Thanks dx I'll proceed on that basis. Will keep ya updated.

Thanks guys. So, an update on this.

One of the Directors called me earlier in the month. Not sure if they were pleading ignorance, but they genuinely seemed shocked at what I was saying about OPS. They said that once I was made Director, they wanted to discuss a way forward with me on this issue. I presume that meant putting in a solution that would mean that residents stop getting ticketed. Good result there, if so.

Interestingly, a few days after, one of OPS's goons arrived at our site. One of my neighbours rang my doorbell, warning me that OPS were taking pictures of my car (which I left outside without a permit), and then were hiding behind one of our flats.

I went over to confront said goon and gave them a piece of my mind; telling them that they were scammers and were trespassing, therefore should leave ASAP, or I'll take it further.

Came back an hour later and was pleasantly surprised to see that they didn't ticket me, despite me not having a permit up.

Not sure what this means, but maybe the Director and MA got spooked by emails and finally whitelisted me? I haven't heard a peep about my PCNs either, though no formal email to say they've been cancelled. Either way, very interesting results, which may indicate that my message is getting into their heads.

I'll keep you guys updated as I hear more...

Form all ready. Will aim to send tomorrow. Can I double-check that I do not send anything else?

I was thinking whether it would be worth adding a letter asking them to send details of their phantom payment i.e. what bank account it came from etc?

Cheers mate, I'll get cracking.

Thanks dx thinking if I should  go for the overdraft one , 3rd option as it's originally an overdraft???

LBC is here. Complete with a note showing a phantom payment. What to do next?

Cheers dx. I'll keep ya updated.

Update on this… letter received from Cabot's lawyers saying they'll send an LBC in a week.

Kind of bizarre that they're giving me a warning, but I'll let you know if I do get the LBC.

Am I right that my WS is going to be along the lines of: debt is SB'd, they are wasting court's time and making up fraudulent payments?

Thanks Dave, understood on the sign point. And yes, I'll make them carry the risk, as you say.

Also, I've mentioned the signs to the MA. He sounds like he's freaked out by his email reply. Note: I haven't said I'll go to the council, but I'm keeping that one in my back pocket for when I need it.

Lastly... the damn MA has finally set out a date for an AGM and one of the resolutions... is my directorship! I'll keep you updated on this.

Thanks guys, will continue reading up and arming myself.

Also have had a gander at my lease. The quiet enjoyment clause is indeed there.

Also to add, have checked the council site and they have no planning permission for the signs.

As this goes against their ATA, I presume their request for my keeper details from DVLA was unlawful?

Judging from dbuk's case, I probably don't want to add this to my WS. But, I am keen to sue them on this point.

However, would it be better to wait until a PCN case concludes or?

Thanks that's appreciated and clear. I understand where you're coming from now.

I'm set on going to court, once I get the LBC. Reading up on the case law, it seems like I've got a good chance to win.

So, I will really need to get my argument firmed up on the supremacy of contract point.

I've been reading this guide on the Parking Prankster's site:

It seems like I need to follow the arguments made in Pace v Mr N and Link Parking v Ms P.

Thoughts?

Thanks i sent across the agreement earlier in this thread.

No mention of financial reward to the MA.

But, I wouldn't be surprised if it was done on the sly. As I said earlier, the owner of OPS is a convicted criminal, with a very shady reputation around these parts.

Thanks that's an extremely helpful post.

There is no mention of a permit scheme in the lease and likewise, no variation was made to bring this system in.

I recall seeing something like a quiet enjoyment clause, but will need to re-read it and confirm.

VERY interesting point on the 1987 Act. There hasn't been an AGM in years and I've tried to get one to start to no avail. However, I'll aim to find out more about how the PPC was brought in and revert.

Can I test with you and others on the logic of not parking for a few months?

I'm ready to fight OPS, so if they go nuclear on me then surely it doesn't matter? I assume that I will keep getting PCNs as long as I live here, so it doesn't make sense for me to change the way that I park? 

Unless... You are suggesting that having 5 or so outstanding PCNs, will negatively affect any court case e.g. through bad optics? Or are we trying to force their hand to go to court with only 2 outstanding PCNs?

Thanks - completely agreed.

Is it common that MAs also profit from PCNs?

I've decided that I am going to fight this. It's clearly unjust, and I need to try my best to get these scammers out of my residence, even if I risk losing at court.

Thanks Dave, that all sounds clear to me.

In terms of avoiding PCNs, I'm not sure if I can. I need to be able to park in that spot, especially as I've got kids to lug forth and back for the school run.

Likewise it's not always possible to use the MA's permit system either, as I've not always got them to hand.

So, if I'm actively avoiding PCNs, then it could mean I've given in to their idiotic rules. But, I do get what you're saying, as I imagine the risks go up if they claim there are multiple PCNs to be paid at court.

Not sure what to do with this one.

An update: I just got another PCN. I get the feeling that someone in the residence is calling OPS, as it's dated for a few mins after I parked. I won't appeal of course.

Interestingly, our cleaner was also parked but didn't get a PCN. I asked them why and apparently they're whitelisted. I did ask the MA if they could whitelist me and they said they couldn't. Clearly they decided not to tell the truth.

Surely, this would resolve all of the issues entirely i.e. we'd keep non-residents from parking, whilst allowing for residents to park without issue?

Also, could OPS now take me to court for both PCNs separately, or could it be one case?

Thanks lolerz. This will be an interesting one for sure. Let's see what happens, I'm keen to fight these scammers...

Thanks both, so I just read the thread. It looks promising but the OP in that case had one key trump card, primacy of lease. Not sure if that will properly apply in my case.

What do you think?

I see... so, I'll still need to find a way to get rid of OPS.

One more question, would beating them at court ensure future PCNs are invalid/unlawful??

Thanks guys, that's reassuring.

Let's say hypothetically, I went to court and I beat them. What would be the potential consequences of that for them? Would they be forced to leave the residence?

Good on them for following the rules. They still haven't proven that I'm the driver though right?

I also checked the council's website and there's no planning permission for the signs.

No luck with the organ grinder. I think I'll need to take this to court and win to prove my point to the other freeholders.

I've attached it to the post. What do you think?

What's the organ grinder?

NTK.pdf

Probably the case

Also an update, I've got the registered keeper letter. Just to check that I continue to ignore it until PAP letter comes in?

You'd think so...

Separately, I heard the owner of OPS (Gavin Price) is a convicted criminal lol. So, who knows what's going on...

Yes, that would also make sense. But they don't own the site, so their T&Cs are surely irrelevant?