Ticket for a space I already pay for |
Ticket for a space I already pay for |
Mon, 27 Jul 2015 - 07:17
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 11 Joined: 25 Jul 2015 Member No.: 78,529 |
So I have received now two tickets for a space that I pay for in advance. It is a private carpark belonging to a flat block and I pay every quarter in full in advance and have receipts. There is a private parking company (part of the BPA) that requires permits visible. I got these tickets when my permit was on the armrest between the driver and passenger seats, it was very visible, I don't have tinted windows. When it's on the dashboard, it runs the risk of slipping into the large gap between the glass and the dash, or flying out the window in the wind.
My question is: is this enforceable? I have already paid for the space so the permit should not even be necessary. Even so - it *was* visible. I think I have a good argument if this goes to court - there is no cost to the landowner whatsoever as it is my permenant rented space. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Mon, 27 Jul 2015 - 07:17
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 13:47
Post
#81
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
Yes
It covers occupiers who rent or lease the area I think the term was used at the first County Court hearing in the notorious ParkingEye v Beavis case ParkingEye paid a charge for the right to manage the car park and the court decided that, as a result, it had land-holder rights There's actually a big gap in the BPA Code of Practice that doesn't recognise that anyone other than the land-owner or its agent can appoint a parking company This post has been edited by Redivi: Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 13:49 |
|
|
Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 14:55
Post
#82
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 42 Joined: 3 Apr 2016 Member No.: 83,414 |
By that ruling then - do PPE not have 'landholder rights' in this instance, because I would say that my rental arrangement supersedes that... We paid the freeholder long before PPE were appointed.
|
|
|
Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 15:39
Post
#83
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,825 Joined: 16 Nov 2008 Member No.: 24,123 |
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1970/2.html
QUOTE In the present case the offer was contained in the notice at the entrance giving the charges for garaging and saying "at owner's risk", i.e. at the risk of the owner so far as damage to the car was concerned. The offer was accepted when Mr. Thornton drove up to the entrance and, by the movement of his car, turned the light from red to green, and the ticket was thrust at him. The contract was then concluded, and it could not be altered by any words printed on the ticket itself. In particular, it could not be altered so as to exempt the company from liability for personal injury due to their negligence. If the contract for parking is concluded on payment, which it appears to be, then does it say subject to further terms as displayed on site ? Probably not. This post has been edited by henrik777: Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 15:40 |
|
|
Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 15:44
Post
#84
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 9,985 Joined: 20 Aug 2008 Member No.: 21,992 |
By that ruling then - do PPE not have 'landholder rights' in this instance, because I would say that my rental arrangement supersedes that... We paid the freeholder long before PPE were appointed. PPE will never have landholder rights, they do not occupy the land. If the freeholder were to lease the land to them then possibly, but who is going to do that for simple parking management purposes? They are an agent of the Freeholder, but even then, it's you who is occupying the land. YOU are the Landholder. -------------------- Sometimes I use big words I don't understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
|
|
|
Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 16:16
Post
#85
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 42 Joined: 3 Apr 2016 Member No.: 83,414 |
Apologies henrik777 - I'm not sure what you mean...
Do you mean my contract with the freeholder is concluded? I couldn't quite determine who actually won in that court case! |
|
|
Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 17:15
Post
#86
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,825 Joined: 16 Nov 2008 Member No.: 24,123 |
Apologies henrik777 - I'm not sure what you mean... Do you mean my contract with the freeholder is concluded? I couldn't quite determine who actually won in that court case! If A offers parking on "set terms" and B pays thus agreeing with "set terms" any notices placed at the site afterwards are graffiti unless the "set terms" say that you must adhere to the additional terms set out at the site. |
|
|
Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 19:05
Post
#87
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 42 Joined: 3 Apr 2016 Member No.: 83,414 |
Does it matter that the freeholder sent an email to the company that rented the spaces to let them know that PP would be appointed?
|
|
|
Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 19:26
Post
#88
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,825 Joined: 16 Nov 2008 Member No.: 24,123 |
|
|
|
Thu, 6 Jun 2019 - 07:35
Post
#89
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 42 Joined: 3 Apr 2016 Member No.: 83,414 |
There was no (written) contract between the company and the freeholder. They simply paid quarterly in advance. So any 'contract' was by action of a paid invoice.
|
|
|
Thu, 6 Jun 2019 - 08:17
Post
#90
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,825 Joined: 16 Nov 2008 Member No.: 24,123 |
There was no (written) contract between the company and the freeholder. They simply paid quarterly in advance. So any 'contract' was by action of a paid invoice. Have you spoken to them ? Clarified that their recollection of the contract is the same as yours ? Asked them to be a witness ? How were the payments accounted for if it was just a nod, wink and payment ? |
|
|
Thu, 6 Jun 2019 - 08:29
Post
#91
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 42 Joined: 3 Apr 2016 Member No.: 83,414 |
The payment were invoiced and paid for and I have these invoices with an email confirming settlement. There were no written terms, simply the invoices themselves.
|
|
|
Thu, 6 Jun 2019 - 08:32
Post
#92
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,825 Joined: 16 Nov 2008 Member No.: 24,123 |
|
|
|
Thu, 6 Jun 2019 - 08:36
Post
#93
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 42 Joined: 3 Apr 2016 Member No.: 83,414 |
A long time before I joined the company (and estate agency). I can only assume that they sold a flat within the block these spaces are in, and the freeholder said they had spaces available for business parking, named their price and sent the invoices for payment.
|
|
|
Thu, 6 Jun 2019 - 08:50
Post
#94
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,825 Joined: 16 Nov 2008 Member No.: 24,123 |
A long time before I joined the company (and estate agency). I can only assume that they sold a flat within the block these spaces are in, and the freeholder said they had spaces available for business parking, named their price and sent the invoices for payment. There are no rules or controls on the spaces ? Not even you can't do anything illegal or dump a scrap car on it etc Quite how you can argue they can't introduce a private parking company when in reality, nobody knows anything, is beyond me. Even the advance invoice must say something otherwise you wouldn't know how much to pay or what you were paying for ! |
|
|
Thu, 6 Jun 2019 - 09:15
Post
#95
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 42 Joined: 3 Apr 2016 Member No.: 83,414 |
I don't argue that they cannot introduce a parking company - I was against their appointment due to the fact that a permit was irrelevant if we had paid in advance to park. The invoice detailed the space number, price for the quarter and who we were paying for it.
|
|
|
Sun, 9 Jun 2019 - 08:31
Post
#96
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 42 Joined: 3 Apr 2016 Member No.: 83,414 |
Redivi - I know you had a case going with BW - what happened?
Are you aware of the next step from here in my case/what may happen next? |
|
|
Mon, 10 Jun 2019 - 17:34
Post
#97
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 42 Joined: 3 Apr 2016 Member No.: 83,414 |
I have now received a letter about the same ticket. Oddly it is half the size of the email, and phrased differently. The letter concludes with the request that I contact them within 14 days “of the date on this email” (even though it is a letter...) “to avoid further collections activity on this account”.
I will be sending Redivi’s suggested letter to them, stating that they their assertion that the only right I have to enter the land is under the Terms and Conditions of PP is wholly untenable due to me being the land-holder due to full and exclusive company rental of the space. My trump card is: Should this go to court - they have not pursued the other ticket which evidence of clearly shows the permit in view through the window. The permit was in the car on the central console with BOTH tickets. But it is only visible in one of the tickets’ evidence photos. They are not perusing that ticket anymore (or have yet to). Therefore it stands to reason that my claim that the permit was visible through the window with this ticket can only be corroborated by their photographic evidence in the second ticket. I am not sure I am describing it clearly. In a nutshell - it’s my word against theirs that the permit was visible through the window when this PCN was made and I will use their photographic evidence from the other ticket that they decided to halt collections for to corroborate that. |
|
|
Mon, 10 Jun 2019 - 18:55
Post
#98
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 8,582 Joined: 9 Feb 2006 Member No.: 4,813 |
I have now received a letter about the same ticket. Oddly it is half the size of the email, and phrased differently. The letter concludes with the request that I contact them within 14 days “of the date on this email” (even though it is a letter...) “to avoid further collections activity on this account”. I will be sending Redivi’s suggested letter to them, stating that they their assertion that the only right I have to enter the land is under the Terms and Conditions of PP is wholly untenable due to me being the land-holder due to full and exclusive company rental of the space. My trump card is: Should this go to court - they have not pursued the other ticket which evidence of clearly shows the permit in view through the window. The permit was in the car on the central console with BOTH tickets. But it is only visible in one of the tickets’ evidence photos. They are not perusing that ticket anymore (or have yet to). Therefore it stands to reason that my claim that the permit was visible through the window with this ticket can only be corroborated by their photographic evidence in the second ticket. I am not sure I am describing it clearly. In a nutshell - it’s my word against theirs that the permit was visible through the window when this PCN was made and I will use their photographic evidence from the other ticket that they decided to halt collections for to corroborate that. Can't see the relevance of a permit. If it wasn't an agreed condition to display it at time of contractual agreement, ie when you paid, then tey really can't impose terms after the event. Just tell them to sod off as you have paid for the privilege of parking, have invoices to prove it, and that a continuance will be both vexatious and unreasonable. See my post for details of what that means in terms of a penalty in costs -------------------- The Asda shopping trolley parking ticket enthusiast
|
|
|
Tue, 11 Jun 2019 - 10:51
Post
#99
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Point out htat, should htey try to sue you, you will counter claim for trespass, using their indicated parking charge as the basis for your claim ie they have valued the land at £100 so thats what youre saying is your quantified damages for trespass.
As you are the landholder, and they are not, you have the ability to sue them for trespass, they have absolutely no realisstic chance of success |
|
|
Tue, 11 Jun 2019 - 12:28
Post
#100
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 42 Joined: 3 Apr 2016 Member No.: 83,414 |
Thanks both, great suggestions - will incorporate these into my response.
Lynnzar - what post do you mean? Your signature links didn’t work. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 08:14 |