you for.

The judge would have considered the matter and conluded you didn't owe the money.

That's all.

Edited April 20 by FTMDave
Typo

[iamgnome]

I see... so, I'll still need to find a way to get rid of OPS.

One more question, would beating them at court ensure future PCNs are invalid/unlawful??

[dx100uk]

no.

county court judgements dont set a precedence, though quoting it before any others got to court stage might make them think twice about trying court again.

dx

[FTMDave]

Have you seen dbuk2000's result?

Absolutely thrashed a PPC in a residential parking case today.

[iamgnome]

Thanks both, so I just read the thread. It looks promising but the OP in that case had one key trump card, primacy of lease. Not sure if that will properly apply in my case.

What do you think?

 

[lolerz]

I think you have the supremacy of contract as it allows you to park in designated areas.

I would argue that there being parking enforcement there clearly means its to be used as parking and as such you can use it under your lease.

Only need to worry if they ever follow through with a letter of claim and a claimform though

[iamgnome]

Thanks lolerz. This will be an interesting one for sure. Let's see what happens, I'm keen to fight these scammers...

[iamgnome]

An update: I just got another PCN. I get the feeling that someone in the residence is calling OPS, as it's dated for a few mins after I parked. I won't appeal of course.

Interestingly, our cleaner was also parked but didn't get a PCN. I asked them why and apparently they're whitelisted. I did ask the MA if they could whitelist me and they said they couldn't. Clearly they decided not to tell the truth.

Surely, this would resolve all of the issues entirely i.e. we'd keep non-residents from parking, whilst allowing for residents to park without issue?

Also, could OPS now take me to court for both PCNs separately, or could it be one case?

 

 

Edited Tuesday at 10:26 by iamgnome

[FTMDave]

21 minutes ago, iamgnome said:

Also, could OPS now take me to court for both PCNs separately, or could it be one case?

It'd be up to them.  They could decide to combine the two tickets or deal with each separately.

Of course they could whitelist you, but then they wouldn't make any money.  Their job is not sensible management of a car park.  There job is to make up idiotic rules that motorists break so they can write their PCNs.

It sticks in my throat to say this, but maybe if at all possible for a bit respect their stupid rules and avoid PCNs.  If there are one or two tickets then OPS will be wary of doing court as they know how difficult it is to win well-defended residential parking cases.  If it gets to four or five then they are likely to be blinded by greed and to go for court.

[iamgnome]

Thanks Dave, that all sounds clear to me.

In terms of avoiding PCNs, I'm not sure if I can. I need to be able to park in that spot, especially as I've got kids to lug forth and back for the school run.

Likewise it's not always possible to use the MA's permit system either, as I've not always got them to hand.

So, if I'm actively avoiding PCNs, then it could mean I've given in to their idiotic rules. But, I do get what you're saying, as I imagine the risks go up if they claim there are multiple PCNs to be paid at court.

Not sure what to do with this one.

[lookinforinfo]

The whole  point of white listing is so that those who are entitled to park there don't get ticketed -like cleaners for example.

And the residents too of course if the system is designed to prevent non residents from misusing the area which is the usual excuse for bringing in the parking scrotes. that they are also targeting the residents would imply that you are fair game and your MAs are quite happy to make make money out of you all. Nice guys.

[iamgnome]

Thanks @lookinforinfo - completely agreed.

Is it common that MAs also profit from PCNs?

I've decided that I am going to fight this. It's clearly unjust, and I need to try my best to get these scammers out of my residence, even if I risk losing at court.

[lolerz]

In my time I've never seen a payout/commission from a PPC to a landlord/MA.

Normally the installation of all the cameras/payment of warden patrols etc is free but PPCs keep 100% of the ticket revenue.

Not saying it doesn't happen mind.

I've done some more digging on this:

Remember, what your lease doesn't say is just as important as what it does say. If your lease doesn't mention a parking scheme/employment of a PPC/Paying PCNs etc you're under no legal obligation to play along to the PPC's or the MA's "Terms and conditions". I highly doubt your lease had a variation in place to bring in this permit system.

Your lease will likely have a "quiet enjoyment" clause for your demised space and the common areas and having to fight a PPC/MA just to park would breach that.

Your lease has supremacy of contract, but I do agree it's worth keeping cool and not parking there (and hence getting PCNs) for a couple months just so that the PPC doesn't get blinded by greed and go nuclear on you if you have 4 or 5 PCNs outstanding.

At your next AGM, bring it up that the parking controls need to be removed and mention the legal reasons why. One reason is that under S37(5b) Landlord and Tenant Act 1987,  more than 75% of leaseholders and/or the landlord would have needed to agree, and less than 10% opposed, for the variation to take place.
I highly doubt a ballot even happened before the PPC was bought in so OPS even being there is unlawful, breaching the terms of your lease. In this legal sense,  the communal vote of the "directors" of the freehold company would have counted for ONE vote of however many flats there are (leases/tenants) + 1 (landlord).

It's going to be interesting to see where this goes.

 

[iamgnome]

Thanks @lolerzthat's an extremely helpful post.

There is no mention of a permit scheme in the lease and likewise, no variation was made to bring this system in.

I recall seeing something like a quiet enjoyment clause, but will need to re-read it and confirm.

VERY interesting point on the 1987 Act. There hasn't been an AGM in years and I've tried to get one to start to no avail. However, I'll aim to find out more about how the PPC was brought in and revert.

Can I test with you and others on the logic of not parking for a few months?

I'm ready to fight OPS, so if they go nuclear on me then surely it doesn't matter? I assume that I will keep getting PCNs as long as I live here, so it doesn't make sense for me to change the way that I park? 

Unless... You are suggesting that having 5 or so outstanding PCNs, will negatively affect any court case e.g. through bad optics? Or are we trying to force their hand to go to court with only 2 outstanding PCNs?

[lookinforinfo]

If there is a whitelist and few intruders there only seems the residents to make money from. It would leave wondering what the incentive was for the MAs if there was nothing in it for them except the obvious complaints from the residents. Not that I am saying that they are getting a backhander but there seems little other reasons unless they are trying to show how well run the place is managed-not.

If they ran it properly there would be no need for OPs.

[Nicky Boy]

The only way to verify whether there is any financial reward for the management is seeing the agreement. That would be required during disclosure IF court proceedings went ahead... Unless you could bring pressure to bear and get a copy?

[iamgnome]

Thanks @lookinforinfo@Nicky Boyi sent across the agreement earlier in this thread. No mention of financial reward to the MA. But, I wouldn't be surprised if it was done on the sly. As I said earlier, the owner of OPS is a convicted criminal, with a very shady reputation around these parts.

[FTMDave]

Sorry, I expressed myself badly.

Most people who come here are willing to go to court, but would prefer not to if at all possible.

We have a tiny minority who are terrified of court, even though we point out that a civil court hearing is no more intimidating that a job interview.

I was just pointing out that the more PCNs you get, the more money is in ir for the PPC, so the greater the chances of them doing court - which of course is damn obvious!

However, what we tend to see in residential parking cases is that the PPCs are reluctant to start court claims because they know about Supremacy of Contract and they know their case is weak.  But then when someone collects, say, five tickets, greed takes over and they rush off to court.  So i just wanted to point out that that was likely to happen.

Point taken that it is very hard to avoid getting their tickets.

If you do end up in court in the end - which is probable - then the number of tickets will not affect the judge's decision.  Either you have Supremacy of Contract or you don't.