6 PCNs - No permit

[newpcnappeal]

Hello, I have am posting a follow up here over from FTLA.uk website regarding my post there: https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tick...ames-gate/

Update as of now:

1. As expected, all appeals to UKCPS and the IAS have been dismissed. 

The IAS give the following response:

I am satisfied that the Appellant was parked in an area where the Operator has authority to issue Parking Charge Notices and to take the necessary steps to enforce them.

I have previously determined the Appellant's appeal against PCN no. z509896, z462713, z483355, z483360 and z518315. Whilst each appeal is determined on its own merits, the Appellant appeals this PCN on the same basis as the aforementioned PCNs. Therefore my considerations are largely the same.

Images have been provided to me by the Operator which shows the signage displayed on this site. After viewing those images I am satisfied that the signage is sufficient to have brought to the attention of the Appellant the terms and conditions that apply to parking on this site.

The terms and conditions of parking at this location are such that drivers must display a valid permit in their vehicle which entitles them to park there. In the photographs provided to me it is clear that no such permit was displayed and this is not disputed by the Appellant. It is the driver's responsibility to ensure that they display a valid permit and otherwise conform with the terms and conditions of the Operator's signage displayed at this site. Mitigating/extenuating circumstances cannot be taken into account. The Appellant's distinction between permit holders and non-permit holders is not correct. The terms and conditions apply to all drivers. The difference between them is that permit holders are able to comply with the terms (provided they correctly display their permit), whereas non-permit holders cannot. This is the exact desired effect of the terms and conditions; permit holders are permitted to park and non-permit holders are not. The Appellant claims to have rights under his tenancy agreement which he purports is for the address he sets out in his response. However, the document provided appears to be either a redacted or template tenancy agreement. It does not contain any key information such as the property address, parties names or dates and is unsigned. Therefore, I have no evidence that this document has any relevance or connection to the Appellant or to this site. It is certainly not evidence of an unrestricted right to park and no other evidence demonstrating this is provided. It is often the case that a right to park on a site is subject to the rules and regulations put in place by the landowner, such as a parking enforcement scheme. If the Appellant has a connection to a property on this site, whether by way of a tenancy agreement or otherwise, the Appellant may wish to check the position to avoid any future PCNs being issued to him. The Appellant raises as an issue the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and purports that the Operator has failed to comply with the requirements therein. I am not satisfied that the Appellant has established a breach of PoFA. Whilst the NTK sets out the time of issue, as is appropriate, the period is the time over which the vehicle is observed as shown in the images (which the keeper is directed to on the NTK). The period shown in the images provided to me is 20:54 - 21:00. On the basis of the evidence provided I am satisfied that the NTK is compliant and that the Operator is entitled to pursue the Appellant as the registered keeper. The Appellant's contention that the Operator's evidence relies on a single moment in time and is therefore insufficient is also not accepted for this reason. Whilst I cannot comment on the Appellant's argument that the Operator has not engaged with him on substantive legal issues, this is not a basis upon which I could allow the appeal in any event. The pertinent point in this appeal is that I am satisfied that the Operator has established their prima facie case that the Appellant failed to display a valid permit. In all Appeals the burden of proof is the civil one whereby the party asserting a fact or submission has to establish that matter on the balance of probabilities. The Operator has established that the Parking Charge Notice was properly and legally issued and therefore the burden shifts to the Appellant to establish that the notice was improperly or unlawfully issued and if the Appellant proves those matters on the balance of probabilities then it is likely that the Appeal will be allowed. However the Appeal will be dismissed if the Appellant fails to establish those matters on the balance of probabilities. The responsibility is at all times on the parties to provide the Adjudicator with the evidential basis upon which to make a decision. For the reasons I have set out above, the Appellant has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that the notice was improperly or unlawfully issued. As such, on the basis of the evidence provided I am satisfied that the Appellant was parked in breach of the displayed terms and conditions and that the PCN was correctly issued on this occasion.

I have considered all the issues raised by both parties in this Appeal and I am satisfied that the Operator has established that the Parking Charge Notice was properly issued in accordance with the law and therefore this Appeal is dismissed.

2. In parallel I have submitted formal complaints to the estate management company in an attempt for them to order UKCPS to cancel all charges but they have refused, which now allows me to escalate to the property ombudsman 

They gave the following response to my 2nd formal complaint:

Thank you for your patience while we reviewed your concerns. We understand that parking disputes can be frustrating; however, after a full internal review, our position remains as follows:

Contractual Basis and Information Sharing:

We recognise your frustration regarding the lack of direct documentation provided by Trinity Estates. As the managing agent, our relationship is with the Freeholder/Leaseholder. Any specific clauses, restrictions, or regulations pertaining to your individual tenancy are the responsibility of your landlord or letting agent to provide. We cannot advise on or provide contracts to which we are not a party.

Residential Use and "Quiet Enjoyment":

While we understand the impact this has had on your residence, any claims regarding the "quiet enjoyment" of your property must be directed to your landlord. Your tenancy agreement is held with them, and they are the appropriate party to address concerns regarding the terms of your residency.

Regarding the enforcement action: the parking operators act in accordance with the established site policy. Without a valid permit, the area cannot be used for loading, unloading, or parking for any duration. As the ticket was issued according to these set terms, any dispute regarding the validity of the fine must be handled through the formal parking company appeals process.

Trinity’s Role as Managing Agent:

Trinity’s responsibility is to oversee the management of on-site services, which includes subcontracting the parking enforcement to maintain order for all residents. By entering and using the managed parking areas, all residents and visitors are bound by the terms clearly displayed on the site signage.

Final Outcome:

Trinity Estates will not be engaging with the parking company on your behalf. Our instruction to the enforcement team is to uphold the terms of the site; by using the car park, you effectively agree to the conditions advertised on the signage.

This represents our final response on this matter, and we will not be providing further comment or correspondence regarding this specific dispute.


If you remain dissatisfied or feel your complaint has not been fully addressed, you may seek an independent review through The Property Ombudsman.

- Also I have moved address 2 weeks ago , I have updated my V5C logbook and drivers licence. Should I inform UKCPS? 

I would appreciate any advice as to how I should now proceed. I have no intention to pay UKCPS. 

Thanks

[b789]

Welcome to the forum @newpcnappeal. Before I respond to the issues in your case, I need to first review the thread over on FTLA. However, regarding your question about whether you need to inform them of your address change, the answer is that you definitely need to do so.

You must send a Data Rectification Notice (DRN) to UKCPS's Data Protection Officer (DPO), instructing them to update their details with your current address for service and to erase any other address they may hold for you. The highlighted words are there for a reason and you must use them.

A short written DRN requiring all agents and solicitors acting for them to be notified, and requiring written confirmation. State expressly that the address is to be used for all correspondence and any letter before claim or claim form. Do not embellish it with argument and do not identify the driver.

You can find the email address for the DPO in their privacy statement on their website.

[b789]

On the IAS decision, nothing in that wording changes the underlying weaknesses in the case. It is simply an adverse ADR outcome from a scheme that has accepted UKCPS’s characterisation of the signage, the tenancy evidence and the PoFA point. It is not a court judgment and it does not create any legal obligation to pay. The practical significance is only that the internal/ADR stage is over and the matter now moves into complaint and pre-litigation territory if UKCPS decide to press on.

The assessor’s reasoning is poor in several obvious respects. Treating “permit holders only” signage as if it creates a contractual offer to those who are not permitted is the familiar analytical sleight of hand in these cases. The same applies to the tenancy point: the fact that the AST is silent on parking and that the managing agent admits it cannot point to any tenancy clause binding the tenant to undisclosed parking rules does not assist UKCPS.

Trinity’s reply is also useful in its own way, because it effectively says they cannot identify any tenancy term they can rely on and are pushing the issue back onto signage and a site policy. That is not the same thing as proving a contractual variation binding a resident.

The Trinity complaint route is worth continuing. Trinity Estates appears on The Property Ombudsman business search, and TPO’s current process confirms that a final response letter, or a statement that the business will not correspond further, is normally enough to let you escalate.

So, keep Trinity moving by escalating to TPO within the permitted timeframe, focusing on failure to provide or identify any contractual basis binding  you, the tenant, to the parking regime, failure to engage with the complaint substance, and reliance on signage to override residential rights without proving authority. 

Retain the IAS decision, the operator evidence, the AST, the property manager correspondence and proof of the broken/open gate as a litigation bundle seed. 

You will now start to receive useless debt recovery letters which can be safely ignored. Debt collectors are powerless to do anything except to try and intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying out of ignorance and fear. They are not a party to any contract allegedly breached by the driver and are therefore powerless to do anything. Just ignore them.

Let me know when you have received a response confirming your DRN. There will not be anything more on this until they send you a Letter of Claim (LoC). If/when you receive the LoC, we can deal with that at the time.

Below is a suitable TPO complaint text you can use.

I wish to escalate a formal complaint against Trinity Estates to The Property Ombudsman.

This complaint concerns Trinity Estates’ handling of a residential parking dispute at The Bar, St James Gate (Basement), and their final response refusing to engage further.

I am a residential occupier connected with the development. Multiple parking charges were issued by UKCPS in the basement area. I complained to Trinity Estates because they are the managing agent responsible for the site and for the appointment and oversight of the parking enforcement contractor.

My complaint is not simply that I disagree with the parking charges. My complaint is that Trinity Estates have failed to properly address the substance of the issues raised, have failed to provide or identify any contractual basis upon which I am said to be bound by the parking regime, and have attempted to deflect all responsibility while continuing to assert that residents are bound by signage and “site policy”.

In their final response, Trinity Estates stated that their relationship is with the freeholder/leaseholder, that they cannot advise on or provide contracts to which they are not a party, that any issue regarding quiet enjoyment must be taken up with my landlord, and that by entering and using the managed parking areas all residents and visitors are bound by the terms displayed on site signage. They also stated that they would not engage with the parking company on my behalf and that this was their final response.

My complaint is that this response is inadequate and unreasonable for the following reasons.

First, Trinity Estates have failed to identify any actual term of my tenancy or any other binding contractual provision that makes my occupation or use of the residential site subject to UKCPS’s parking scheme. My AST is silent on parking, permits, third-party parking enforcement, or any obligation to accept contractual terms later imposed by signage. Trinity Estates have not identified any building regulation, estate regulation, lease covenant, variation, or other instrument that was properly notified and incorporated into my occupation.

Second, Trinity Estates have taken the position that signage alone is enough to bind residents and visitors using the site. That is not a proper answer to a residential complaint where the issue raised was whether a managing agent can subject occupiers to a third-party parking regime without showing any underlying authority or contractual basis for doing so. Simply repeating that “by using the car park you agree to the signage” does not answer the actual complaint.

Third, Trinity Estates have effectively refused to engage with the central issue. They say they cannot provide contracts to which they are not a party, but at the same time they assert that the site policy is enforceable and should be upheld. If they are unwilling or unable to identify the legal or contractual basis for imposing that regime on occupiers, they should not simply dismiss the complaint and tell me to pursue the parking company.

Fourth, Trinity Estates have failed to take responsibility for the actions of the contractor they appointed or oversee. Their response treats the matter as though it is solely between me and UKCPS, despite the fact that UKCPS is enforcing a regime said to exist for the benefit of the site under Trinity’s management. A managing agent cannot avoid scrutiny merely by outsourcing enforcement and then refusing to intervene or investigate.

Fifth, the response ignores relevant factual concerns raised in the complaint, including that the basement area was not operated in a manner consistent with a genuinely controlled permit-only scheme, including issues surrounding the gate being broken or left open, and that the permit scheme and alleged restrictions were not shown to have been properly conveyed to me through any tenancy or occupancy documentation.

Sixth, Trinity Estates’ response is unfair because it places the burden entirely on the occupier to obtain documents and clarity from other parties while Trinity itself maintains and enforces the site policy through its contractor. If Trinity wishes to rely on estate rules and signage against residents, it is reasonable to expect Trinity to identify the source and status of those rules and to explain how and when they were made binding.

I am asking The Property Ombudsman to consider whether Trinity Estates have acted reasonably and in accordance with proper standards of residential estate management in:

1. refusing to identify the legal or contractual basis for imposing the parking regime on residents or occupiers;
   

1. refusing to properly investigate the complaint substance;
   
2. relying on signage and “site policy” as a substitute for proper contractual analysis;
   
3. refusing to engage with the contractor despite the contractor acting under the estate management arrangement;
   
4. issuing a final response that deflects responsibility rather than addressing the merits.
   

I would like Trinity Estates to be required to:

1. provide a proper substantive response identifying the contractual or legal basis, if any, upon which residents or occupiers are said to be bound by the UKCPS regime;
   
2. confirm what authority was given to UKCPS and on what basis that authority was said to apply to occupiers in my position;
   
3. review whether the parking regime has been unfairly or improperly applied in this residential context;
   
4. reconsider their refusal to engage with UKCPS regarding cancellation of the charges;
   
5. provide appropriate redress for the poor complaint handling and distress/inconvenience caused.
   

I attach or can provide the relevant correspondence, including Trinity Estates’ final response, the AST, the parking correspondence, and other supporting material.

[newpcnappeal]

Thank you for the continued assistance b789, happy to see you have this website. 

I have emailed the data protection officer of UKCPS as recommended. 

Thank you for looking over the case up to now, for now I will submit my escalation regarding Trinty Estates to the property ombudsman with the text you have provided. 

Will update here as required

[newpcnappeal]

Update: 

The DRN has been confirmed by ukcps. They also stated that Trace Debt Recovery have been notified and requested that they update their records to reflect the amended address for service

[b789]

Good to know. They have no excuses should they use an old address from now on.