London Parking Solutions - PCN to own resident

[DandyWarhol83]

Hi all,

Wonder if you can help or give me some advice on an unfair parking ticket recently received from London Parking Solutions.
I live in a block of flats managed by a company who last year acquired the services of LPS to police the residential parking of the flats, to prevent other residents around the area from using it.. This was done by allocating 3 parking permits (2 x orange for permanent residents and 1 x white for visitors) to each flat, to be shown in the cars when parked at the flats. Note, there are no assigned parking bays to each flat.
Last week I was given a penalty charge notice (PCN) when, for the first time, I forgot to display the orange badge on my windshield. My girlfriend happened to be parking up when the parking inspector was writing the ticket for my car, and so quickly alerted him to the fact the car belonged to a resident and the orange badge was inside the car by the handbrake (where I keep it when I’m driving), to which she pointed it out to him, and the guy used his torch to see it through the window. However, he refused to acknowledge that as legitimate, as it wasn’t displayed in the windshield, as requested by the signs around the car park. She pleaded with him as he could quite easily see that the car had an orange badge for parking, but he refused to comply.
I submitted an appeal against the PCN, but have been rejected on the grounds of the badge not displayed in the windshield, again as stated on the signs around the car park.
I think this is ridiculous, they’ve got me on a small technicality of “the badge wasn’t in the correct position in the car”. The inspector could even see the badge when it was pointed out to him, clearly identifying that the car belonged to a resident of the flats, who also happens to pay for this lovely service as well.
Do I have any grounds for an independent appeal here, or do I suck it up and pay the £60 fine before the 14 days is up?
Absolutely fuming that this company aren’t policing the car park, they just want to catch residents out instead.

[ostell]

Re: London Parking Solutions - PCN to own resident

That's how they make their money, ticketing residents, nothing will stop them doing that.

Find your lease and see what it says about parking. If you have a right to park, or quiet enjoyment or no mention of having to display a permit to park then they have no case as your lease takes precedence and no 3rd party can alter it. Search for the appeal case of jobson. That involves flats and parking companies. The parking company lost and because it was an appeal then it is persuasive.

Pictures of the signs might help

[DandyWarhol83]

Re: London Parking Solutions - PCN to own resident

Thanks for your response, I'll have a look at the lease. It's quite an old copy (dating back to the 60's), so I hope I can find the right part about the parking.

[ostell]

Re: London Parking Solutions - PCN to own resident

Have a look at this link, worth following some of the links.

[DandyWarhol83]

Re: London Parking Solutions - PCN to own resident

Thanks for the link, was some very interesting reading. I looked into my original lease for the flat and found that it states:
The Lessor hereby demises unto the Lesses all that the first floor flat (with the car parking space allocated to it) (hereinafter called "the flat") situate and being at and known as Flat numbered 40, Pine Lodge... etc
Will this be enough to state that I'm entitled to park at the flats?
Will they argue that as I stated my girlfriend was parking up, they'll argue that she was parking in the space allocated, and not my car?

[mystery1]

Re: London Parking Solutions - PCN to own resident

Will this be enough to state that I'm entitled to park at the flats?

I'd say so. Are there any alteration/variation clauses ? Nothing that imposes conditions on using the space ?

M1

[DandyWarhol83]

Re: London Parking Solutions - PCN to own resident

There are no alterations that I can see. If I go down the route for this, I'm worried that they'all say that - Because my girlfriend was parking up at the time, she was using the parking space allocated to the flat, not my car. If that makes sense?

[mystery1]

Re: London Parking Solutions - PCN to own resident

There are no alterations that I can see. If I go down the route for this, I'm worried that they'all say that - Because my girlfriend was parking up at the time, she was using the parking space allocated to the flat, not my car. If that makes sense?

Have you told them this, otherwise i doubt they'd know. Does the lease come with the space identified and state no other parking ?

M1

[DandyWarhol83]

Re: London Parking Solutions - PCN to own resident

I did state it in the appeal when when I described to London parking Solutions what happened that evening. They could use that against me, but I really want to fight them on this. It's like getting a parking ticket on your drive way!! They have already rejected my appeal - shock horror.

[mystery1]

Re: London Parking Solutions - PCN to own resident

http://nebula.wsimg.com/2b78bca39246...&alloworigin=1

The answers are all in the lease.

"with the car parking space allocated to it"

Is there a definition or map ? The space could be 1 solitary identifiable space or it could be a forecourt or car park. The answer should be in the lease.

If you appeal to the IAS, and i see no reason not to (although you will probably lose), you will need to send the lease to them highlighting the correct sections.

M1

[DandyWarhol83]

Re: London Parking Solutions - PCN to own resident

The parking space is not defined in the lease, it just says flat with allocated parking space.
I've appealed to the IAS, so awaiting for the inevitable rejection.

[DandyWarhol83]

Re: London Parking Solutions - PCN to own resident

As predicted, I lost the appeal with the IAS as they state, and I quote:

"As a leaseholder the appellant is either obliged to accept the operator's terms for parking , or park elsewhere. The landowner has given authority to the operator to operate this parking scheme, and this overrides any leasehold right the appellant may have. The appellant leases the parking space and is not he true legal owner of that parking space. The appellant admits that the permit was not properly displayed in the windscreen of the vehicle and was in the cup holder by the handbrake. Although the attendant could see that there was a permit in the vehicle, it was not clearly not on display as per the terms of the parking. This appeal is therefore dismissed"

I think this is wrong, but I'm unsure what route to go down now. Please help?
Would greatly appreciate it.

[ostell]

Re: London Parking Solutions - PCN to own resident

You have a lease, the lease has not/cannot be varied without your consent. They are talking rubbish. It matters not about who was parked in the space, it was your space to do with as you want. The lessor cannot give you land and then give it to another.

So they could see the permit but still issued the ticket !!! It's beyond belief !

If this proceeds to court then I would think any judge would find it hard not to laugh.

[mystery1]

Re: London Parking Solutions - PCN to own resident

Even Trump would be embarrassed by that.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co...l-parking.html

http://nebula.wsimg.com/2b78bca39246...&alloworigin=1

The purported complete determination by the defendants of the claimant’s right to
park which took effect between May 1997 and 1st August 2000 was in my judgment a
clear derogation from the right to park to which the claimant was entitled under the
lease. It entirely frustrated the purpose for which the right to park had been given to
the lessee by paragraph 7 of the Second Schedule had been granted and which must
have been in the contemplation of both the parties to the lease at the time of the
original grant. It thus infringed the claimant’s rights

http://nebula.wsimg.com/c269da31b314...&alloworigin=1

I have to deal with this on the evidence that is before me now. I have before me a
tenancy agreement which gives Mr [N. redacted] the right to park on the estate and it
does not say “on condition that you display a permit”. It does not say that, so he has that
right. What Pace Recovery is seeking to do is, unilaterally outside the contract, restrict
that right to only when a permit is displayed. Pace Recovery cannot do that. It has got
to be the other contracting party, Affinity Sutton, which amends the terms of the tenancy
agreement to restrict the right to park on a place in circumstances in which a permit is
displayed but that is not in this tenancy agreement and you as a third party cannot
unilaterally alter the terms of the tenancy agreement.

http://nebula.wsimg.com/f6d657adf7df...&alloworigin=1

It will be apparent from that that a good deal of the attention of the district
judge was devoted to the question whether or not the claimant was in fact
authorised to do what it was purporting to do, but no reference was made to
the conceded lack of notice – see paragraphs 8, 9 and 16 of this judgment –
and there was no analysis of the existence and extent of the right to unload as
an ancillary to the easement to pass or re-pass, nor was there any
consideration of whether what the defendant was doing in fact constituted
parking.

http://nebula.wsimg.com/d31f6731eeb7...&alloworigin=1

9. There is nothing to suggest that Mrs Parkinson has breached this covenant. More
particularly there is nothing in the covenant that requires her to display a valid parking
permit. Thus, it seems to me that pursuant to the lease, all that the defendant was
obliged to do was park in her own space and ensure that the vehicle was road-worthy
and appropriately taxed.
10. The question is, therefore, whether Isis by engaging Link Parking have in effect varied
the original lease, or whether they are entitled to impose parking restrictions pursuant to
[inaudible] 2, section 21 on page 13 of the agreement.
11. There is no evidence before me to suggest that they have in any way undertaken steps to
vary the lease, and I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that section 21 applies
such that by engaging the company they have applied new and binding regulations on
the leaseholders. A mere letter regarding permits would not, in my judgment, suffice in
this regard.

So as you see, the courts disagree en masse.

There are now several options open to you.

1. Pay. But you don't want to do that.

2. File everything and ignore unless/until a letter before action turns up.

3. Set up a data protection claim or counterclaim.

4. Sue for trespass.

5. Set up a harassment claim or counterclaim.

You do not have to wait for 2 to do 3 , 4 or 5.

Data http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/data-protection-act/

Trespass UKPC v Davey http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...ss-**SUCCESS**

Harassment http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/46.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/982.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/882.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/...e/2011/B3.html

M1

[DandyWarhol83]

Re: London Parking Solutions - PCN to own resident

Thanks for the responses. Will it make a difference that my parking space is not actually marked out? The car park is for residents but based on a first come first serve basis. My lease states I have a car park space allocated to the flat, but not specific to where in the car park it is. Will this go against me?