Dirty NTC PCN residential allocated bay parking, Park in allocated leaseholder bay and have visitor permit displayed Options

[liverpoolfc]

Hi all

Dirty PCN at their games.
Guest has visitors permit and parked in allocated residential leaseholder allocated bay. This was due to the visitor bays being freed up for other leaseholders with guests etc at the premises. Understandable and good gesture all around.
However.. the PCN was found on the car. The leaseholder had no objections of the parking at the allocated bay

I understand this dirty NTC gang are no longer with BPA... so POPLA is not the route.
How can one fight with a smug smile to defeat these clowns.

Your expert assistance be very much appreciate peoples.

[Advertisement]

[ostell]

First get out the lease that allocated the space and see what that says about parking and the requirement to display a permit and the penalties for not doing so. Then have a read of this page.

Post up a copy of the ticket, with identifying details removed and also a photo of the signs in the area.

Take no action yet but wait for the Notice to Keeper that will arrive between days 28 and 56 after the event. On the other hand you could try appealing, as the keeper, just before the time limit on the ticket in the the hope that they will forget to issue a NTK. As they do not know the identity of the driver then they are snookered as the keeper will not have any liability. So don't let them know who was driving, there is no requirement to do so.

[liverpoolfc]

Thanks for that. Will get onto the signage and PCN photo asap.

Lease states
This is on a first come first served basis and a parking space is not demised to you under the lease.
You only have a rught to use a parking space.
We also refer you to the tenant's covenants and regulations setting out the required use of the parking space.
We believe on street parking is restricted and since parking spaces are included Within the development you may not be eligible gor the same but you should check with Norwich city council if you have any concerns.

Many thanks

[nosferatu1001]

You have a right to use a space, first come first served. No requirement for a permit.

[The Rookie]

Nor does it differentiate visitors and residents spaces so that is also an irrelevance.

[nigelbb]

Thanks for that. Will get onto the signage and PCN photo asap.

Lease states
This is on a first come first served basis and a parking space is not demised to you under the lease.
You only have a rught to use a parking space.

This doesn't square with the OP's description of the visitor parking in a

residential leaseholder allocated bay

[liverpoolfc]

The signs:


https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8oueC5MB...WVl1TzZNRlZRNDA


https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8oueC5MB...YVhBTDg5WC1jYTQ

The lease contract does not state the parking management hmm.

I will take a photo of the PCN today.

Your views would be much appreciated moving forward.

Thankyou

[liverpoolfc]

PCN below:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8oueC5MB...dkhDTXJEUjBfaXM

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B8oueC5MB...STFDam8zeDNKZ3c

This post has been edited by liverpoolfc: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 - 19:46

[Gan]

You have to wonder if management companies do any checks at all on the companies they employ to plague residents

In most cases, five minutes on Google is enough to warn that a company has a bad reputation that warrants further investigation

[SchoolRunMum]

True, but half the great British public are useless at Googling.

I recall telling someone to Google Debt Recovery plus, and they came back having read DRP's website...

[liverpoolfc]

Your assistance moving forward would be very appreciated.

What to do now..

Thanks all

This post has been edited by liverpoolfc: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 - 11:55

[liverpoolfc]

Should the leaseholder get in contact with NTC to say who are you to say that the car in the bay is not authorised.
The whole PCN seems quite ridiculous!

Awaiting your views on it people

This post has been edited by liverpoolfc: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 - 14:08

[SchoolRunMum]

I understand this dirty NTC gang are no longer with BPA... so POPLA is not the route.
How can one fight with a smug smile to defeat these clowns.

You can only defeat an IPC firm by:

- getting an unheard of IAS stage win (not recommended to try, as people lose and it's considered a kangaroo court)

or

- by complaining to the landowner

or

- by beating them with a decent defence, if they try a small claim.


Because they are the only ways to cancel an IPC firm's fake PCN, don;t bust a gut over a challenge. You could ignore the PCN and wait and see if a claim follows, or you could just send a ''bog off'' style challenge. I recall that links and info about residential cases/robust letters of complaint, are in Lynnzer's signature under all his posts.

[Lynnzer]

Wait until the guest has a NTK through the post as registered keeper.
That way it lays open a potential damages claim for breach of the DPA.

In the meantime the leaseholder should alert NTC to the fact that an invited guest to their property was permitted to use the parking space allocated to the leaseholder, by the leaseholder himself. The ticket was issued for no reason that NTC has any interest in as only the leaseholder has authority to say who uses his allocated space. Demand that the ticket is cancelled at this stage or face a claim for tortious interference of allocated rights as a joint party of the Managing Agents who contracted with them., It would be good to add a timescale for that such as within 14 days.

At no time alert them as to the name of the driver of the vehicle. A simple reference to the PCN is enough.
Also copy the letter to the managing agents.

If they ignore that lot it gives the leaseholder a claim for the tortious interference and the driver has a claim for a breach of the DPA.
The only thing you need to be aware of doing that, is that the letters to NTC and the MA have to be sent to arrive before NTC access the keepers details from the DVLA. They were forewarned and they ignored the warning so are acting without reasonable cause.

Just use my first template letter amended as necessary and you might find it better to use the managing agent letter for tortious interference suitably amended to fit the circumstances.

Post the letters here for appraisal

This post has been edited by Lynnzer: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 - 08:59

[liverpoolfc]

I refer to PCN ******* on
Letter before action, re PCN ******
parked in allocated bay without authorisation



Your PCN draws to my attention that you are using my allocated car parking areas for your own business purposes. My lease allows unfettered occupational rights to the parking areas, which means you are operating a predatory business on land which you have no overriding rights in. As this parking space is one directly allocated to me on the lease, you have not sought approval for the use of it from the actual leaseholder, i.e. myself. You have trespassed on my leased rights. I am extremely annoyed that where my lease gives me unfettered rights to parking that someone has sought to override my landholder rights in this manner.


Your involvement on this land will have supposedly been to prevent parking by uninvited persons, for the benefit of the actual leaseholders and their invited guests. Instead you carry out a predatory operation on those very people whose interests you are purportedly there to uphold.
In any case, my lease in respect of the common areas of the grounds and my designated parking area places no restrictions on the parking facilities such as those you have tried to imply, let alone a penalty regime for an alleged contractual offer to use my own allocated parking area I already have such rights or to place restrictions on visiting guests. You cannot offer me something I already have, and I am not obliged to accept an offer in such circumstances.

My lease remains the same as when it was originally agreed as part of my residential rights. There are no restrictions on parking within it and I believe you are acting unlawfully by attempting to take legal action when I have an absolute right of peaceful enjoyment on the land including allowing my guests free use of it.

If you feel that you have been misled by the Managing Agents insofar as they have contracted with you to operate here, then that is something you must take up with them directly. It is of little interest to me as I have unequivocal unfettered right of peaceful enjoyment on the land.
I draw you attention to the case of Jopson v Homeguard , case 2906J in Oxford County Court where the appeal heard by his honour Judge Harris QC. This was an appeal against a previous hearing which was awarded in favour of Homeguard, in similar circumstances as those addressed in my dispute with you. The Judge allowed the appeal in favour of Mrs Jopson.
I also draw your attention to PACE v Mr (N Redacted), case C6GF14F0 in Croydon county court where the case was heard by District Judge Coonan. In summing up he stated " I have before me a tenancy agreement which gives Mr [N. redacted] the right to park on the estate and it does not say “on condition that you display a permit”. It does not say that, so he has that right. What Pace Recovery is seeking to do is, unilaterally outside the contract, restrict that right to only when a permit is displayed. Pace Recovery cannot do that."

As my lease has primacy over any subsequent terms placed on the use of the land, then the action of placing parking conditions where none are shown in my lease, is unlawful. In fact this even has a name. It carries the grand description of Tortious Interference. You may care to Google it to see why I am now applying an action against you for the neglect and deliberate interference you have shown towards my rights as a leaseholder.
I draw your attention to the case of Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011 (20th December, 2001) heard at the Royal Courts of Justice by LORD JUSTICE AULD, LORD JUSTICE ROBERT WALKER and
SIR CHRISTOPHER SLADE where they found that a landlord cannot take away something given within a lease, specifically a derogation of parking rights already afforded within a lease.

As you have seen fit to attempt to charge the sum of £*** as a legitimate amount for the use of my own leaseholder rights to the areas of the property, I hereby claim an amount of £****5-0-0 for damages for the tort of trespass and tortious interferance of my leaseholder rights, occasioned by the attempt to restrict my rightful use of the designated area.
Failure to make payment within the period of 14 days from the date of receiving this letter via email, will result in an action being made in court without further notification.

Yours faithfully
Leaseholder name? address?

Would It be ok to email the NTC only? The managing company are quite helpful overall

This post has been edited by liverpoolfc: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 - 09:46

[Lynnzer]

I refer to PCN ******* on
Letter before action, re PCN ****** for a personal guest parked in allocated bay without authorisation

Your PCN draws to my attention that you are using my allocated car parking areas for your own business purposes. My lease allows unfettered occupational rights to the parking areas, which means you are operating a predatory business on land which you have no overriding rights in. As this parking space is one directly allocated to me on the lease, you have not sought approval for the use of it from the actual leaseholder, i.e. myself. You have trespassed on my leased rights. I am extremely annoyed that where my lease gives me unfettered rights to parking that someone has sought to override my landholder rights in this manner.

The party which has become the target of your ticketing exercise is a personal guest of mine and who has full authority from me to use my allocated bay without any need to reference yourselves or seek further authority. No higher authority can be sought in any case as I am effectively the land-holder by way of my lease.

Your involvement on this land will have supposedly been to prevent parking by uninvited persons, for the benefit of the actual leaseholders and their invited guests. Instead you carry out a predatory operation on those very people whose interests you are purportedly there to uphold.

In any case, my lease in respect of the common areas of the grounds and my designated parking area places no restrictions on the parking facilities such as those you have tried to imply, let alone a penalty regime for an alleged contractual offer to use my own allocated parking area I already have such rights to, or to place restrictions on visiting guests. You cannot offer me something I already have, and I am not obliged to accept an offer in such circumstances.

My lease remains the same as when it was originally agreed as part of my residential rights. There are no restrictions on parking within it and I believe you are acting unlawfully by attempting to take legal action when I have an absolute right of peaceful enjoyment on the land including allowing my guests free use of it.

If you feel that you have been misled by the Managing Agents insofar as they have contracted with you to operate here, then that is something you must take up with them directly. It is of little interest to me as I have unequivocal unfettered right of peaceful enjoyment on the land.
I draw you attention to the case of Jopson v Homeguard , case 2906J in Oxford County Court where the appeal heard by his honour Judge Harris QC. This was an appeal against a previous hearing which was awarded in favour of Homeguard, in similar circumstances as those addressed in my dispute with you. The Judge allowed the appeal in favour of Mrs Jopson.

I also draw your attention to PACE v Mr (N Redacted), case C6GF14F0 in Croydon county court where the case was heard by District Judge Coonan. In summing up he stated " I have before me a tenancy agreement which gives Mr [N. redacted] the right to park on the estate and it does not say “on condition that you display a permit”. It does not say that, so he has that right. What Pace Recovery is seeking to do is, unilaterally outside the contract, restrict that right to only when a permit is displayed. Pace Recovery cannot do that."

As my lease has primacy over any subsequent terms placed on the use of the land, then the action of placing parking conditions where none are shown in my lease, is unlawful. In fact this even has a name. It carries the grand description of Tortious Interference. You may care to Google it to see why I am now applying an action against you for the neglect and deliberate interference you have shown towards my rights as a leaseholder.

I draw your attention to the case of Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011 (20th December, 2001) heard at the Royal Courts of Justice by LORD JUSTICE AULD, LORD JUSTICE ROBERT WALKER and SIR CHRISTOPHER SLADE where they found that a landlord cannot take away something given within a lease, specifically a derogation of parking rights already afforded within a lease.

Above has been amended as needed, then instead of the rest I would add:
In the circumstances, and perhaps due to your mistaken belief that you do have some rights to ticket people who use my allocated bay, I now demand that you cancel my friends PCN and confirm this to myself.
Failure to do so will lead to a claim from myself as below:
You have seen fit to attempt to charge the sum of £*** as a legitimate amount for the use of my own leaseholder rights to the areas of the property, I hereby reserve the right to claim an amount of damages for the tort of trespass and tortious interference of my leaseholder rights, occasioned by the attempt to restrict my rightful use of the designated area. The amount to be in line with the awards in the cases mentioned above but not less than £500.

The Managing Agent with whom you contracted will be added as a correspondent on such a claim so I strongly advise you discuss this matter with them.

Yours faithfully
Leaseholder name? address?

Would It be ok to email the NTC only? The managing company are quite helpful overall

The MA being helpful? That's a real laugh. Who do you think contracted with NTC?
Just copy them the letter as written. That needs to be done as it may well shake their tree and if it doesn't you will have the chance to seek the damages. Let's not forget that if they hadn't contracted with NTC the problems that have already arisen, and will continue in the future, wouldn't have happened.

Make sure you add in the true amounts or other details wherever there is a ***

[liverpoolfc]

Cancel the PCN and confirm to myself within a certain time? 14 days?
Take a look at the PCN Appeals... 28 days and if not heard back get in contact blahdeeblah

[Lynnzer]

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/20...-millenium.html

[liverpoolfc]

Evening,

I have been made aware of your appeal regarding PCN issued to vehicle parked in your allocated bay.

I appreciate your comments and references made.

The parking enforcement is in place for the benefit of residents to stop illegal parking and the permit scheme is in place to assist NTC identify illegally parked vehicles.

However as you are a confirmed owner and you have advised vehicle was parked with your consent I have instructed NTC to cancel the PCN in this instance.

I have also checked the lease and whilst there is currently no formal regulation in place to require permits to be displayed this was implied at point of purchase. We shall look to introduce a formal additional regulation in due course to ensure everybody is fully aware of the process in place.

Please assist NRM (MA) and NTC in ensuring a permit is displayed by you and your visitors moving forward.

Alternatively I can have your bay excluded from patrols.

Regards

[Lynnzer]

Evening,

I have been made aware of your appeal regarding PCN issued to vehicle parked in your allocated bay.

I appreciate your comments and references made.

The parking enforcement is in place for the benefit of residents to stop illegal parking and the permit scheme is in place to assist NTC identify illegally parked vehicles.

However as you are a confirmed owner and you have advised vehicle was parked with your consent I have instructed NTC to cancel the PCN in this instance.

I have also checked the lease and whilst there is currently no formal regulation in place to require permits to be displayed this was implied at point of purchase. We shall look to introduce a formal additional regulation in due course to ensure everybody is fully aware of the process in place.

Please assist NRM (MA) and NTC in ensuring a permit is displayed by you and your visitors moving forward.

Alternatively I can have your bay excluded from patrols.

Regards

I wish to thank you for your swift response to my complaint. The situation was absurd and would have been strongly contested in court with added counterclaims.

While you seem to think that there was an implied acceptance of a parking regime at the time of signing the lease, there is no evidence of that. The use of a permit was made purely for the convenience of the parking company you have engaged and not an acceptance that I am bound by a third party contract as a result of a failure to show it.

I will not become a party to any new rules you wish to try and add to my lease. That in itself would be a further derogation of grant.

However you intend to manage the situation for the future is not my concern, and if you think that the non patrol of my own parking area is a way to manage it, then so be it. In fact, the use of it is entirely at my own discretion and the trespass upon it by any other party including NTC will be an actionable tort.

I now place you on notice that I will stop using my permit for the future and expect that no-one is daft enough to issue a parking ticket as a result.

You have seen fit to have my visitor's PCN cancelled and know that my rights are all within my lease. Any further ticketing will be subject to an immediate claim of damages as a result; to both NTC and yourselves as joint co-respondents or defendants of the action.

I might just add another reason for my insistence on this stupid arrangement being ended. The value of property is affected quite significantly by having a piratical Parking Control Management company operating on the premises. It's a matter of common-sense that a potential purchaser would be less likely to accept such a scheme and would probably look for an unrestricted property instead. The result would be a lowering of property values to reflect the reluctance of potential buyers due to high charges imposed by a Parking management Company for not following some trumped up third party contract.

This post has been edited by Lynnzer: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 - 20:34