DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 65011--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private residential parking - POFA 2012 claimed but not
compliant
DIR By: FaeLLe
Date: March 31, 2025, 11:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The following also listed as Landlords Obligations in the
Tenancy Contract,
[Quote]
18.12 To comply with all the obligations imposed upon the
Landlord by a Superior Landlord if the Property is held under a
Superior Lease. 18.13 To take all reasonable steps to ensure
that the Superior Landlord complies with the obligations of the
Superior Lease.
[/quote]
#Post#: 65013--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private residential parking - POFA 2012 claimed but not
compliant
DIR By: b789
Date: March 31, 2025, 11:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So, in other words, as the tenant, there is no obligation on you
to display any permit and the parking company has no legal right
to impose any conditions on your parking, as long as it is in
your demised space.
Remind me... was this in your demised space?
#Post#: 65022--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private residential parking - POFA 2012 claimed but not
compliant
DIR By: FaeLLe
Date: March 31, 2025, 12:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> So, in other words, as the tenant, there is no obligation on
you to display any permit and the parking company has no legal
right to impose any conditions on your parking, as long as it is
in your demised space.
>
> Remind me... was this in your demised space?
>
--- End Quote ---
There is no stipulated or designated parking space (nominated or
assigned) as per the tenancy contract. They are entitled to
apply for a permit but the landlord was not aware of any
formalities.
They did have a permit from the council to park on Cadet Drive
and due to lack of clear signage they did not know where the
(alleged) private parking space started which requires a
separate permit.
#Post#: 65031--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private residential parking - POFA 2012 claimed but not
compliant
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: March 31, 2025, 12:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
...but the driver took the same entry and exit.
But which ones? Your plan marks entrances and exits identically.
#Post#: 65041--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private residential parking - POFA 2012 claimed but not
compliant
DIR By: FaeLLe
Date: March 31, 2025, 1:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> ...but the driver took the same entry and exit.
>
> But which ones? Your plan marks entrances and exits
identically.
>
--- End Quote ---
Sorry, revisiting the post I understand your concern and query
now.
It is not a one way system. So literally entered and exited from
the same place. To help illustrate I have provided the two links
below.
So i would say they entered from here:
HTML https://w3w.co/leads.define.lost
Exited from here:
HTML https://w3w.co/wounds.shower.boom
#Post#: 65078--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private residential parking - POFA 2012 claimed but not
compliant
DIR By: FaeLLe
Date: March 31, 2025, 4:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
One final query from me. Could the appeal for this PCN simply be
that the alleged site of contravention is not considered
'Relevant Land' because parking conditions are regulated by the
Local Authority under a Traffic Management Order (TMO) and is
classified as 'Controlled Parking Zone' for which the RK had a
valid permit?
HTML https://i.imgur.com/x1QB167.jpeg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/UytYoix.jpeg
#Post#: 65096--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private residential parking - POFA 2012 claimed but not
compliant
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: March 31, 2025, 6:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Were they parked on the public highway or private land? If
private land, there's unlikely to be any mileage in that
argument - TMOs do not regulate parking on private parking
spaces that are not on the public highway.
#Post#: 65100--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private residential parking - POFA 2012 claimed but not
compliant
DIR By: FaeLLe
Date: March 31, 2025, 7:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The council TMO map shows it is a permit parking area (green
shaded area.ahove is permitnparking TS zone as per Southwark
Council).
I can search for a Section 6C agreement to see if the council
has taken over management of this area as well.
Is there any argument of TMO map showing it is
controlled.parkingas per council which gives them the right to
park their with a valid council permit?
#Post#: 65106--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private residential parking - POFA 2012 claimed but not
compliant
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: April 1, 2025, 1:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You're asking exactly the same question as your previous post.
My answer is the same.
If the private parking company's signage was so poor that the
driver was unaware they had left the public highway and so
thought they were still subject to CPZ rules and therefore
allowed to use their council permit, that's an argument you can
run (basically a standard 'rubbish signage' argument), but if it
is private land, you'd struggle to run the argument that it
actually does forms part of the CPZ.
#Post#: 65254--------------------------------------------------
Re: Private residential parking - POFA 2012 claimed but not
compliant
DIR By: FaeLLe
Date: April 1, 2025, 1:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=26]b789[/member] PPM Ltd responded with the below
letter. Should we,
(1) correspond directly with BW LEGAL using the email template
you previously provided (requoted below)
(2) Should we also write back to PPM Ltd and state that they
have not addressed any of the points in our previous email to
them and still expect a response; reiterating that they have
broken their terms of agreement with PCM to issue a PCN and are
additionally going to file a legal complaint to trading
standards u else they cease and desist PCN enforcement?
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> Respond to BW Legal LoC with the following:
>
> [quote]Dear Sirs,
>
> Re: Letter of Claim dated 24th March 2025
>
> I refer to your Letter of Claim.
>
> I confirm that my address for service at this time is as
follows, and I request that any outdated address be erased from
your records to ensure compliance with data protection
obligations:
>
> [YOUR ADDRESS]
>
> Please note that the alleged debt is disputed, and any court
proceedings will be robustly defended.
>
> I note that the sum claimed has been increased by an excessive
and unjustifiable amount, which appears contrary to the
principles established by the Government, who described such
practices as “extorting money from motorists.” Please refrain
from sending boilerplate responses or justifications regarding
this issue.
>
> Under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, I require
specific answers to the following questions:
>
> [indent]1. Does the additional £120 represent what you
describe as a “Debt Recovery” fee? If so, is this figure net of
or inclusive of VAT? If inclusive, I trust you will explain why
I, as the alleged debtor, am being asked to cover your client’s
VAT liability.
>
> 2. Regarding the principal sum of the alleged Parking Charge
Notices (PCNs): Is this being claimed as damages for breach of
contract, or will it be pleaded as consideration for a purported
parking contract?[/indent]
>
> I would caution you against simply dismissing these questions
with vague or boilerplate responses, as I am fully aware of the
implications. By claiming that PCNs are exempt from VAT while
simultaneously inflating the debt recovery element, your client
– with your assistance – appears to be evading VAT obligations
due to HMRC. Such mendacious conduct raises serious questions
about the legality and ethics of your practices.
>
> I strongly advise your client to cease and desist. Should this
matter proceed to court, you can be assured that these issues
will be brought to the court’s attention, alongside a robust
defence and potentially a counterclaim for unreasonable conduct.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> 
[YOUR NAME]
--- End Quote ---
[/quote]
Email from PPM Ltd along with the previous appeal tejection
attached to the email is below.
HTML https://i.imgur.com/UVBsaHl.jpeg
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page