PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

UKPC: residents revolt VS going it alone
ipsy_dipsy
post Sun, 18 Mar 2018 - 12:37
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 16 Mar 2018
Member No.: 97,082



Hi everyone,

Short story:

My situation is similar to Mr Roger Davey who was forced to take out an injunction against UKPC. I have been having troubles with UKPC for the last two years and now I’m seriously contemplating about taking them to court. I would like to believe I’m having a pretty solid case. However, before jumping to action, I spoke to some of my neighbours and realized that many of them had had similar troubles with UKPC and only selectively bothered to challenge PCNs. By reading tons of materials on this subject on various websites, I’m at the point of realizing that all of the UK is fighting these PPC bandits on a ‘one-off’ basis, i.e. individually by coming to these forums, wasting hundreds of hours of our precious time, hoping that in the end we would sort out our individual cases. This should not be like that because sorting out one trouble at a time isn’t going to solve things at the root. This is a systemic rot and PPCs are exploiting existing grey areas of legislation by preying on gullible people.

Now, rather than going it alone I’m considering asking my neighbours (about 80 properties on the estate) if they are willing to join me. As an incentive, I’m thinking of putting something along these lines: “if you or any of your authorized visitors received PCNs from UKPC while parking in your parking bays you can get all of your money back. No commitment required. Please contact me for further details”. In this day and age it’s been proven (#MeToo first comes to mind) that the power of one can be easily multiplied x100000 if done correctly. Fair enough, I’m only talking about one small residential estate, but still it's all about setting a precedent.

I wonder if this is something that has been done before? Your advice would be greatly appreciated.



Longer version:

Basically, I’m finding myself in a situation where I have to prove to a trespasser that I have legal rights to enjoy peacefully my property!

The standard scenario for the last two years has been that UKPC would issue a PCN (by trespassing on my land), I would then nicely contact our managing agent and get them to cancel that PCN. Then, I would kindly ask the managing agent to obtain a written confirmation from UKPC that such ‘wrongdoing’ won’t happen again, and then after some time we would be back to square one with another PCN on my windscreen.

At the end of last year I got a ticket from UKPC and on this occasion they would not back off (presumably feeling more confident due to Beavis case). We recently changed our managing agent to another company that is completely incompetent when it comes to parking wardens. In the meantime, in relation to the latest PCN, my formal appeal via UKPC website failed (obviously), my POPLA appeal didn’t bring any success either (not that I held my breath). UKPC is now threatening me with passing on my details to their debt collectors.

Our development is a mix of houses and flats. My property is a freehold house with private parking included. All flats have leases with allocated private parking bays scattered around the estate. In addition, we are all shareholders of the managing company that co-owns communal areas on the estate. None of our Land Transfers and Deeds of Covenants has any restrictions on parking other than ‘using for purposes for which they are intended’. As for Primacy of contract, all Transfers predate arrangements between the managing agent and UKPC. Also I got hold of unredacted version of UKPC contract and it has got tons of serious holes in it.

I can of course pay up and forget about it, but that’s not the point - UKPC will come back again and again, as it has been proven. Managing company directors have no spine whatsoever. I’ve already drafted LBCCC to include UKPC, landowner, managing company, and both managing agents as defendants, holding them jointly and severally liable. I thought I might check on here if this is a good idea going for a ‘bulk’ court action instead? Thank you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
5 Pages V  « < 3 4 5  
Start new topic
Replies (80 - 94)
Advertisement
post Sun, 18 Mar 2018 - 12:37
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Eljayjay
post Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 19:06
Post #81


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 901
Joined: 1 Apr 2017
Member No.: 91,235



ipsy_dipsy is a freeholder, not a leaseholder.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ipsy_dipsy
post Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 22:00
Post #82


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 16 Mar 2018
Member No.: 97,082



QUOTE (ManxRed @ Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 12:14) *
Are there any mentions of indemnity in the contract between the MC and UKPC??

Yes, there is the following wording:
On the said land the Contractor (UKPC) shall indemnify and keep indemnified the Client (the MC) from any claim arising against either party.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ipsy_dipsy
post Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 22:12
Post #83


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 16 Mar 2018
Member No.: 97,082



QUOTE (Eljayjay @ Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 20:06) *
ipsy_dipsy is a freeholder, not a leaseholder.

Yes, thank you. Although I can also see how this case is slowly progressing from being UKPC matter to more of derogation of rights area. Given the MC resistance, I'm basically facing a task of proving that I had all legal rights having my car parked where it was in the first place (this was the focal point in LBA). Perhaps indeed making a brief enquiry and getting in touch with a conveyancing solicitor might not be a bad idea after all, I'll explore this path for sure.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ipsy_dipsy
post Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 22:36
Post #84


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 16 Mar 2018
Member No.: 97,082



QUOTE (Redivi @ Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 12:14) *
Could send them the full documents for the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims and tell them that, if their client disputes liability, it must provide its reasons

Thank you for pointing out such an alternative. That's exactly what I'm after - a reasonable response to my points outlined in the LBA. Not "position is reserved". I can honestly say that this would have given me some sort of stick in the ground, helping me with whether or not go to SCC. I appreciate the solicitor's one-liner letter is just for show from the MC perspective - the retained solicitor must have spent no more than 5 minutes using a boilerplate text. I wonder if they even read my LBC.

Regardless, looking at going down this route (Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims), first it's a relative novelty (it only came into effect in Oct 2017). Secondly, I'm a bit confused - the context is roughly the same to what's in LBA. Also, the Protocol applies to 'any business (including sole traders and public bodies) claiming payment of a debt from an individual'. I understand that it does not apply other way around, where a creditor is seeking to recover liabilities from a company. I wonder who could be best suited to clarify this point?


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
emanresu
post Thu, 26 Apr 2018 - 05:26
Post #85


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,094
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Home alone
Member No.: 13,324



QUOTE
ipsy_dipsy is a freeholder, not a leaseholder.


If the OP is a freeholder then why is there an MC on site? What are they managing and on behalf of who?

The diminution in value where the rights to a parking space are removed is somewhere between 5% and 10% of the site value. The defence of this amount of value is not something I would suggest is trusted to well-meaning but unqualified posters.

Failure to get proper legal advice is a recipe for an very expensive mistake particularly where there are 80 * 5%-10% dimunitions at stake.

And why trust to the lottery of the SCC where the case could be decided adversely by an EJ or someone specialising in say family law. You don't want a jack-of-all-trades DJ or DDJ. Use a Property Tribunal

This post has been edited by emanresu: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 - 05:36
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ManxRed
post Thu, 26 Apr 2018 - 09:33
Post #86


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,985
Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,992



QUOTE (ipsy_dipsy @ Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 23:00) *
QUOTE (ManxRed @ Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 12:14) *
Are there any mentions of indemnity in the contract between the MC and UKPC??

Yes, there is the following wording:
On the said land the Contractor (UKPC) shall indemnify and keep indemnified the Client (the MC) from any claim arising against either party.


So, if you take legal action against the Management Company, they shouldn't lose out financially as UKPC will cover their costs, and hence you (as a shareholder) shouldn't cause any detriment to their finances.


--------------------
Sometimes I use big words I don't understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ipsy_dipsy
post Thu, 26 Apr 2018 - 10:23
Post #87


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 16 Mar 2018
Member No.: 97,082



QUOTE (ManxRed @ Thu, 26 Apr 2018 - 10:33) *
QUOTE (ipsy_dipsy @ Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 23:00) *
QUOTE (ManxRed @ Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 12:14) *
Are there any mentions of indemnity in the contract between the MC and UKPC??

Yes, there is the following wording:
On the said land the Contractor (UKPC) shall indemnify and keep indemnified the Client (the MC) from any claim arising against either party.


So, if you take legal action against the Management Company, they shouldn't lose out financially as UKPC will cover their costs, and hence you (as a shareholder) shouldn't cause any detriment to their finances.

Which means, I suppose, the MC can go above and beyond and hire anyone they want, given that it's "all included" and free ride package. This, of course, would make my life more complicated. On the other hand, to initiate a claim against UKPC's indemnity insurance might pose a hurdle for the MC/UKPC.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 26 Apr 2018 - 10:25
Post #88


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



A property tribunal sounds one way to go.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ManxRed
post Thu, 26 Apr 2018 - 10:37
Post #89


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,985
Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,992



QUOTE (ipsy_dipsy @ Thu, 26 Apr 2018 - 11:23) *
QUOTE (ManxRed @ Thu, 26 Apr 2018 - 10:33) *
QUOTE (ipsy_dipsy @ Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 23:00) *
QUOTE (ManxRed @ Wed, 25 Apr 2018 - 12:14) *
Are there any mentions of indemnity in the contract between the MC and UKPC??

Yes, there is the following wording:
On the said land the Contractor (UKPC) shall indemnify and keep indemnified the Client (the MC) from any claim arising against either party.


So, if you take legal action against the Management Company, they shouldn't lose out financially as UKPC will cover their costs, and hence you (as a shareholder) shouldn't cause any detriment to their finances.

Which means, I suppose, the MC can go above and beyond and hire anyone they want, given that it's "all included" and free ride package. This, of course, would make my life more complicated. On the other hand, to initiate a claim against UKPC's indemnity insurance might pose a hurdle for the MC/UKPC.


There's usually qualifying clauses around an unlimited indemnity, but knowing PPC contracts, maybe not, who knows?



--------------------
Sometimes I use big words I don't understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ipsy_dipsy
post Thu, 26 Apr 2018 - 10:55
Post #90


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 16 Mar 2018
Member No.: 97,082



QUOTE (emanresu @ Thu, 26 Apr 2018 - 06:26) *
QUOTE
ipsy_dipsy is a freeholder, not a leaseholder.


If the OP is a freeholder then why is there an MC on site? What are they managing and on behalf of who?

The diminution in value where the rights to a parking space are removed is somewhere between 5% and 10% of the site value. The defence of this amount of value is not something I would suggest is trusted to well-meaning but unqualified posters.

Failure to get proper legal advice is a recipe for an very expensive mistake particularly where there are 80 * 5%-10% dimunitions at stake.

And why trust to the lottery of the SCC where the case could be decided adversely by an EJ or someone specialising in say family law. You don't want a jack-of-all-trades DJ or DDJ. Use a Property Tribunal

The MC is on site because the estate was built up by a developer who owned the entire plot of land, which was then parceled out. Some of the pieces went into building freehold houses (including mine), others were used for building blocks of flats (leaseholds with allocated parking spaces). In addition to that, the shared spaces (like footpaths, courtyards, shared visitors parking spaces, etc) are still formally owned by the original developer. At present the estate remains a segregated piece.

As per above, effectively, all of the residents have two types of Deeds - Freehold for houses and Leaseholds for flats. The individual transfers of titles outline specifically what the owners can and can't do. Also, back in time, the MC was formed to maintain and look after the estate. This MC is owned jointly by the residents (we all have equal share rights). The MC is LTD with its own Directors who were presumably voted-in by the residents (I can't say for sure because I never voted for them as this predates my time on the estate). Now, the Directors are not paid and have no interest whatsoever to get involved in any of the dirty work as everything gets outsourced to the MA, UKPC, contractors, etc. Of course this creates a merry-go-around loop when trying to pinpoint who is on the hook for what as each party starts claiming 'none of my business'.

My main issue here is that I had multiple PCNs while having my car parked both, in my own Freehold space as well as in the Visitors parking bay. I could of course try and involve the original owner of the shared land (the developer) and see what they say about me using Visitors parking bays. As per the Deed, in order to use shared spaces one has to have (a) right of usage and (b) right of entry. Being the owner of a property on the estate I would have thought I fit neatly into a such profile. At the end of the day, it was the land owner who originally granted me rights on the estate. If anything, the potential derogation of such rights must be claimed against the grantor, not the MC. Am I right? Of course, the MC is supposed to duly oversee the business on the estate and act in the interests of its shareholders and the residents, which is clearly not happening now.

Sorry for a long rant. I hope this make it a bit clearer now.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
emanresu
post Fri, 27 Apr 2018 - 04:35
Post #91


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,094
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Home alone
Member No.: 13,324



We are now on page 5. Is this just a discussion or is something actually going to happen?

Bear in mind that the costs of defending an allegation that you have to prove, will be borne by the residents. The MC as such does not have any money as such and simply recharges. Another reason for going to a Tribunal rather than SCC. There is mention of "indemnity" but the MC does not need to invoke it as it can charge as the MC sees appropriate.

This post has been edited by emanresu: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 - 04:37
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ipsy_dipsy
post Fri, 27 Apr 2018 - 14:44
Post #92


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 16 Mar 2018
Member No.: 97,082



QUOTE (emanresu @ Fri, 27 Apr 2018 - 05:35) *
We are now on page 5. Is this just a discussion or is something actually going to happen?

Bear in mind that the costs of defending an allegation that you have to prove, will be borne by the residents. The MC as such does not have any money as such and simply recharges. Another reason for going to a Tribunal rather than SCC. There is mention of "indemnity" but the MC does not need to invoke it as it can charge as the MC sees appropriate.

Like what actions are you expecting to happen? Court actions? I thought you're the one who strongly advocated 'measure twice cut once' approach. Clearly I'm hesitant because I'm unfamiliar with SCC, etc. At the moment I'm gathering opinions, researching and hoovering up all relevant information on this topic. By now I have received two letters from DRP (UKPC debt collectors), so the next step is most likely UKPC will be issuing court proceedings against me. Which means that I would have to defend my position in court. Which potentially means, in due course, that if I initiate a court action against the MC now, I would essentially be running 2 courts actions in parallel - one where I will be a defendant and another one where I'll be a claimant. Now, imaging the amount of stress for somebody like me who would be a LIP in both cases? - I must be extremely careful how I should plan spending my limited human resources and yes, I agree with you, I must weigh up all pros and cons.


Another point is, of course, the MC and its directors are in a sort of win-win situation at the moment:
1) every single thing is outsourced;
2) no responsibility whatsoever, not accountable to anybody as half of the property owners are living abroad and have no interest to get involved;
3) indemnity on both counts (UKPC contract + company directors);
4) even if they loose in court - they would recharge resident and move on;
5) I suspect there are backhanders with the MA and other contractors going on as well;

I hope you see my point about the revolt, as oppose to a simple UKPC ticketing issue.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
emanresu
post Fri, 27 Apr 2018 - 15:25
Post #93


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,094
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
From: Home alone
Member No.: 13,324



QUOTE
I'm unfamiliar with SCC


Well don't go there. Go to Tribunal as the Tribunal is the appropriate place. The decision at a Tribunal can be rubber stamped at the SCC if you win.

Codes of Practice, the behavior of "debt" collectors etc are all irrelevant. It is the determination of your property rights / adherence to covenants / variation in your "tenancy" as everyone is a tenant, that are key. And the experts are at the Tribunal.

SCC is for the general, non-specialist bog standard contract disputes.

This post has been edited by emanresu: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 - 15:29
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ipsy_dipsy
post Fri, 27 Apr 2018 - 15:38
Post #94


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 37
Joined: 16 Mar 2018
Member No.: 97,082



QUOTE (emanresu @ Fri, 27 Apr 2018 - 16:25) *
Go to Tribunal as the Tribunal is the appropriate place.

Thank you very much, indeed. I took notes earlier and I'm exploring the route of going to the Tribunal as we speak. This is exactly what I'm here for, as I would not have known of existence of such option if I had never asked.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eljayjay
post Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 22:23
Post #95


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 901
Joined: 1 Apr 2017
Member No.: 91,235



ipsy_dipsy

What is your latest situation?

Are you waiting to hear from someone else?

Have you abandoned us?

Something else?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  « < 3 4 5
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 16:11
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here