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

[FTMDave]

1 hour ago, iamgnome said:

in any other part of the Property

previously approved in writing by the Landlord for that
purpose'

That sounds very much like a parking bay to me, presuming the parking bays are marked as such.

[FTMDave]

Maybe I'm thick but what exactly are residents supposed to do now?  Get a permit, park for one hour and then move their car off the estate before they can come back after more than one hour, rinse & repeat?

[FTMDave]

I just don't get what the Directors want to do here.

Surely they must know the bays are used by residents and what will happen if they bring in this one hour maximum nonsense.

[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,. 

[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

[FTMDave]

Have you seen dbuk2000's result?

Absolutely thrashed a PPC in a residential parking case today.

[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.

[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.

[FTMDave]

Yes, well done.

If you have a look at post 9 of dbuk2000's thread there are links to other cases featured on the Parking Prankster's site  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/466177-ukpc-2x-windscreen-pncs-claimform-forgot-permit-appealed-res-parking-my-own-space-east-croft-house-86-northolt-road-south-harrow-ha2-0es-claim-dismissed/#comments

Also have a read of dbuk2000's Witness Statement.

 

[FTMDave]

3 hours ago, iamgnome said:

Also to add, have checked the council site and they have no planning permission for the signs.

As this goes against their ATA, I presume their request for my keeper details from DVLA was unlawful?                                                                      

Yes, it was, but in practice we've found time after time that judges will not rule against PPCs solely on the lack of PP.  They should - but they don't.  We include illegal signage in WSs, but more as a tactic to show the PPC up as spvis rather than in the hope that the judge will act on that one point alone.

3 hours ago, iamgnome said:

Judging from dbuk's case, I probably don't want to add this to my WS. But, I am keen to sue them on this point.

But sue them for what?  They haven't really done much apart from sending you stupid letters.

Breach of GDPR?  It could be argued they knew you had Supremacy of Contact but it's a a long shot.

Trespass to your vehicle?  I know someone on the Parking Prankster blog did that but it's one case out of thousands.

Surely best to defy them and put the onus on them to sue you.  Make them carry the risk.  And if they finally do - smash them.

If you want, I suppose you could have a laugh at the MA's expense.  Tell them about the criminality they have endorsed and give them 24 hours to have your tickets cancelled and have the signs removed - otherwise you will contact the council to start enforcement for breach of planning permission.

[FTMDave]

59 minutes ago, iamgnome said:

Also, I've mentioned the signs to the MA. He sounds like he's freaked out by his email reply.

Well done on keeping the heat on him!

[FTMDave]

Whatever the nuances of the law, they will be lost on OPS, who like the rest of the PPcs never bother to get planning permission, ever.

When they get a new contract they don't want to delay issuing PCNs by deigning to follow the law, especially as the period when they take over and the parking restrictions are new is the time when they can catch most drivers out.