PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Visitor PCN for wrong permit
PCL232323
post Thu, 23 Jun 2022 - 17:35
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 116
Joined: 2 Mar 2022
Member No.: 115,865



Hi All,

Thanks for all the help so far with my own PCN troubles.

I now have to deal with the next two PCN's issued on behalf of my visitors. I thought it would be easier to start a new topic for each one as they arrive.

Background - My allocated parking space is next to a wall and measures 206cm wide when the standard recomended width is 240cm. If you drive into the space facing forward whilst keeping within the lines of the bay the driver would be unable to open the door to get out. Added to this complication there is a tree the other side of wall with a large amount of growth that had encroach into my bay making it almost unusable. The MA was contacted about this and it has since been cut back by the maintenance company and the bay widened to 240cm. This was achieved as there are only 3 visitors bays next to mine so they were made slightly narrower but unfortunately not before the PPC operative had striked.

My friend who is a decorator and was working in my property used the allocated bay permit and as a courtesy to help the PPC identify a genuine visitor, parked in the adjacent visitor space due to the allocated bay width and the bush growth making it difficult to park their higher sided vehicle under it. That day the PPC decided to issue them with a PCN because the vehicle was displaying the allocated bay permit.

There is a visitor permit but their sibling, also a decorator, was displaying that as courtesy to the PPC.

The appeals to the PPC and IAS were obviously rejected, debt collectors letters and numerous emails from them were rightfully ignored and he has now received a LBC. This was sent to my address as I said I would deal with this and attend court as his lay person if required. I have since sent an email to the Solicitor with the defendants address.

I was wondering if I can somehow adapt my own LBC response for him.

Thanks in advance.




In response to your Letter Before Claim dated 14th June 2022, received 20th June 2022, I write to inform you the defendant has not breached any parking conditions stated by your client and therefore the debt is denied.

Authority to Park & Primacy of Contract

It is denied that the Defendant was in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant by the current owner whose lease permits the parking of vehicle(s) on the land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle without the requirement to display a parking permit. As a courtesy to your client the defendant displayed a permit to show they were a genuine visitor to the property but your client decided to issue a PCN regardless.

A copy of the lease will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given.

Your clients signs cannot override the existing rights enjoyed by leaseholders or their their visitors and the parking easements can not retrospectively and unilaterally be altered by either party to the lease (of which your client is neither anyway).

Your client does not own the car park and I dispute that they have the authority to enter into contracts regarding the land or to pursue charges allegedly arising.

They do not own nor have any proprietary or assignment of title or share of the land in question. I do not believe that your client has the necessary legal capacity to enter into a contract with a driver of a vehicle parking in the car park they do not own, or indeed the lawful status to allege a breach of contract in their name.

Quiet Enjoyment

To allow the defendant and a reasonable expectation that their visitors (subject to his complying with the terms of this lease) to hold and enjoy the property throughout the said term without any interruption by the Management Company or any person lawfully claiming through under or in trust for it.

It is therefore denied that:

1. there was any contract between the defendant and your client.

2. there was any obligation to display a permit. Even if there was an obligation to display a permit required by the lease (which is denied) the correct course of action is for the freeholder to commence forfeiture proceedings under S146 of the Law of Property Act 1925. Your client is not the freeholder and has no cause of action.

3 your client has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.

4. your client can issue a financial penalty for a contravention of the defendants lease.

5. that your client has any entitlement to the sums sought.

If your client has been misled (or failed to perform adequate due diligence) as to the ownership of the land, that is a matter between your client and whichever party informed you they owned the land.

I also advise you that in the event of a court claim, the owner will issue a counterclaim for the harassment and tortious interference of their lease and your client, the managing agent and the freehold company will be named as defendants for that claim.

Yours faithfully,
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 21)
hcandersen
post Thu, 7 Jul 2022 - 21:06
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,063
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551




Passing over parts is not parking.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Advertisement
post Thu, 7 Jul 2022 - 21:06
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
PCL232323
post Fri, 8 Jul 2022 - 04:36
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 116
Joined: 2 Mar 2022
Member No.: 115,865



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 7 Jul 2022 - 22:06) *
Passing over parts is not parking.


"to use any facilities or things provided for the common use of the purchaser" does though.

This post has been edited by PCL232323: Fri, 8 Jul 2022 - 04:48
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
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: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 01:37
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