PCN for having a windscreen cover!, Please need some advise Options

[Tonis999]

Dear all I need some advise how to deal with this.
I have my car parked properly in a private residential area where I rent a flat and with the parking permit attached on the lower left side of the interior of the windscreen. Cause is a convertible car(cabrio with plastic roof) I use a nylon roof cover which extends onto the front windscreen. It's very loosely attached to the car and in order someone to access the windscreen has to lift up few inches the cover to see the valid permit.
The traffic warden took a picture of my car with the cover and the registration plate and gave me two consecutive PCNs of 100 pounds each for "not displaying a valid permit"!!!!! Excel parking already rejected my first appeal and I am about to appeal to the IPS next and possibly take the matter to the court. Personally I couldn't possibly think of any more ridiculous reason to issue a PCN, but what does the law say about the windscreen or roof covers. I searched on internet and couldn't find any info. Valid permit attached on interior of windscreen and he did not bother lifting it few inches to check it? Need advice please. Attaching photo of car-cover. Thank you

[Advertisement]

[bearclaw]

Change your post above to read "the Driver" - you do not want to give away the identity of the driver at all.

When you have done that the next thing to do is to look at the lease. Does that require you to display a permit? Do you have anything in there about your right to parking in a specific place or any communal spaces. But amend the post first before getting to that.

[Tonis999]

No driver was revealed-identified on my post. But I'm still the keeper of the vehicle. I live-rent in the area. Private block of flats. I do have a residential parking permit for the car attached on interior of windscreen as required

[Redivi]

Never appeal to the IAS

It played fair just long enough to fool the DVLA into believing that Excel's trade association had an independent appeal process and members were entitled to unrestricted access to the registered keeper database

As soon as access was granted, the IAS turned into a kangaroo court
It actually guarantees parking companies that it will reject at least 85% of appeals

In case you weren't aware, the IAS is owned by the Independent Parking Community (IPC) that is to all intents and purposes identical with Gladstones Solicitors

Although the IAS website claims the organisation to be independent, there's reason to believe that appeals are seen by the IPC first

Some of us take the view that an appeal to the IAS can only damage your prospects of defending a court claim later :

You have to admit you were driving
You hand Excel an independent decision to wave that makes it easy for a judge to agree
You look unreasonable because you put Excel to the effort and expense of dealing with the appeal when you had no intention to accept an unwanted outcome

[peterguk]

and possibly take the matter to the court.

Your cause of action being......... ?

[bearclaw]

No driver was revealed-identified on my post. But I'm still the keeper of the vehicle. I live-rent in the area. Private block of flats. I do have a residential parking permit for the car attached on interior of windscreen as required

Does your lease require it however?

the lease is the key thing - if it doesnt require you to have a permit then it's irrelevant if it were covered or not.

[Tonis999]

I couldn't agree more with your sayings. The whole appealing process looks like a total scam to me. They will most likely reject the appeal in order to suck more money from money.
So you advise to completely ignore the second appeal to IAS and wait for their move if they willing to take it the court.
How about my case specifically? Any one heard anything about PCN on a covered vehicle? What the law says?

No driver was revealed-identified on my post. But I'm still the keeper of the vehicle. I live-rent in the area. Private block of flats. I do have a residential parking permit for the car attached on interior of windscreen as required

Does your lease require it however?

the lease is the key thing - if it doesnt require you to have a permit then it's irrelevant if it were covered or not.

The lease says to comply with the parking rules and display a valid permit which I do have

[kommando]

So you advise to completely ignore the second appeal to IAS and wait for their move if they willing to take it the court.

No advice was given as info on the lease was needed. Their next move will likely be a claim but you need to engage to either make them realise you are too much trouble and to get the judge if it comes to that onside. The managing agents are also a party to this and if they have given away your rights without your permission you can take action against them.

The lease says to comply with the parking rules and display a valid permit which I do have

Need more details than that, does it go on to tell you what the penalty is for not displaying the valid permit ie £100, does it define what display means.

Does the lease also have a clause giving you the right to peaceful engagement.

Was this parking regime in place before you moved in, and is it really the lease or is it the tenancy agreement that says you are to comply with parking rules and display a valid permit.

[Jlc]

It’s contract law - basically what the signs say, so I would presume the signs say the permit must be displayed so it is visible. Whether the amount demanded is fair or reasonable is a discussion - they will say ParkingEye v Beavis means the amount is owed.

There are arguments against this in a residential scenario but you need to find a compromise going forward as they will ticket until the cows come home. They are quite litigious and multiple tickets increase the chances of a claim.

The parking scheme should be of benefit to genuine residents but they just want to issue tickets. There’s possibly
an argument that the amount is excessive in the circumstances and could be an unenforceable penalty. A claim will eventually escalate to around £200-250. I’m not suggesting paying it but be prepared. It doesn’t seem your lease assists you.

The IPC’s code of practice will be silent on this situation.

[Tonis999]

So you advise to completely ignore the second appeal to IAS and wait for their move if they willing to take it the court.

No advice was given as info on the lease was needed. Their next move will likely be a claim but you need to engage to either make them realise you are too much trouble and to get the judge if it comes to that onside. The managing agents are also a party to this and if they have given away your rights without your permission you can take action against them.

The lease says to comply with the parking rules and display a valid permit which I do have

Need more details than that, does it go on to tell you what the penalty is for not displaying the valid permit ie £100, does it define what display means.

Does the lease also have a clause giving you the right to peaceful engagement.

Was this parking regime in place before you moved in, and is it really the lease or is it the tenancy agreement that says you are to comply with parking rules and display a valid permit.

The tenancy agreement requires me to have a valid permit attached and display on the interior of my windscreen as the parking signs in the area say. Thing is I have a valid permit attached and display. There is no specific rule about not using a protective windscreen cover which is extremely easily liftable- loosely attached. What does the law says about traffic wardens authorities? Does he take pics of registration issues PNC and walks away? How about if I had used full car cover and cover the registration plate as well? Does he have the right to lift it up? How about if it snowed and my windscreen is covered with snow? He issues PCN for not seeing the permit? Or he cleans the snow to check the vehicle? Why does he have the right to lift up the windscreen wiper to attach a PCN and in my case he did not bother lifting the cover few inches to check my permit?

[peterguk]

The tenancy agreement requires me to have a valid permit attached and display

Was it displayed, or covered up by your car cover?

This post has been edited by peterguk: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 - 18:57

[Tonis999]

Thing is I have a valid permit attached and display.

Was it displayed, or covered up by your car cover?

It was covered by a very loosely attached windscreen-roof cover

[freddy1]

how the hell could you see the signage with a cover over your window


and YES your pass was clearly displayed in your window !

This post has been edited by freddy1: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 - 19:00

[Tonis999]

how the hell could you see the signage with a cover over your window


and YES your pass was clearly displayed in your window !

So according to your saying, their are right to issue a ticket, and in a parking regulated private residential area car covers are strictly forbidden? How about the scenario when they have to deal with snow on the windscreen? Do traffic wardens have to clean the snow to see the permit or they issue a ticket for not being able to see it? Scenario with full car cover? What they are entitled to do? Lift the cover? Call the police? Walk away?

[freddy1]

they should have had a "white list" to check the permit was valid , colal counsil backed down here due to wardons lack of english numbers/letters http://metro.co.uk/2018/02/08/man-given-pa...n-snow-7295516/


when you got your permit , you were asked for your VRN , therefore it must be on record

[nosferatu1001]

They’re not traffic wardens

There are not regulations or rules. None. It’s a totally private industry with “codes of practice” so loose they’d be called the town bicycle.

We still need more on your lease / tenancy
You were asked specific questions for a reason.

[bearclaw]

The lease says to comply with the parking rules and display a valid permit which I do have

I'll bet it doesnt say that....

Seriously we are asking these questions for a reason. If the lease just says whatever rules are subsequently put up, or it means whatever is currently in force when signed then I doubt that it can be enforced. Say you sign the lease, then the parking rules change to mean that you have to pay £5 for the permit every year. Reasonable?

What if it's £50 a week? Still reasonable?

What if the penalty is changed to removal of your car and a £5000 impound fee?

Does it specifically say which parking company is to enforce the operations?

I bet the people on here can drive a London Bus through the gaps there will be in this - so please dig out the relevant part of the lease, and any parts that go on about "quiet enjoyment" and post them up here -because if you have covered up the permit I think you are onto a loser with a very litigious company that will take you to court like a pack of rabid wolverines.

[thevaliant]

It’s contract law - basically what the signs say, so I would presume the signs say the permit must be displayed so it is visible. Whether the amount demanded is fair or reasonable is a discussion - they will say ParkingEye v Beavis means the amount is owed.

There are arguments against this in a residential scenario but you need to find a compromise going forward as they will ticket until the cows come home. They are quite litigious and multiple tickets increase the chances of a claim.

The parking scheme should be of benefit to genuine residents but they just want to issue tickets. There’s possibly
an argument that the amount is excessive in the circumstances and could be an unenforceable penalty. A claim will eventually escalate to around £200-250. I’m not suggesting paying it but be prepared. It doesn’t seem your lease assists you.

The IPC’s code of practice will be silent on this situation.

I'd not be so quick to admit defeat. It's likely:

1. Tenant (sub lessee) has rental agreement requiring permit be displayed for use of space. But this rental agreement is between Lessee (L) and sub-lessee (SL).
2. We don't know what the main lease between Freeholder (F) and L says. It may grant use of this space without further regard to a permit or any scheme in place.
3. Even if it is argued that the SL has breached the terms of his rental agreement by not displaying a permit, this is breach of his tenancy agreement and only L can take action against him (Section 21 issued perhaps, or Section 8 notice to quit). It's highly unlikely the rental agreement would drag in a third party to the rental agreement regarding parking.

I'm always of the opinion that no parking management by a PCC could ever be enforced in a residential situation [excluding small claims lottery and judges being ignorant] because most of this is Land Law and nothing to do with contract.

Freeholder holds land free of charge from HMQ.
Freeholder leases to long leaseholder, usually between 99-999 years.
Lease will grant parking rights, either explicit space or use of communal parking area.
Lease will rarely say anything about permits, and if by some miracle they do, they will say nothing about payment being required to be made to an unknown third party.

Breach of that lease is a matter between freeholder and lessee and usually involves forfeiture or other leasehold courts remedies. No court in the land is going to grant forfeiture for failing to display a permit. Never.

The only way one of these schemes could possible work would be something like this in the lease:

"The lessee agrees to park one vehicle in the allocated space.. blah blah blah.. not weighing more than 8.5tonnes.. blah. blah.. The lessee also agrees to display a valid permit issued by the freeholder or [named management company limited - company number 02938395] each day of parking for the entirety of the lease which is the next 999 years (that's a long time). The lessee further agrees that failure to display such a permit incurs a £100 daily charge payable to Parking Eye Limited (Company number 06373728).

If Parking Eye Limited doesn't exist anymore because you know, reasons, then oh errr... ummm. Don't know.

If the freeholder fails to provide a permit then... ahhh errr.. reasons. Just give us some bloody cash you bastard and stop arguing.

Oh, and we'd better put a RPI ratchet mechanism on that £100 too because you know, it won't be worth anything in 200 years time."

And no solicitor worth his salt would advise completing such a sale and would argue the lease is either defective, or worse, so onerous that no one should buy it. Remember, putting a £100 a day potential charge on the lease, especially if it is 999 years is a potential liability (undiscounted) of £36,488,475.

The recent scandals about ground rent escalators on leasehold houses would be nothing compared to this.

[ostell]

So where's the picture of the signs that create this alleged contract?

[Jlc]

I'd not be so quick to admit defeat.

No indeed not - it should be explored but needs the OP to investigate and revert.

Personally, I think it's worth fighting given the clear intransigence of these companies... Residential parking is one of the most distasteful elements of private parking imho - they are often a problem rather than the solution. (After they have removed those actually abusing the parking)

This post has been edited by Jlc: Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 09:36