This thread on MSE tells the full story.
UKCPM issued a resident a ticket for parking in his own parking space. The motorist appealed on the basis that they were parked in their own space and UKCPM had not yet issued a permit.
UKCPM refused to cancel the charge, as did the joke appeals company the "Independent" Appeals Service, overseen by Bryn Holloway. As his minions appear to have little or no knowledge of parking law, with their precepts regularly overturned by proper judges, the credibility of Mr Holloway is called into question by The Prankster.
The residents lease gave the right to park and did not require a permit to be displayed.
The resident therefore instructed UKCPM, the management company and the developer to cancel the charge. No reply was received apart from a letter from Debt recovery Plus increasing the charge.
After chasing up, several letters then followed with the developer trying to abdicate responsibility.
With forum help, the resident therefore sent a letter before claim, to the landowner, management company and UKCPM.
A few days later, the landowner cancelled the charge.
The letters before claim are excellent examples to use for other residents in the same situation. The Prankster highly recommends them.
Residential parking companies are there to protect the residents from outside motorists, and not for them to fleece residents parking in their own spaces.
Will Hurley and John Davies provide a joke appeals service which does not uphold lawful appeals. This is of course attractive to the sleazy side of the industry as it allows them to get a good appeals record and pretend their charges are valid.
However, it is damaging long term to the whole parking sector. As this case shows, even though the IAS did not cancel the charge, it was cancelled when the resident asserted their legal rights and threatened to go to court to uphold them.
In this case the appeal was on the grounds that the resident had not received notification of any permit system, had not received a permit and that the signage displayed on 7 November 2016 was entirely inadequate.
In relation to signage, the IAS Barista stated that they had “some sympathy with this ground of appeal”, however then stated that as there was no independent evidence of where the sign was in
relation to the Parking Space they could not find in my favour. In relation to the permit, the adjudicator conceded that I was “unable to prove a negative” (ie that I had not received a permit or notice of the new system), but that, again, the appeal could not be allowed without
In The Prankster's opinion, any appeals system which accepts the parking company evidence unquestioned, but dismisses the motorists evidence out of hand is biased and unfair and falls foul of ADR Entity statutory requirements. Schedule 3, requirement 3(c) has this condition:
The body ensures that no ADR official discharges his or her duties in a way that is biased as regards
a party to a dispute, or the representative of a party;
The Prankster suggests that the ADR Entity approval is removed from the IAS until they comply with the statutory legislation, and that Bryn Holloway is investigated to see if he is competent to oversee such a body and enforce the requirements. The Barista who interrupted their coffee making duties long enough to whip out such an incompetent decision should be the subject or retraining, and if they cannot make the grade, no longer used.
The Parking Prankster