Course of action after failed IAS appeal |
Course of action after failed IAS appeal |
Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 12:51
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 48 Joined: 16 Feb 2017 Member No.: 90,294 |
A good friend of mine has got themselves in a bit of a mess regards a parking ticket. They were given a parking ticket after parking in their assigned car park space under their flat, in a controlled access gated area. Their permit had fallen off their windscreen causing the ticket to be served. They appealed instantly stating this situation but this was refused. She appealed this again but was again refused and has now received her final demand. CPM UK car park management awarded the notice. Has she missed her opportunity to go to POPLA or is there another course of action?
|
|
|
Advertisement |
Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 12:51
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 13:00
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,510 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
POPLA is for BPA members. They are IPC members who are quite litigious.
The terms of the lease are paramount here. It’s up to the parking company now whether they issue a claim. Although, if the lease is favourable then there's no reason to hold back with this information. -------------------- RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it. |
|
|
Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 13:15
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 48 Joined: 16 Feb 2017 Member No.: 90,294 |
[attachment=56056:image001.jpg]Thank you for this. Attached is the wording in her leasehold.
|
|
|
Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 13:35
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
The lease grants an absolute right to park that can't be removed by any signs placed a parking company
If the management agent employed the company, it has probably exceeded its authority You have to wonder at the idiocy of any management company that employs a parking company to police the parking of a gated residential car park Unless the spaces are routinely used by non-residents that have obtained the access codes, the parking company can only ever make an income from residents parked on their own property for trivial reasons The operative would have recognised the car and knew perfectly well that it was authorised He had no reason whatsoever to look into its windows other than in the hope of finding an excuse to issue a demand |
|
|
Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 15:18
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
So is this a good case for a counterclaim as once CPM knew that the keeper was a resident and had the right to park then the matter should have ended then and there. Continuing to claim is a misuse of personal data.
You already had the right to park granted under the lease and therefore had no need of another offer. You lease makes no mention of having to display a permit to park, you have been displaying purely for the convenience for the parking company operatives without any intention to create a contract that you have no need for. |
|
|
Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 15:56
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
I suspect that a counter-claim regarding this event would fail
CPM can argue that it had the reasonable belief that the payment was owed by virtue of its signs It has no obligation to check the terms of leases to confirm that the management agent can employ a parking company What the OP can do is tell CPM to white-list his car because he will no longer display a permit and is withdrawing implied right of access to his parking space Any further parking notices will be prima facie evidence of trespass that WILL merit a counter-claim |
|
|
Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 16:57
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 901 Joined: 1 Apr 2017 Member No.: 91,235 |
Your friend could try sending what follows to the parking company. If it does not get rid of them now, and they later issue a letter before claim or letter of claim - they are the same thing - your friend sends it again at that stage. [I am assuming here that the letter received from them recently was not saying that they would take court action as the next stage. If they did, definitely your friend must send what follows or something very similar to them now.]
Dear Sirs, Thank you for your <parking charge notice/notice to keeper/letter> of <date> in relation to an alleged parking event on <date of event> at <location> involving a vehicle bearing registration number <VRN>. Your reference <references> applies. I do not know why you are demanding a parking charge and, that being so, I am unwilling to meet your demand at the present time. In the event that this proceeds to court, you must be aware that we shall be required to narrow the issues between us by following The Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims as made by the Master of the Rolls as Head of Civil Justice. In that event, before issuing a claim, you will need to send me a letter of claim and I shall then be able to request various documents from you. If you would like me to reconsider my position before we get to that stage, you may wish to provide now the documents and information which I shall otherwise request later so that we can attempt to narrow the issues between us now. If so, please send me the following:- <tab> the parking agreement between your company and the owner or occupier of the land purporting to grant the right to your company to charge for parking on the land; <tab> the site plan provided by your company to its accredited trade association; <tab> a copy of the written contract for the alleged debt; <tab> the accredited trade association’s code of practice to which your company claims to adhere; <tab> if there is a lease governing parking on the land, a copy of the lease; <tab> if a lease exists and contains express provision to allow your parking company to operate a parking scheme on the land, a note of the specific clauses in the lease applicable to this situation; <tab> if a lease exists and any rules or regulations have been made in accordance with its provisions to allow your company to operate a parking scheme on the land:- <tab><tab> (a) a copy of those rules or regulations duly signed, etc. by the person(s) who made them; and <tab><tab> (b) a note of the specific clauses in the lease in accordance with which those rules or regulations were made; <tab> if a lease exists and it granted individual rights to park on the land to a particular person (e.g. the lessee), a note of the name and address of that person and a copy of the instrument which either transferred those individual rights from that person to your company or transferred a share of those individual rights from that person to your company; and <tab> if a lease exists and your company’s parking scheme has not been introduced in accordance with its provisions, a note explaining how your company’s alleged parking contract with the driver has acquired primacy of contract over the lease. Of course, as I have great respect for the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims and, particularly, its aims as expressed in its paragraph 2, if you would like to provide copies of the above documents now, I shall gladly reconsider my position on receipt of them. Yours faithfully, <signature of your friend> <your friend's name> This post has been edited by Eljayjay: Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 17:09 |
|
|
Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 21:19
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17,088 Joined: 8 Mar 2013 Member No.: 60,457 |
Lovely, Morton's fork
|
|
|
Sat, 16 Jun 2018 - 21:47
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 901 Joined: 1 Apr 2017 Member No.: 91,235 |
ostell, coming from you, that is really very, very much appreciated.
|
|
|
Sun, 17 Jun 2018 - 06:02
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 11,094 Joined: 24 Aug 2007 From: Home alone Member No.: 13,324 |
QUOTE It has no obligation to check the terms of leases to confirm that the management agent can employ a parking company It has as a so-called professional company. See the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 s 13 (implied term about care and skill) It gets round that by using an indemnity clause in its own contact with the MA. So OP's could sue the MA for their costs in these cases but as the MA owns/has nothing, any win will be recharged back to residents. You see what a screwed up arrangement leasehold parking is. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 01:17 |