parking ticket in own apartment space
Discussion
HantsRat said:
If it's leasehold, then you do not own the land. The land owner owns the lands and leases it out. The land owner can put whatever conditions they like on their land.
I would just pay up and get a permit for future use. After all it will stop people parking in your bays that do not live there.
The land owner can only put conditions on if they are in the lease. He cannot make it up as he goes along. A long lease still creates a beneficial interest in the land. I would just pay up and get a permit for future use. After all it will stop people parking in your bays that do not live there.
andburg said:
I'd pursue evidence of loss for this invoice....you parked in a space you pay for, there can be no loss.
Agreed.I completely get the idea of stinging people who don't have the authority to park in the space, especially when space is at a premium, however this seems ridiculous.
Hope you manage to reverse the decision OP.
These parking sharks claim to prevent unauthorised visitors from parking in residents' spaces, but invariably they just hound and abuse the residents and milk them for revenue, instead of the genuine miscreants.
From my experience in dealing with these, if your lease specifically says you are entitled to a parking space, then this will usurp any subsequent contract the management company may employ with a private parking company. If the PPC was in place before you signed the lease, then this may be slightly more contentious, but ultimately your lease with your signature tends to have more precedent/legal clout than driving past an A4 sign on a wall.
IANAL, but have got 200+ successful POPLA appeals so far.
From my experience in dealing with these, if your lease specifically says you are entitled to a parking space, then this will usurp any subsequent contract the management company may employ with a private parking company. If the PPC was in place before you signed the lease, then this may be slightly more contentious, but ultimately your lease with your signature tends to have more precedent/legal clout than driving past an A4 sign on a wall.
IANAL, but have got 200+ successful POPLA appeals so far.
HantsRat said:
If it's leasehold, then you do not own the land. The land owner owns the lands and leases it out. The land owner can put whatever conditions they like on their land.
I would just pay up and get a permit for future use. After all it will stop people parking in your bays that do not live there.
Your straying into property law and need to step away. I would just pay up and get a permit for future use. After all it will stop people parking in your bays that do not live there.
blueg33 said:
This principle is currently being considered by the supreme court
Judgement being passed tomorrow - https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/future-judgments....blueg33 said:
andburg said:
I'd pursue evidence of loss for this invoice....you parked in a space you pay for, there can be no loss.
This principle is currently being considered by the supreme court 
HantsRat said:
If it's leasehold, then you do not own the land. The land owner owns the lands and leases it out. The land owner can put whatever conditions they like on their land.
I would just pay up and get a permit for future use. After all it will stop people parking in your bays that do not live there.
come on man, they've admitted that "we do not dispute you are the owner of the space" yet they're still pursuing for the money? it's completely unreasonable.I would just pay up and get a permit for future use. After all it will stop people parking in your bays that do not live there.
currently in the process of writing a letter to them as per the suggestions on Peipoo and continuing the POPLA appeal. a sadistic part of me wouldn't mind it going to court just so I have precedent for the future if something similar happened in my space again (permit falling out of view or something)
WCZ said:
come on man, they've admitted that "we do not dispute you are the owner of the space" yet they're still pursuing for the money? it's completely unreasonable.
currently in the process of writing a letter to them as per the suggestions on Peipoo and continuing the POPLA appeal. a sadistic part of me wouldn't mind it going to court just so I have precedent for the future if something similar happened in my space again (permit falling out of view or something)
Whatever you do - do not pay them!currently in the process of writing a letter to them as per the suggestions on Peipoo and continuing the POPLA appeal. a sadistic part of me wouldn't mind it going to court just so I have precedent for the future if something similar happened in my space again (permit falling out of view or something)
Assuming you have a particular numbered space it seems odd to me that you were not asked if you wanted to participate. That way you could decide whether you needed to protect your own space from abuse or not. The parking company may not accept the contract on that basis though as it would be more work for them. If the spaces are not marked then obviously everyone has to be in the scheme or I suppose the car park could be divided into protected areas and free areas.
herewego said:
Assuming you have a particular numbered space it seems odd to me that you were not asked if you wanted to participate. That way you could decide whether you needed to protect your own space from abuse or not. The parking company may not accept the contract on that basis though as it would be more work for them. If the spaces are not marked then obviously everyone has to be in the scheme or I suppose the car park could be divided into protected areas and free areas.
yes, we all have numbered spaces! many people here have apartments as secondary city residences - when the scheme was introduced (despite the '2 week notification period' whereby people recieved letters by post)and simply not present during the switchover, the amount of tickets on some cars was comical - around 10 cars with 5 tickets and one had 8-9 tickets - £6,000 just in fines! all of those cars now have permits on so were the legal owners.WCZ said:
yes, we all have numbered spaces! many people here have apartments as secondary city residences - when the scheme was introduced (despite the '2 week notification period' whereby people recieved letters by post)and simply not present during the switchover, the amount of tickets on some cars was comical - around 10 cars with 5 tickets and one had 8-9 tickets - £6,000 just in fines! all of those cars now have permits on so were the legal owners.
Did the owners pay them though?I also live in a development with allocated parking spaces, approximately 90 addresses on the site. One resident had an issue with someone parking in the private car park but outside of the spaces, to the side of the access road which made accessing their space difficult. They continually complained to the management company about this, who obviously fed up of the complaining, decided to introduce private parking across the site without taking into consideration the viewpoint of all the other 89 addresses.
As parking was not a problem for most other residents (very occasionally someone would park in a space, tradesman or so on, but there are visitors spaces and other places to park so not the end of the world) we were quite unhappy about this being introduced, for the reasons you mention, residents being ticketed, pain for visitors etc. Obviously the PPC is out to make money so will make the most out of whatever opportunity they have to ticket!
Anyway myself and plenty of other residents contacted the management company and they set up a meeting in the evening so we could all get together and discuss the issues and basically cast a vote whether to employ the PPC or not. It was decided that the consensus was to go against employing the PPC, so the decision was reversed and we gave our permits back.
So if you feel they are being heavy handed and generally a pain, it might be a good idea to gauge other resident’s viewpoints and if there is consensus, talk to the management company to get their contract cancelled or changed.
As parking was not a problem for most other residents (very occasionally someone would park in a space, tradesman or so on, but there are visitors spaces and other places to park so not the end of the world) we were quite unhappy about this being introduced, for the reasons you mention, residents being ticketed, pain for visitors etc. Obviously the PPC is out to make money so will make the most out of whatever opportunity they have to ticket!
Anyway myself and plenty of other residents contacted the management company and they set up a meeting in the evening so we could all get together and discuss the issues and basically cast a vote whether to employ the PPC or not. It was decided that the consensus was to go against employing the PPC, so the decision was reversed and we gave our permits back.
So if you feel they are being heavy handed and generally a pain, it might be a good idea to gauge other resident’s viewpoints and if there is consensus, talk to the management company to get their contract cancelled or changed.
walm said:
Jesus! How much dodgy parking have you been doing!?
I manage a fleet of 6000+ vehicles. We name the keeper in each event, but some parking companies think that fleet operators are easy targets for a quick payout. When they refuse to accept any transfer of liability, I take them to POPLA and win. Every time. I've tried taking some to the IPC/IAS, but they do not know their arse from their elbow when it comes to appeals, and are nothing more than a kangaroo court. None of them have escalated it to court though, but I'm waiting. Particularly on the one that suggested that "on the balance of probabilities, the keeper was also the driver" - the keeper is a Ltd company...
S11Steve said:
blueg33 said:
This principle is currently being considered by the supreme court
Judgement being passed tomorrow - https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/future-judgments....Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff