Source: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?s=7d99fac7a01e764aa877d1d64f10deb5&t=5771941
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 10:10:22+00:00

Document:
You might find PCM back down in some IAS appeals, as another poster said they did, last week. If not, then the IAS will likely not find in your favour but you don't then pay.
You'd almost certainly win in court if they try a small claim; that's the more winnable stage (with forum help here).
Have you read Davies v UKPC, Jopson v Homeguard and the many posts about residential harassment on Parking Prankster's blog. in so many cases, PPC get their noses bloodied in court when they try to interfere in residents' rights to peaceful enjoyment.
Last edited by The Deep; 09-01-2018 at 1:40 PM.
2. Signs are always open to interpretation so it is best to get your own copies as soon after as possible. Another trick that is played, is that different signs from the ones that were at site are produced with the parking company claiming an "error" or "rogue operatives". This latter excuse was used when UKPC "rogue operatives" - a lot of them - were found to be changing the timestamps on photographic evidence.
1. UKPC will try to hide their contract and may not even produce it unless challenged. You must always continue to press UKPC for a copy of the contract at every stage. You can even chase your Managing Agents for a copy under s20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
2. In a later case, Pace Recovery v Mr N, the tenant had a copy of their own lease/rental agreement and was able to show that that agreement had primacy over the later introduction of parking enforcement. So it can't be stressed enough to get your own lease/rental agreement and check it.
3. Multiple tickets will always get the parking company excited and will usually lead to a claim. As soon as you get one or two tickets, get involved in clarifying your lease and what it gives you. There are plenty of sources of free housing advice. It will save you money in the long run.
Often with a Leasehold situation, you can get a claim from a parking company hired by a Managing Agent about which you have no details. The parking companies will claim to be there to keep trespassers out but more often than not end up charging residents for small errors when parking on their own land. In fact some parking companies only exist to penalise residents.
If you want to see what arrangements your Managing Agent has made with the parking company and for what purpose send a "S.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985" notice to the Agent asking for details of the "Long Term Service Contract" they have made with the parking company. They have 21 days to reply.
A "Long Term Service Contract" is defined in law as contracts for services that last for more than one year and cost any one leaseholder in a block more than £100 per year. At the same time, ask for the Managing Agents own contract as that falls within the definition too.
and Tenant Act 1985 which means you should receive information before the contract is signed.
The first notice of intention must describe what the agreement is about, and the second notice of proposals should list the cost estimates and tell you where you can inspect them. So ask for the cost estimates too.
County Court case on the primacy of a lease over a parking contract.
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.
The case rested both on the fact that under the terms of the lease, Laura Jopson (a resident) had a right of way to the block’s entrance which new parking regulations disregarded; and that the new parking regulations imposed by the parking company did not come to Laura’s attention.
The Judge found that under the terms of the lease, the resident and her fellow tenants (as well as people making deliveries or those dropping off children or disabled passengers) have a right of way to the block’s entrance and that the parking company’s "regulations" disregarded these rights.
This case is for Residential claims where the lease does not have a requirement to show a permit.
Last edited by markudman; 09-01-2018 at 6:47 PM.
You now have until 16/01/18 23:59 to complete the next stage in the Arbitration process. If you fail to action it within this time; the matter will be sent directly to an Adjudicator who will determine liability based only on the information already supplied by you and the operator and you will lose the ability to make any more representations or upload any more evidence.
1) SUBMIT YOUR RESPONSE - You can respond to the operators comments and evidence by making any representations that you consider to be relevant as to the lawfulness of the charge by uploading any extra photographs or other evidence that you may have. After you submit your response, and the operator doesn't provide any more information you will not have the ability to add to or amend your submission. If the operator provides more information or evidence you will then have another chance to respond.
2) REFER THE CASE STRAIGHT TO ARBITRATION - If you think you do not need to add any more information or evidence, for example if you consider that the information provided already is capable of showing that you, on the face of it, are not responsible for the parking charge, then you may choose this option. Neither party will have the opportunity of making more representations and the Adjudicator will decide, on the balance of probabilities, whether you are liable for the parking charge.
The operator made their response on 10/01/2018 09:15:42.
The appellant has raised as an issue that we do not have the required authority to operate on this site. We would refer the Adjudicator to the signs which form the basis of this charge. It will be noted that the charge arises out of a relationship in contract and that we are the principal (not an agent) in the contract. This site has been audited by the IPC and a copy of the landowner’s authority has been provided to them as part of the audit process. However, whilst we maintain that we do, in fact, have the authority of the landowner to operate upon this site (being the principal in the contract); the existence of this document has no legal bearing on the contract with the motorist. See Vehicle Control Services v HMRC  EWCA Civ 186, para 22 per Lewison LJ.As this is a commercially sensitive document, and is irrelevant to the issues at hand, this is not provided as evidence in this appeal. A copy of the agreement has been provided to the assessor.
Under the KADOE system, the operator may seek keeper details with a “reasonable cause”. The operator maintains that this ‘reasonable cause’ was satisfied under Reason Code 00CH – the vehicle breaches the terms and conditions of the signage of a private car park.
All other relevant points have been answered in previous submissions.
The answer is that ParkingEye were, in Beavis. Principal, not landowner. It's OK.
Show a copy of your lease where it gives you a right to that parking space, or an exclusive right to park a vehicle (nothing about permits or any parking charges).
there are 3 entrances to the estate, only one (the back one) has signs on them... there are no signs on 2 of the entrances and have photos to prove, a total of about 20 photos showing the entrance and a walk through to the parking etc.
You are still likely to lose this game, but play it well. And keep playing, to the whistle!
Last edited by Coupon-mad; 10-01-2018 at 9:17 PM.
I have put this together but am not sure how to format it. Some of it from templates on this great forum.
I asked Parking Control Management 5 Questions, to which to answers were unsatisfactory.
1.Who is the party that contracted with your company and are they the landowner?
2. Is your charge based on damages for breach of contract? Answer yes or no.
4. Please provide all photographs taken of this vehicle.
5. Please provide proof that the timing of any camera or timer used was synchronised with all other cameras and/or systems & machines.
b) Refer the motorist to the signs within the car park which display the full terms and conditions.
c) Identify yourself (where you are a limited company. This should be by reference to your full company name, your company number and the jurisdiction within which your company is registered).
6. It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of his/her vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and leaseholder of _________________ whose tenancy agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, and the user of the vehicle or the requirement to display a parking permit. A copy of the lease will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given.
7. The Defendant avers that the operator’s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd  EWCA Civ 2011. The Court will be referred to further similar fact cases in the event that this matter proceeds to trial.
7.2. there was any obligation (at all) to display a permit; or park in a marked bay.
7.3. the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.
8. In the alternative, the Defendant relies upon ParkingEye Ltd v Barry Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 insofar as the Court were willing to consider the imposition of a penalty in the context of a site of commercial value and where the signage regarding the penalties imposed for any breach of parking terms were clear - both upon entry to the site and throughout.
8.1. The Defendant avers that the parking signage in this matter was, without prejudice to his/her primary defence above, inadequate.
8.2. The Defendant avers that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye distinguished.
9. It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking parking management. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.
10. It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.
11. It is admitted that interest may be applicable, subject to the discretion of the Court on any sum (if awarded), but it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant.
Last edited by markudman; 11-01-2018 at 7:38 AM.
You need to change your wording, you are not at court 'claim' stage. Certainly no idea why you are admitting to interest at a stage where they can't add it!
You are at the kangaroo court of IAS...(worthless appeal shenigans with an Assessor who will be biased to the PPC).
The charge arises out of a contractual relationship, the terms of which are stipulated by the signage. The point has been raised that the wording on the signage is forbidding. This is not accepted. The offer for the use of the land provides a contractual license to enter such land and parking is permitted for those parked wholly within the confines of the marked bays. The contract crystallises (i.e. the user accepts the terms of the licence) at the point they enter the land. The sign then confirms in clear terms when a charge for use of the land becomes due.
Whether a driver feels that they have permission to park or not, the contractual terms require a driver to park within the marked bays.
I would generally comment that most lease documents and tenancy agreements provide provisions whereby the resident authorises the management company to make decisions on behalf of and for the benefit of all residents. It is contended that the implementation of parking enforcement falls under this. Also, clauses permitting parking are often restricted or altered by later provisions.
I would also like to note that individual residents do not have the authority to vary the contract between the motorist and the operator.
Have you supplied your lease agreement that shows you have a right to park, and that there is no clause allowing the managing agent to change that right?
I would generally comment that most lease documents and tenancy agreements provide provisions whereby the resident authorises the management company to make decisions on behalf of and for the benefit of all residents.
The key words here are "for the benefit of". There are hundreds, nay thousands of examples on the internet that PPCs provide little to no benefit to the residents, quite the resverse in fact.
In nearly every case, there is no contract.
Last edited by The Deep; 15-01-2018 at 6:29 AM.
set up by Gladstones Solicitors.
a pond life court is now more suitable.
"I would also like to note that individual residents do not have the authority to vary the contract between the motorist and the operator"
cowboys are just someone the MA/landowner takes on.
Probably on a commission as well ?

References: UKPC 
 UKPC 
 UKPC 
 EWCA 
 EWCA 
 UKSC