Hi! It's the Naked Ape

[Amethyst]

Re: Hi! It's the Naked Ape

That worked. I'm sorting out Kati's now xx

[Kati]

Re: Hi! It's the Naked Ape

That worked. I'm sorting out Kati's now xx

Yay xx

[THe Naked Ape]

Re: Hi! It's the Naked Ape

Yay xx

I still have not been able to send to kati@legalbeagles.info although I have managed to send to the alternative address that Amethyst kindly added, admin@legalbeagles.info. I sent the email and attachments there for attention/advice.

Thank you all.


Hugh TNA

[Amethyst]

Re: Hi! It's the Naked Ape

Here we are

[Kati]

Re: Hi! It's the Naked Ape

I still have not been able to send to kati@legalbeagles.info although I have managed to send to the alternative address that Amethyst kindly added, admin@legalbeagles.info. I sent the email and attachments there for attention/advice.

Thank you all.


Hugh TNA

Not sure what's going on with my emails atm NA :sorry:

I'm sure [MENTION=6]Amethyst[/MENTION] will post your docs up as soon as she can xx

[Amethyst]

Re: Hi! It's the Naked Ape

I have always abided by my Peabody parking agreement, which was given to me in Dec 13th, 2000. Please see below the terms of that agreement.

“PEABODY TRUST

Reserved Parking Spaces

Terms of licence and rules.



1) The charge inclusive of rates for a reserved parking space on the estate is set out overleaf.

2) The charge is due weekly "in advance" to cover the period Monday morning to Sunday night, but for the Trust's tenant a is payable fortnightly with rent.

3) Notice to terminate the licence shall be one week on either side, but the Trust reserves the right to withdraw parking facilities on any part of the estate at its discretion and without notice.

4) Subletting or assignment is prohibited.

5) No nuisance or unnecessary noise shall be made and the parking space must not be used for any commercial purpose. Maintenance and repairs may only be carried out on the parking space if they do not cause annoyance to residents on the estate. Oil must not be allowed to fall onto the yards surface. At night cars must be driven and doors closed as quietly as possible.

6) A Key to the estate gate will be supplied to the licensee of each parking space. These remain the property of the Trust, and must be returned upon termination of the licence. Repayments for keys lost or mislaid will be charged for at £1.00 each

7) Vehicles are parked and driven on the estate entirely at the licensee’s own risk and the trust can accept no responsibility for any damage to or by a licensee’s vehicle howsoever caused.

8) The greatest care must be exercised driving across the estate yard where small children may be playing. The road exists near the parking space will be used. Care is particularly important when reversing.

9) The estate gates must be kept Closed and locked except when opened for the passage of the vehicle, or by the Trust's staff.

10) Parking facilities on the estate are limited and only vehicles with a valid excise License will be permitted to occupy parking spaces. If the superintendent reports that the vehicles are driven in a manner liable to be dangerous, or that the gates were left open the licence may be terminated forthwith.”

This is the sum of my agreement for parking with Peabody.

[Amethyst]

Re: Hi! It's the Naked Ape

Emails

From: POPLA xxxxxx
Sent: 06 December 2016 13:30
To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: xxMessage from POPLA PTLxxxxx

Dear xxxxxxxxxx

Your parking charge appeal against MET Parking Services.

We have now received MET Parking Services’s case file. If you have not received your copy then please contact MET Parking Services directly.

You have seven days from the date of this correspondence to provide comments on this file. You can do this on the track existing appeal area of our website.

Any comments that you make after this time may not be considered as part of the appeal process.

Once this time has passed we will progress the appeal for assessment. We will let you know when this happens.

Yours sincerely

POPLA Team
xxxxxxxx

[Amethyst]

Re: Hi! It's the Naked Ape

Post from Naked Ape....

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below is my answer to Met Parking’s refusal to drop the un authorised penalty demands via my POPLA appeal.
It is not the original appeal, which I sounded more scared and without the original parking agreement. I have asked POPLA to send me a copy of my original appeal which I am still waiting.

Section A

Case Summary and Rules/Conditions
Location

Peabody Court
NW1

Terms and Conditions of Parking on Site – these terms can be seen on the
photograph of the sign attached in Section E
? Permit holders only
? Vehicles must clearly display a valid permit face up in the front windscreen at all
times
? Visitors must be parked within marked visitor bays and be clearly displaying a valid
visitor permit face up in the front windscreen at all times
? Vehicles must be parked within marked bays where available and not park in such
a way as to cause obstruction to others
? Vehicles parked in marked disabled bays must clearly display a valid disabled
badge and a valid permit face up in the front windscreen at all times.
Case Summary
The charge notice was issued for failing to display a valid permit.

MET Parking withheld my permit, that I had paid for and which I am on a running advanced direct debit. I have pointed this out to them on more than one occasion yet they insist on harassing me.
My parking terms and conditions issued to me by peabody Dec 13th 2000 makes no reference to the above.

This car park is managed using Parking Attendants.
Peabody Court is located in a controlled parking zone and as a result there is a
high volume of abuse from motorists who are parking on the site to visit other
establishments.
There are 20 signs in total in this car park which state the terms and conditions of
parking in this car park. The entrance sign measures 600mm x 800mm and all other
signs measure 600 x 450mm. All signs are made using Correx.
At 07:13 on 29th September vehicle xxxxxxxxxxxx was observed parked in the car park
without displaying a valid permit. At 07:24 the parking attendant issued a charge notice,
xxxxxxxxxxxxx.

There have always been signs on our estate since 1997 I did not realize that I had to read them every year this condition is not in my parking agreement issued to me in Dec 2000. Nor in my tenancy agreement under parking conditions dated 1997. I have always believed that as long as I pay for my parking, road worthy and in my correct bay that I am within my right to park this is according to my parking agreement Dec 12, 2000.

On 30th September we received an appeal from the driver:
Mr xxxx
Peabody Court

London
NW1

The grounds of his appeal were that he was unaware he had to contact MET Parking for
a permit renewal.

That is because previous permits were sent out by Peabody and in my original parking agreement it has no mention of contacting anyone only that payment should be made in advance, Dated Dec 12 2000

He also states that there are other vehicles in the car park that have
never received a parking charge notice despite contravening.
The Large white Transit van had been parked their months without a permit and was never issued with a penalty deny this!
The appeals team investigated the appeal by reference to:
? The terms and conditions as clearly stated on the signs prominently displayed
around the car park, including that vehicles must clearly display a valid permit face
up in the front windscreen at all times;
? The photographic evidence that demonstrated there was no valid permit in the
windscreen;

There have always been signs on our estate since 1997 I did not realize that I had to read them every year this condition is not in my parking agreement issued to me in Dec 2000. Nor in my tenancy agreement under parking conditions dated 1997. I have always believed that as long as I pay for my parking, road worthy and in my correct bay that I am within my right to park this is according to my parking agreement Dec 12, 2000.

? The decision tree agreed with our client.
On completing their investigations the appeals team sent a letter to Mr xxxxxxon the 30th
September explaining that his appeal had been refused and why.


In his appeal to POPLA Mr xxxxstates:
1. When his permit expired, Mr xxxxxwas convinced it would automatically be
reissued.

That is because previous permits were sent out by Peabody and in my original parking agreement it has no mention of contacting anyone only that payment should be made in advance, Dated Dec 12 2000

It is clearly stated on the back of all permits that ‘responsibility for applying for a
renewal of the permit rests with the holder’, please see the front and back of a
permit below. It remains the responsibility of the permit holder to check such
instructions and to comply with them. Even if Mr xxxxxhad not read the instructions
on the back of the permit, the terms and conditions of parking on the site are
clearly stated on the signs prominently displayed at the entrances to and around
the car park, these include that vehicles must display a valid permit face up in the
front windscreen at all times. If Mr xxxxxknew his permit was due to expire on the
09/08/2016, it is his responsibility to ensure that he renews it and if unsure how
to, he should contact the relevant parties to find out. MET’s phone number is
included on the signs around the site so in addition to being able to contact the

housing association he could have contacted us.
The photographic evidence in Section E demonstrates that the permit displayed in
the windscreen of Mr xxxxxx’s vehicle had expired, and Mr xxxxxxxxxhas acknowledged that
he had not renewed his permit, therefore there was no valid permit displayed.

MET Parking withheld my permit; my parking agreement makes no mention of signs, or contacting MET Parking, the primary conditions is that my car is parked in its allocated bay, road worthy, and paid for in advance. My car is!

?-- Front of permit
Back of permit --?
2. He wishes to pay £1 in respect of the charge notice as opposed to the charge
notice value of £100.

How can I be fined when I have followed the terms of my parking agreement which the primary conditions is that my car is parked in its allocated bay, road worthy, and paid for in advance. My car is! I made the offer of £1 as gesture of good will to cover the cost of the paper they used issuing me the fine not because I was in any way wrong which I strongly refute as I have always followed the terms of my parking conditions issued to me by Peabody.

Whilst Mr xxxxxxrelates the value of the charge notice to the cost of a visitor’s permit
this does not reflect the cost of issuing the charge notice and managing the parking
area. The value of the charge notice has been set to recover the above costs and
also to act in part to deter abuse.

The charge does not of itself need to represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss
arising from the specific parking event. The County Court, The Court of Appeal and
The Supreme Court in the case of Parking Eye v Beavis considered in great detail
whether the value of a parking charge notice needed to represent a genuine pre estimate
of loss and the enforceability of charge notices in respect of this and also
in respect of consumer protection legislation. All 3 courts held that a parking
charge need not represent a genuine pre-estimate of loss. The County Court held
that the charge notice was enforceable as it was commercially justifiable because
it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in its amount. This
principle and the value of the charge notice was tested subsequently in both the
Court of Appeal and The Supreme Court, The Supreme Court concluded that:
“…the £85 charge is not a penalty. Both Parking Eye and the landowners had a
legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the
recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient
management of customer parking for the retail outlets. The interest of Parking Eye
was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate
scheme plus a profit margin.

I am a resident not a cash cow, I pay for my space and have done so even before enforcement came into place I was one of only two in my block who did so everyone else refused. I was not an over-stayer nor parked illegally. I have always maintained that I have followed my parking agreement given to me by Peabody Dec 12 2000

Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable,
Of course it is extravagant and unconscionable, how can you fine someone for following their parking agreement, someone who was and has been paying for their permit a permit that was with-held by unscrupulous enforcers using residents as cash cows and not the real violators (Those non-residents coming onto our estates that they are paid to enforce.

having regard to
practice around the United Kingdom, and taking into account the use of this
particular car park and the clear wording of the notices.” In this instance we
maintain that the signage is clear, prominently displayed and visible during hours
of darkness and daylight and the value of charge is in the region of the charge
deemed neither extravagant nor unconscionable by The Supreme Court.
Summary.

The terms and conditions are clearly stated on the 20 signs prominently displayed at the
entrance to and around the car park, including that vehicles must clearly display a valid
permit face up in the front windscreen at all times.

Again there have been signs on this estate since 1997, I read them then and that was enough I have not read them since and am under no authority to read them as long as I abide by my parking agreement which I do, that my car is parked in its allocated bay, road worthy, and paid for in advance. My car is!

Mr xxxxxxxxxxhas acknowledged that he did not renew his permit

I did not renew my permit as I was awaiting the delivery or notice of, MET Parking with-held the permit of which I had paid for, was paying for.

therefore, there was no valid permit displayed in his front
windscreen and the charge notice was issued correctly. In light of the above, we believe
the appeal should be refused.

The paper in my windscreen was awaiting a renewal which was in the possession of Met Parking they with held the permit I had paid for

Section B
Parking Charge Notice (“PCN”)
Original Charge Notice

[THe Naked Ape]

Re: Hi! It's the Naked Ape

The green box is from my original tenancy agreement dated 1997 it is the only section that relates to parking. The two white sheets of paper are copies of my original parking agreement dated 13th December 2000,

Hope this helps.

[mystery1]

Re: Hi! It's the Naked Ape

I would like to respond to the operators evidence as follows :-

As i have a lease which includes a paid for parking space with NO REQUIREMENT to display a permit at any time and i have not given away my contractual right to MY space to anyone, MET parking have no right to operate or ticket anyone on my space. I have tried to play nice with MET and display a permit at all times however i was neither required to do so nor indeed able to do so as they had not provided what i had paid for. If a contract had existed between myself and MET parking it would have been frustrated due to their shoddy administration process.

Primacy of Contract


The idea behind primacy of contract is that a contract cannot be unilaterally altered by one party without the permission of the other. In the case of residential parking, the lease is the key document. If this gives the resident the unfettered right to park then this cannot be altered later, for instance by requiring a permit to park.


There is a large body of case law which establishes this. In Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011 it was found the managing agent could not reduce the amount of parking spaces available to residents. In Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E, on appeal it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to temporarily stop near the building entrance for loading/unloading.


In Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.


In Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016] it was also found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.










I would reply along those lines. Further i would contact Peabrains and ask WTF is going on, sort this shit out. I pay you money and i am not required ..............

M1

[Amethyst]

Re: Hi! It's the Naked Ape

POPLA assessment and decision
14/12/2016
Verification Code

386320XXXX

Decision Unsuccessful
Assessor Name xxxxxxxxx
Assessor summary of operator case
The operator’s case is that the appellant did not display a valid permit

Assessor summary of your case
The appellant’s case is that he was not parked in contravention of the parking conditions and the operator is using residents as cash cows.

Assessor supporting rational for decision
Before I begin my assessment of this appeal, I feel it is appropriate to comment on the new grounds for appeal raised in his comments on the operator’s case file. When we invited the appellant to make comments about the operator’s case file, this was not an opportunity for him to raise new grounds for appeal or provide any new evidence. As such, I cannot consider any of the grounds for appeal raised in his motorist’s comments and will instead base my report on the grounds for appeal raised when he submitted the appeal and any evidence provided at that point

The terms and conditions of the site state “Permit holder only, vehicles must clearly display a valid permit face up in the front windscreen at all times, if your contravene any of the above terms and conditions of use, you will be charges as follows £100 parking charge”.

The operator has issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to the motorist because no valid ticket, voucher or permit was displayed. The operator has provided photographic evidence of the appellant’s vehicle VXX XXX, At the said address, on 29 September 2016. A MET Parking Services permit has been displayed; however, the expiry date is 9 August 2016. In his submission, the appellant has raised several grounds of appeal; I will address each in turn.

The appellant states that he was not parked in contravention of the parking conditions in force, as his vehicle was taxed, MOT’d, insured and he was waiting for a new pemit. He was parked in his bay that he pays for. I acknowledge the appellants comments, however, as mentioned previously the appellant was parked displaying a permit which had expired, as such, he was not displaying a valid permit. In addition the appellant states that the operator is using residents as cash cows in regards to parking enforcement.

The legality of parking charges has been the subject of a high profile court case, ParkingEye-v-Beavis. Cambridge County Court heard the case initially, handing down a decision in May 2014 that a parking charge of £85 was allowable. It held that the parking charge had the characteristics of a penalty, in the sense in which that expression is conventionally used, but one that was commercially justifiable because it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in its amount. Mr Beavis took the case to the Court of Appeal, which refused the appeal in April 2015, stating that the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable. Mr Beavis further appealed to the Supreme Court, which on 4 November 2015, concluded: “…the £85 charge is not a penalty. Both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging overstaying motorists, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management of customer parking for the retail outlets. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to practice around the United Kingdom, and taking into account the use of this particular car park and the clear wording of the notices.” Having considered the decision of the Supreme Court decision, I conclude that the parking charge in this instance is allowable.

Although the charge may not be a genuine pre-estimate of loss; the signage at the location is clear, the motorist did not keep to the terms and conditions set out on the signage, and the charge is neither extravagant nor unconscionable. While the charge in this instance was £100; this is in the region of the £85 charge decided on by the Supreme Court. By remaining parked on site, the appellant accepted the terms and conditions of this particular car park. On this occasion, the appellant has failed to follow the terms and conditions of the signage at the site by not displaying a valid permit. As such, I conclude that the Parking Charge Notice was issued correctly. Accordingly, I must refuse this appeal.

[THe Naked Ape]

Re: Hi! It's the Naked Ape

Thank you Amethyst,I have now been denied my appeal by POPLA (See reasons in previous post) what do I do now? Must I wait for MET Parking to send me a final demand and threat of court? How should I respond (does anyone know or have gone through this?)

I just got a reply from my housing association where in my first email I asked -"Dear Mr A, I am contacting you in regards to an email I sent you on the 7th of December, please see below this email for the details. I am still looking for confirmation of if my parking agreement which was issued to me on the 12th Dec 2000 has been cancelled and if so when.Met Parking has refused my appeal so I may need this for my court hearing and would be ever so grateful if you could send me the requested information. I would also like to take this opportunity to wish you and all the Peabody Staff seasonal greetings and all the best for 2017. Sincere regards

"His reply was"Dear Mr H, Thank you for your email and my apologies for the late response to your earlier email. I am sorry to note that your parking appeal has been refused and I can confirm that you are currently assigned parking bay no XX at the (Specified Address). As you remain dissatisfied with the outcome, you can appeal the parking contractor’s decision through the Parking on Private Land Appeals (POPLA) online process (www.popla.org.uk). I would also like to wish you seasonal greetings and please do not hesitate to contact your interim Neighbourhood Manager, Jon Javier should you require any further assistance. Kind regardsA

"I asked if my original parking agreement was still in effect or if it had been cancelled all he answered was "I can confirm that you are currently assigned parking bay no XX at the (Specified Address)."So should I take this as that my original parking conditions from 2000, are still in effect? If so it (the original conditions) gives no mention on having to display any permit only that I must be parked in the correct bay, road worthy & pay in advance for my parking space of which I do all three.Thank you all in advanceBest wishesHugh

http://legalbeagles.info/forums/imag...reindeer.gifps for some reason the formatting changes once I click on preview post, everything becomes truncated (squashed together) I am sure this did not happen before?

[mystery1]

Re: Hi! It's the Naked Ape

I feared this would happen. However that doesn't mean i would advise paying the ticket.

The first way to deal with it to file everything and ignore all bar court papers. Met are unlikely to try court.

The 2nd way is to be proactive and take them both to court for trespass and harassment which is the best way but only for people who are happy enough to go to court.

M1

[THe Naked Ape]

Re: Hi! It's the Naked Ape

I feared this would happen. However that doesn't mean i would advise paying the ticket.The first way to deal with it to file everything and ignore all bar court papers. Met are unlikely to try court.The 2nd way is to be proactive and take them both to court for trespass and harassment which is the best way but only for people who are happy enough to go to court.M1

Hello Mystery1, and thank you for your help throughout.If they were to take the court root and in court I proved without doubt. That I was paying in advance and in standing with my Dec 2000 parking agreement, would this go in my favour?If I were to lose what would I be expected to pay? the two penalties (£100 x 2 = £200) would I have to pay court costs, how much do these usually total?You said they (MET) don't do courts but say they insisted on taking me to court would my original parking agreement be worth anything? would the fact that I was paying for and the trust was taking money from my account throughout.How I see it is, I have always followed my original parking agreement to the word, in this there is no mention of parking permits or that I had to read signage on walls, I am being pursued by an enforcing contractor for parking in a place where I am supposed to be, they are saying my permit was expired and I am saying that I was perfectly right to park in my place as I was within the terms of my parking agreement.What a headache this is, no wonder so many people just give in and pay these swines.

[mystery1]

Re: Hi! It's the Naked Ape

If they were to take the court root and in court I proved without doubt. That I was paying in advance and in standing with my Dec 2000 parking agreement, would this go in my favour?

Should do.

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

If I were to lose what would I be expected to pay? the two penalties (£100 x 2 = £200) would I have to pay court costs, how much do these usually total?

Shouldn't be more than £300 all in although they may try for some outlandish figures but most judges tell them where to go on that.

You said they (MET) don't do courts but say they insisted on taking me to court would my original parking agreement be worth anything?

See that prankster link. It'd be worth everything.

M1