Forum Topic

New build in Brentford and the right to charge parking fines

I was wondering if people could help me with what they agree is right and wrong regarding parking.I have recently moved into the new Barrots buildings next to the A4 M4.I moved in to the new buildings of Barrett’s homes on the 15.11.12 - these flats are beautiful and i was most happy to be relocating her from up north. When moving into the property I received a key fob which allows me access in and out of a car park underneath the building itself, we were designated a car parking space. The following weekend my Father came to visit me to move down all my belongings from home, during the course of the previous week I posted all the information needed to receive a parking permit. Having not received one by the weekend, I believed that parking in my designated parking space with a note on the windscreen stating my name, flat, and contact number that the vehicle would be ok. No. I received a £200 parking fine. I have wrote several letters to the parking agency to explain the situation and how I believe that I have been un-rightly charged. Yet they are still wanting to take me to court. If this was on street fine, then I would agree that this should be paid, however, how could someone without a key fob get into a secured car park?Could people let me know there oppinions on the matter and if anyone has any ways to resolve the situation i would be most obliged.Thank you, Rachel

Rachel Addy ● 4552d29 Comments

Noticed this morning that it is not clearly marked as to whether yuo can or cannot park anywhere.That Sainsbury's won't last long if it cannot have passing trade.

Michael Brandt ● 4502d

I don't agree with any parking set-up within a development where each flat occupier has to display a permit for the space allocated to that flat - fortunately in Holland Gardens we don't have such a regime.However, inconsiderate parking by visitors is a problem, particularly along the access road.  Cars occasionally park there (not within allocated visitor spaces) without any consideration whatsoever to the problems they cause, oblivious to the danger they are putting their own vehicles in by parking on the corner of the ramp to the underground car park etc.  I'll happily admit I'm very active in chasing up our property management company to make sure the parking contractors ticket as many cars who park within Holland Gardens outside the allocated parking areas as possible, I've advised the main times when people park in such locations (usually on Saturday evenings for 2-3 hours) and I'll continue to do so until hopefully people will get the message.So whilst I agree that what goes on at GWQ seems OTT, there are two sides to every story.

Adam Beamish ● 4502d

I saw the parking-guy creeping, literally creeping like a comedy cartoon character, up to a Merc to issue a ticket yesterday. If she has the time your Mum should complain to Sainsburys and Barratt (the land-owners). I would be interested to hear how she gets on with not paying her ticket. It would be great if you could keep us updated to see how she gets on.

Ryan Thomas ● 4502d

Be very wary of using the new Sainsburys.My mother got a ticket last week for parking outside the place.There are plenty of Threatening signs from private contractors but no clear signs as to where stop and shop customers can park.She won't be paying either. She would sooner see them in court. Tough lady my mum!

Raymond Havelock ● 4503d

As someone who does not live in Brentford I offer these comments on the basis of my understanding of current London-wide planning policies.Brentford is regarded as an area with good public transport facilities and is deemed to be an urban rather than suburban area. As such, high density housing is regarded favourably. Car parking requirements are based on discouraging car ownership to limit road congestion and encourage use of public transport.In central Hounslow, where controlled parking has operated without much negative reaction for more than 20 years, residents of new developments with limited parking do not qualify for resident permits. (I accept that there have been some who have slipped through the net. However, these are the expecetions rather than the rule.)If residents in Brentford wish to change parking standards they will need to persuade Mayor Boris to amend his London Plan to increase parking requirements in new developments. Even if this occurs it will not be possible to act retrospectively in the context of any new CPZ schemes. I can understand the desire to have a CPZ in an individual road to escape the problem of over-crowding. However, the logic is that the whole of Brentford becomes a CPZ. Unless GWQ was granted planning consent on the basis that new residents could not gain permits for a CPZ I suspect they would have as much right to use a CPZ as residents of New Road or the Butts.

John Connelly ● 4503d

Parking at GWQ has indeed turned into a bit of a nightmare.There was certainly an issue of people parking where they shouldn't but instead of taking a common sense approach they've hired a group of cowboys to come in and ticket anything in sight.I'm currently fighting (ignoring) two tickets for parking in my own space because my permit had slipped slightly. I thought getting in touch with them and providing details of the permit along with conformation of ownership would be enough but sadly not.I've now taken to using the widely advised 'ignore' approach and I'm up to my forth letter, this time from a debt collection agency....Jamesp.s At least we now have a local Sainsburys :-)

James Weston ● 4503d

The correct result is to ensure that planning permission is denied until the problem is satisfactorily addressed.And that planning policy is change to accommodate storage and parking issues as well as unrealisitic service charges being capped

Raymond Havelock ● 4503d

I'm no fan of property management agents but the issue of parking is more complex than simply about their greed. Typically on new developments there is a lack of parking - often at most one space per property, sold with the property (this is significant, it demonstrates that each space has a tangible value). However, some properties will have people with more than one car. What these people should do is buy another space, or rent a space, or park off site. But they don't - instead they try to use visitor spaces. This is wrong and unfair - it takes away visitor spaces from genuine visitors (thus inconveniencing other residents) and it discourages those who do buy or rent another parking space. So the only solution is to impose parking rules - and to penalise those who try to avoid the cost of owning and parking a second car. Surely that is fair and reasonable (rather than nasty and greedy)?

Alan Clark ● 4503d

Kind of sums up the nice kind of people property management companies are and their developer masters.Greedy and nasty spivs

Michael Brandt ● 4509d

Don't pay it. I live on a similar development. I had a ticket at 1:30am because I was using my partners space..which we pay for. You will get threatening letters and suchlike. Just ignore them. It is against the law.

Paul Lang ● 4510d

This is Brilliant thank you for your help!!

Rachel Addy ● 4511d

On a more positive note - we've got people from a very new development posting on TW8 - both questions and answers. This is good - shows a real desire to link into the local community. I mean at this rate we'll see them in Sammi's or drinking in a local pub. And others have managed not to reply with a note that says "I'd never buy into them new apartments" type comment. Instead lagerly helpful and supportive posts. Its almost as if the longer time residents want the new comers to link into the local Brentford community. Strewth, at this rate we'll all be hugging soon...

Alan Clark ● 4546d

Nice one Ryan,That explains it nicely. I hope Rachel gets in touch and you can help her to ruffle some feathers.Good luck.

Ian Silver ● 4549d

Hi Rachel,This reply will be everything you need to know.  I had the same problem in the same development.  I got £700 of fines rescinded and £250 from Mainstay.  I still do not display a permit.Are you an owner-occupier or do you rent?If you rent this is what you can do:Firstly go to this link:  http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/schedule/4/enactedIt is Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.  Go to paragraph 7 subsection 2.  The notice must—.(a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;The tickets I received only had a time that the ticket was issued and not a period - i.e. a from and to time.  If this is still the case then write to the parking company and tell them that they have not issued their tickets in accordance with the act and that you will appeal to POPLA.  http://www.popla.org.uk/If you are an owner occupier then look at the first item of the schedule 4 - you have paid the parking charges in full, so tell the parking management company to rod-off!Secondly check your lease.  "Covenants on the Part of the Lessor", paragraph 2 states:  The lessee paying Rent and observing and performing the several covenants on his part and conditions herein contained shall peaceably hold and enjoy the Demised Premises and RIGHTS HEREBY GRANTED during the Term WITHOUT ANY LAWFUL INTERRUPTION from or by the Lessor or any person lawfully claiming under or in trust for it".Complain to Barratt and Complain to Mainstay that they are in breach of the lease.  I can advise you further on this if you want.  I ended-up with £250 for my efforts.If you do rent, it is worth getting in touch with the owner because you will likely still be able to enjoy the above protection.Please let me know if this was any help to you because I can help you further if you have trouble.All the best and good luck!Ryan

Ryan Thomas ● 4549d

That's interesting. I understand the council have removed the only tow open spaces for such amenities from the very dense locality to build a couple of houses on.So locally there neither for bikes car clubs or cars.Is there not a difference between car usage and ownership? If it's not being used It's got to be parked.That just seems to be one great contradiction

Raymond Havelock ● 4550d

Err, no, because national policy these days is entirely directed towards reducing reliance on private car, through less on-site parking provision, more on-site cycle storage provision, funding for car clubs and such like.Not necessarily saying that on a personal level I agree with it, but professionally speaking that's the way it is.

Adam Beamish ● 4550d

In other words Anthony, Nip the problem in the bud.I wholeheartedly agree. We were virtually blackmailed where we used to live by the very same scenario. Set the scene for a lot of bad blood between a development and the surrounding streets.It may not be procedure but councils can amend policy to address this surely?

Raymond Havelock ● 4550d

I'm not suggesting the council wade in and control things (although  the do when they want to)I do feel though that these things really ought to be a stipulation when planning permission is sought.The vast majority ot objections to large developments is parking and in almost every case the objectors have turned out to be correct on their concerns.But the concerns are brushed aside when developers claim there will be adequate parking on site and present nice diagrams and so on.What they don't have to do is reveal that the 2 spaces per dwelling will be an extra and chargeable at any rate the freeholding company chooses.Consequently, a problem with parking that should not really exist does exist, vindicating the objectors who were appeased.It should be simple. Fully inclusive parking as part of each dwelling at no extra cost and spaces property of the leaseholder  or no planning permission.That would get a fair deal for the leaseholder and remove a headache for the surrounding streets who end up paying extra on their council tax for some corporates financial gain.

Anthony Waller ● 4550d

As I said earlier things are clearly very different at GWQ than in Holland Gardens - there is a parking firm who covers the development, signage etc. but there is no 'permit system' and they only usually visit the development if requested to do so by either a resident or the concierge when a vehicle parks somewhere it isn't supposed to.I am actually all for the tightening of control at Holland Gardens as, especially at weekends, idiots park (and often leave their vehicles for hours) on double yellows on the access road which makes the access road only wide enough for one car and thus causes danger to vehicles both turning into the development and exiting the development.  Very different to the circumstances described by the original poster though.As for Anthony's comments about Councils tightening up on these things, presumably through the planning control, I have to completely disagree.  Fine to require details of the parking layout and to ensure the permanent retention of those spaces, but we can't expect Councils to control/enforce the precise day to day operation of a residents car park on private land.  Otherwise it would take  years to get any planning application approved, Councils would be completely over-run trying to deal with such matters and everything would grind to a halt.  Hence why the Coalition is trying to simplify the system, not make it even more unnecessarily complicated.

Adam Beamish ● 4551d

"Nice little earner for the management company responsible for the development..." I doubt it Adam..... Normal arrangement is that residents/agent want the parking policed so do a deal with a parking firm, who supply and fix warning signs, at no cost to residents and visit periodically trying to earn their cost back by 'fining and clamping' vehicles not displaying a permit. The parking space may be owned by the leaseholder, or the leaseholder may have purchased a right to park. The parking firm have no idea as to ownership or vehicles. Hence the need for a permit. As for their right to recover the 'fine' the advice used to be to ignore them. I understand the law recently changed but I am sure the advice site listed above will cover this.....

Iain Muir ● 4551d

Unfortunately, this is why so few residents in the Barratzone park there.1. It costs2. Draconian enforcement3. It's cheaper to get a ticket parked in a CPZ outside5. Why so many vehicles are in the surrounding streets.Councils need to be a lot tougher with the likes of Barratts

Anthony Waller ● 4551d

My advice would be do not pay.It is issued by a private company and they can only enforce by the small claims process.Considering what you did was perfectly reasonable the court, I am sure, would agree.The court certainly wouldn't allow them £200 as their ticket will only be viewed as an invoice by the court for the time parked. These are different from PCNs issued by police and local authorities.

Ian Silver ● 4551d

Ah, thanks Michael, that clarifies things.  Never come across that before, sounds absolutely absurd to me and certainly isn't the way things operate in Holland Gardens (which is a Barratts development built in 2002-3).Nice little earner for the management company responsible for the development...

Adam Beamish ● 4551d

The owners do not permit any other vehicle to park on their property other than the designated and permit holding vehicle for which a fee has to be paid.Visitors to the site have to park in surrounding streets.That is why there is so much consternation over the Barratts and other developments.

Michael Brandt ● 4551d

No I understand that, but just say Rachel hadn't left a note on the car - how would whoever ticketed it know for certain that her father's car wasn't linked with her property ?.I have an allocated space here but no-one keeps any records of precisely what car I drive, the registration number etc.  I got a new company car last year so overnight the car parked in my space changed, our ticketing/clamping firm here would never know whether a car parked in my space was anything to do with me unless I contacted them to say someone else had parked in my space without my consent and I wanted it sorting out.My point is, an allocated parking space is precisely that - allocated to a particular flat.  What car is parked in that space is irrelevant, as long as it is parked there with the consent of the flat owner, which in Rachel's car it clearly was.  Some people here who don't own cars rent their allocated spaces out to other flat occupiers for an additional space etc.But I have no direct knowledge of the exact set-up at GWQ so perhaps it is far more 'controlling' than any other allocated parking system I have ever come across.

Adam Beamish ● 4551d

Alan I think you'll find Rachel was saying that her father parked his car in her designated space and she put a note on his car to advise them of the same...As for the permit I assume you can ask for an additional permit if you have visitors?? Maybe wrong though??Anyhow the charges are totally unreasonable hopefully Rachel you took pictures of the car in situe to prove your father was parked in your bay? Fight it all the way!!

Kathy Riley ● 4551d

Doesn't add up to me.  I live in a development with a similar arrangement - underground designated parking accessed by key fob etc.I don't get why a particular car would be ticketed when it was parked in the space allocated to the flat and the driver/occupants was/were visiting that flat.  Obviously if someone else totally unrelated to the flat parked in the space allocated to that flat then I can see why a ticket would be issued and I am the first to 'kick off' if someone parks in my allocated parking space here.I don't quite get your reference to applying for a parking permit ?.  Forgive me for asking, but are you absolutely sure you parked in the correct bay ?!.As for how would someone else gain entry, to be fair that is quite easy, electronic gates always takes a short time to close, which does allow someone without a fob to sneak in behind a vehicle who has activated the gates if they are quick enough.

Adam Beamish ● 4551d

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/private-parking-tickets

Andrew Tierney ● 4552d

Sorry for my miss-spelling of Barratt's

Rachel Addy ● 4552d