-
Hi All
I received a PCS pcn claiming that I was parked in a bay behind my building without displaying a valid permit, guess what there is no permit where I live, they claim that they are acting on behalf of secure A space and issued me the pcn 10 days ago on the 07/07 and I only have 14 days since the date of issue to appeal. and there is no evidence of the PCN no picture no video nothing at all, they claim that their warden observed the contrention and that is it, I/ have to take their word for it lol
anyone know about these cowboys? shall I appeal on their website?
Thanks
[ Guests cannot view attachments ] -
-
Firstly, you say that it was claimed you were parked “in a bay behind my building”. So I guess you own or rent property, and will have some kind of lease or tenancy agreement describing the property and its parking spaces. What does it say - or not say - about parking spaces and is the space you were alleged to have parked in covered by this?
Secondly, do not identify the driver. See https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/
Thirdly, following on from the second point, if the parking space is not covered by a lease or similar, the PCN from PCS does not comply with the legislation ( ) to hold the registered keeper liable. In particular, no “period of parking” is specified, and the vague statement about this is not good enough. -
-
As above, what does your lease say about parking. What it does not say is equally important.
However, this is an easy one to deal with… as long as the unknown drivers identity is not revealed. There is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.
The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.
Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:QuoteI am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.
As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, paragraph 9(2)(a) in particular, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. PCS has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. PCS have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
Comeback when the appeal is rejected. -
-
Firstly, you say that it was claimed you were parked “in a bay behind my building”. So I guess you own or rent property, and will have some kind of lease or tenancy agreement describing the property and its parking spaces. What does it say - or not say - about parking spaces and is the space you were alleged to have parked in covered by this?
Secondly, do not identify the driver. See https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/
Thirdly, following on from the second point, if the parking space is not covered by a lease or similar, the PCN from PCS does not comply with the legislation (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4) to hold the registered keeper liable. In particular, no “period of parking” is specified, and the vague statement about this is not good enough.
We have 4 bays behind our building, first come first served with only restriction not park outside bays, there is no permit required. secure a space have put up their signs out but they never come because is not worth it for them (the chance of them giving tickets out very minimal). the lease says we are all allowed to use the parking spaces as long as we park within marked bays.
I added pictures of signage and the 2 bays where I was parked in one of them.
[ Guests cannot view attachments ] -
-
As above, what does your lease say about parking. What it does not say is equally important.
As I said in previous post, the bays are to be used by any resident first come first served, I asked one of the director who said secure a space contract had expired and they haven't renewed, he also denied any knowledge of PCS or any parking permit existence.
However, this is an easy one to deal with… as long as the unknown drivers identity is not revealed. There is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.
The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.
Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:QuoteI am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.
As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, paragraph 9(2)(a) in particular, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. PCS has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.
The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. PCS have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
Comeback when the appeal is rejected.
-
-
Just trying appealing on their website, impossible to do it, everytime I upload a picture it gives me error message and without uploading appeal doesn't go through. I gues they do not want appeals, they want scamming people
-
-
Quote
the lease says we are all allowed to use the parking spaces as long as we park within marked bays.
Can you please share with us the exact wording of this clause within your lease? It will potentially be a very useful argument in your favour. -
-
Quote
the lease says we are all allowed to use the parking spaces as long as we park within marked bays.
Can you please share with us the exact wording of this clause within your lease? It will potentially be a very useful argument in your favour.
attached parking clause of the tenancy agreement
[ Guests cannot view attachments ] -
-
PCS say they acting on behalf of the Creditor, Secure a Space. When the initial appeal is rejected, you can appeal to POPLA and put them to strict proof that they have a valid contract flowing from the landowner that permits them to issue PCNs at the location. I the 'director' says they are no longer contracted, also try and get that in writing from them.
Either way, there is nothing in the lease that appears to mention any requirement to display a permit or that any third party can apply terms and conditions that supersede your lease agreement terms. -
-
From the lease you've shown us, "Premises" is capitalised, suggesting it's a defined term. Is the meaning of "Premises" listed anywhere in the lease, as this might strengthen your argument further by showing that the parking space forms part of your lease?
-
-
From the lease you've shown us, "Premises" is capitalised, suggesting it's a defined term. Is the meaning of "Premises" listed anywhere in the lease, as this might strengthen your argument further by showing that the parking space forms part of your lease?
yes it is listed and it meant to be the flat we live in like the followings:
------------------------------------------------------
The Main Terms of the Tenancy
1- Term of Tenancy.
The Landlord lets to the Tenant the Premises for a period of Twelve Months with a Six Months Break Clause as per Schedule A in the agreement.
4- Fixtures and Fittings
The Tenancy shall include the Fixtures and Fittings in the Premises including all matters specified in the Inventory and Schedule of Condition.
10.3- To keep the Premises and Fixtures and Fittings in a reasonably clean and tidy condition.
10.4- To clean to a good standard or pay for the professional cleaning of the Premises at the end of the
Tenancy, to the same standard to which the Premises and Fixtures and Fittings were cleaned prior to the start of the Tenancy, as stated in the Inventory and Schedule of Condition.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Concerning secure A space was brought in after people starting abusing the parking and blocking other tenant's garages and the only restriction was to park in specified bay as per the signage in my other post and there is no permit required for parking.
I managed to send in an appeal on their online platform and got little confirmation message attached.
[ Guests cannot view attachments ] -
-
Guess what guys, they just sent me another one, are these people mad or what?
I am thinking of reporting them to the police as scammers, they are trying to scam me and probably other residents of the building by trying it on.
I have checked them on the BPA website but they are not there, I found a debt collector under the name of "Debt Recovery Plus Ltd also t/as Parking Collection Services & Zenith Collections" they are not allowed to do tickets or to do ANPRs or nothing.
Any advice?
[ Guests cannot view attachments ] -
-
Who are “they” and what did they send you?
Anything from Debt Recovery Plus should be ignored. Debt collectors are irrelevant and you should never contact them. -
-
Who are “they” and what did they send you?
Anything from Debt Recovery Plus should be ignored. Debt collectors are irrelevant and you should never contact them.
PCS the idiots who sent me a Parking charging notice (as per first post), it looks like they found our building which has secure a space sign and thought we go and scam people here, they claim I wasn't displaying a permit, there is no permit to display we are not a permit holder parking place.
and by the looks of they will send one every week -
-
You don't have to do anything unless you receive a Letter of Claim (LoC). I don't think that reporting them to the police will result in anything. Just make sure that you keep any other residents in the same situation informed as to how to dal with this.
-