PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN - In my own parking Space!
MrMe
post Mon, 16 Sep 2019 - 10:53
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 46
Joined: 7 Jun 2017
Member No.: 92,369



Hello...

One Parking Solutions, who have authority on our residential site (apartment complex) have issued 2 PCN's over a 5 day period where my parking permit had slipped from the windscreen and into the dash. Only the top of the parking permit is visible but you certainly couldn't see even at an angle that the permit is for the space in question. So a permit was displayed but not readable and has quite obviously slipped from the windscreen.

I have politely explained this to One Parking Solutions and their Solicitors however they are hell bent on gaining paid. I have warned them that "Any further attempts to extract money from me will result in an administration charge for each letter at £90 per reply". The car, at the time was owed by a Limited Company, which is still running, the ownership of the car has switched, but I feel justified as a Ltd Co. changing them for my time. I have a copy of the contract between OPS and the site managers. I have also emailed OPS (cc'ing in the Solicitors and our management company) in late April 2019 which OPS and the management company have ignored. The Solicitors simply fobbed it off with: "Our client accepts you may have a valid permit however has evidence that you didn't properly display it which fundamentally undermines its parking scheme which you were made aware of when accepting the permit. In the event payment isn’t made or a reply is not received within the next 30 days further legal action will be taken."

I have now received County Court paperwork and I'm really quite perplexed on how to deal with this and, especially, how they think they can win this case?!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 34)
Advertisement
post Mon, 16 Sep 2019 - 10:53
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
MrMe
post Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 15:39
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 46
Joined: 7 Jun 2017
Member No.: 92,369



I have sent them the following, KFH & OPS:
The lease:
- cannot take away my right to use my parking space for the purposes set out in the lease
- it cannot bind me to a 3rd party's rules in order to enjoy the use of the space
- it cannot require me to pay a third party for any alleged breach of these rules

There cannot be a contract that supersedes the lease agreement, I had no need to enter one; you offer me literally nothing with your contract. Even if my lease required me to follow the "regulations" displayed on the signs, failure to do so would imply a breach of my lease, which is a matter between Lucie and I and the landlord. At no point have I entered into any implied contract with OPS and the Parking Permit is displayed as a matter of courtesy. The Land (parking space) is in fact leased, so neither KFH nor the landowner can add additional items over and above the contract that we have with the landowner. They do not and cannot have the landowners authority to employ OPS unless the landowner is also complicit in trying to derogate my grant, the right to use my space, as well.

KFH MUST INSTRUCT OPS to discontinue. I reserve the right to hold KFH liable for my costs, and reserve all legal action potentially including a claim against KFH for breach of the DPA as they had no reasonable cause to allow their agent to get my details. I also remove any implied permission for OPS to enter my parking space. Any further action will be prima facie evidence of trespass, for which the assessed damages are £100 per incident.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MrMe
post Thu, 19 Sep 2019 - 09:08
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 46
Joined: 7 Jun 2017
Member No.: 92,369



Morning, response from KFH:

"No one has taken away your right to use your parking space, however as per the terms of the lease the regulations of the parking must be adhered to. As previously mentioned there are multiple signs displayed that outline the parking regulations. Whilst I appreciate that it appears from the photos that have been supplied that the parking disc that you had displayed has slipped, and was not completely visible showing the allocated bay number the matter should have been disputed with OPS at the time so that they could have investigated the matter as soon as the PCN was issued.

KFH cannot be held responsible for any cost implications for failing to comply with the regulations may cause you.

OPS were not given your contact details by KFH until I asked your permission to pass your email onto them, which you agreed to.

OPS would have originally obtained your details via DVLA."

I can also see the lease says:

Not to use the parking space, except for private motor car etc. etc. But at the bottom says "At all times during the term to observe the regulations"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 19 Sep 2019 - 10:14
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 42,850
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



It sound's like you are speaking to the deaf.

Ask them where in the lease it defines any penalty for not complying with the regulations. That they were free to sue you for Trespass if you breached the regulations and point out again that you could have no contract with OPS as they cannot offer you any consideration.

Or add a counterclaim for trespass and include them in it.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 19 Sep 2019 - 10:25
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,412
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Tell KFH that
1) they had no authority to employ OPS to monitor these spaces, as they are not the landHOLDER and the landHOLDER is required to authorise OPS. this is in the OPS CoP that they are required to adhere to
2) You are instructed to remove this space from the OPS monitoring, and to instruct your agent to cancel. You are vicariously liable for any actions performed by your agent, includng their trespass, harassment, disruption to poeaceful enjoyment of the space, and the distress caused by a court claim
Control your agent or they will be controlled for you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MrMe
post Thu, 19 Sep 2019 - 15:56
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 46
Joined: 7 Jun 2017
Member No.: 92,369



thanks for the replies, this has been sent:

"where in the lease does it define any penalty for not complying with the regulations or that OPS are free to sue me for Trespass if I breached the regulations? I point out again that I could not have a contract with OPS as they cannot offer me any consideration. I could add a counterclaim for trespass and include KFH in it. KFH had no authority to employ OPS to monitor these spaces, as you are not the Landholder and the Landholder is required to authorise OPS.

KFH are instructed to remove this space from the OPS monitoring, and to instruct your agent to cancel. You are vicariously liable for any actions performed by your agent, including their trespass, harassment, disruption to peaceful enjoyment of the space, and the distress caused by a court claim. Control your agent or they will be controlled for you.

I also note that OPS have not replied so far."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MrMe
post Tue, 24 Sep 2019 - 11:16
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 46
Joined: 7 Jun 2017
Member No.: 92,369



KFH replied this morning after being chased:

"As previously mentioned the matter is out of my hands.

The only thing that I could suggest is that you go to Court and let the judge decide on the outcome."

Pretty shocking really that they think me going to Court is a reasonable outcome.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MrMe
post Tue, 24 Sep 2019 - 11:30
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 46
Joined: 7 Jun 2017
Member No.: 92,369



Furthermore the claim court details from OPS reads as follows:
"The driver of the vehicle with the registration XX (the vehicle) parked in breach of the terms of the parking stipulated on the signage (the contract) at XX on xx thus injuring the parking charges (the PCN's). The PCN's were not paid within 28 days of issue. The Claimant claims the unpaid PCN's from the Defendant as the keeper of the Vehicle. Despite demands being made, the Defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability. The Claimant claims £100 per PCN, £60 per contractual costs pursuant to the Contract and PCN terms and conditions, together with the salutatory interest of x pursuant to s69 of the Count Courts Act 1984 at 8% p/a.

Should I put a Counter Claim in against KFH and OPS for 'harassment' etc.? I need to complete this form online by today.

This post has been edited by MrMe: Tue, 24 Sep 2019 - 11:45
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Tue, 24 Sep 2019 - 16:40
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,688
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



They cannot claim from the keeper more than the amount on the original OCN

No contract as the defendant had no need of any additional contract
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MrMe
post Tue, 24 Sep 2019 - 16:47
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 46
Joined: 7 Jun 2017
Member No.: 92,369



So, not to counter your post in any way and thank you for it... Why are Gladstones, who make money day in and day out for this exact thing, putting those charges on their Small Claims application? I'm really really annoyed at this whole thing and now seemingly having to take time out of my hectic life to go to court for parking in my own parking space angry.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sheffield Dave
post Tue, 24 Sep 2019 - 17:03
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 514
Joined: 20 May 2013
Member No.: 62,052



QUOTE (MrMe @ Tue, 24 Sep 2019 - 17:47) *
So, not to counter your post in any way and thank you for it... Why are Gladstones, who make money day in and day out for this exact thing, putting those charges on their Small Claims application?

Because they know that most people will pay up rather than going to court, and of the few who go to court, most won't know to contest the fake extra charges. GS and their client will have a sliver of a fig leaf in that the signs will have talked vaguely about being liable for extra costs for debt collection, and since they are assuming that the defendant is the driver, the driver would be contractually obliged to pay the extra charges.

The shorter version is that they are are crooks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MrMe
post Tue, 24 Sep 2019 - 18:19
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 46
Joined: 7 Jun 2017
Member No.: 92,369



Would I not be forced in court, as the owner of the Ltd company and keeper of the vehicle, to name the driver though?

I've also completed a GDPR request to OPS, KFH and Gladstones separately. I'll have to submit a defence obviously now, having acknowledged the service. The letter was sent 06/09/19 so I have 33 days I think, so I need to complete this online before mid October?

This post has been edited by MrMe: Tue, 24 Sep 2019 - 18:41
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sheffield Dave
post Tue, 24 Sep 2019 - 19:30
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 514
Joined: 20 May 2013
Member No.: 62,052



You can't be compelled to name third parties. You can however be asked a direct answer as to whether you personally were the driver, where lying would be perjury.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MrMe
post Tue, 24 Sep 2019 - 19:59
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 46
Joined: 7 Jun 2017
Member No.: 92,369



Agreed, although between me and my partner and it being back in 2017, I do think it would be reasonable to not remember who was driving at the time
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MrMe
post Wed, 25 Sep 2019 - 13:48
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 46
Joined: 7 Jun 2017
Member No.: 92,369



After sending out GDPR requests to KFH, OPS and Gladstones, and sending this:

"KFH cannot get involved?! I’m shocked at your knowledge or lack thereof, in this matter. One last time… OPS are a private company, they were hired by you/KFH, also a private company, they have a Contract in place with you/KFH. You/KFH can, instruct OPS, to instruct their Solicitors Gladstones to withdraw from their Small Claims Court action. If you continue to be complicit in their actions, you will be a part of the legal action against me and part of any counterclaim"

KFH have instructed OPS to cancel the tickets. What a load of time wasted and stress, half a mind to send them a bill...

Thanks for all the advice and replies, it undoubtably helped a lot.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 25 Sep 2019 - 13:58
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,412
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Then state you don not rememebr, but as more than 2 drivers had access - named plus anyone with DOV cover on THEIR insurance - the balance of probabilities is weighted against the claimant.

Indeed send them a bill for your wasted costs - £19 per hour, if you want

If you get ANY more tickets, THEN you sue KFH - LBA first, pointing out THEIR trespass.
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: Wednesday, 23rd October 2019 - 16:47
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.