Residental LBA Options

[Hexx]

Hi to all,
Im helping a friend with a residential parking ticket. He parked in his personal space in a using a courtesy car (that had courtesy car written all over it) and put a clear note in the
window saying that his permit was in the garage, any issues call this number etc). Company is Armtrac which I've had a lot of history with over 5 years including a number of lay
rep court appearances. The driver gave his details to Armtrac when challenging the ticket.

He has a free hold 75 year lease and having looked through his contract he has primacy of contract over the parking space and there's no mention of following a third party's
parking regime. I'm drafting a SAR in response to a LBA asking for all documents including the contract where the driver authorised Armtrac to enter his land and issue
tickets to any vehicle + all photos of the parking event.

Is there anything else we should ask for (that they wont be able to provide)?

Also we're informing them that we're opting out of the parking scheme and that any ticketing to any vehicle will be treated as trespass but should we do this now or wait until the
claim is dealt with?

Im referring to cases from this prankster post. https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016...al-parking.html particularly UKPC v Davey so I have a number of relevant cases but does anybody have links to more recent residential court claim wins for further info?


Last question: When the claim arrives the correct course of action is to make a counter claim, correct?
Thanks in advance.....

[Advertisement]

[Jlc]

Freehold lease? Which is it?

[Hexx]

Freehold lease? Which is it?

Sorry, missed that error...Freehold!!

[The Rookie]

So no 75 years then!

If the personal space is part of his freehold (or 75 year leasehold for that matter?) then he's currently the landholder and occupier and clearly Armtrac do not have the landholder's permission to operate and make charges.

A correct response to the LBA is needed, but the fact they don't have landholder consent would be the first item on the list, a driver cannot contract with Armtrac to pay to park (if no permit is displayed) if they don't have the ability to offer that contract.

In addition whichever idiot managing agent) contracted with Armtrac needs putting in their place over signing a contract they had no right to sign in the first place, they will have signed stating they were the landholder when they are not.

[The Slithy Tove]

they will have signed stating they were the landholder when they are not.

Or, more precisely, acting as agent of the [who they think is the] landholder, i.e. the freeholder of the presumably leasehold properties.

[Lynnzer]

I used to have a good template for this sort of thing that will be on forum somewhere still.
It comes down to telling them to sod off, then advising the managing agent that you will take legal action against them.

Without going into too much detail, if any court action commences you must bring in the managing agent as a party to the claim, and add a substantial counterclaim on a joint and several liability basis.

If the MA gets drawn into court you can bet that "parking management" will soon stop.

[cabbyman]

Did they send 'hire documents' with the NtK? As a courtesy car, it was effectively hired.

[ostell]

He let them know who was driving, shame.

[Lynnzer]

He let them know who was driving, shame.

Doesn't matter in this case. The OP is the owner of the car parking space.
Serve notice on the MA that they will be joined in an action in court.

[Hexx]

Thanks for everyones responses. I've been away from internet access for some days. Im drafting a response!!

So no 75 years then!

If the personal space is part of his freehold (or 75 year leasehold for that matter?) then he's currently the landholder and occupier and clearly Armtrac do not have the landholder's permission to operate and make charges.

A correct response to the LBA is needed, but the fact they don't have landholder consent would be the first item on the list, a driver cannot contract with Armtrac to pay to park (if no permit is displayed) if they don't have the ability to offer that contract.

In addition whichever idiot managing agent) contracted with Armtrac needs putting in their place over signing a contract they had no right to sign in the first place, they will have signed stating they were the landholder when they are not.

Apologies. I met up with the landowner and it is indeed lease hold for 75 years. We'll be providing them with relevant pages from the contract and a plan of the parking space
and we'll be parking some random cars in the parking space to see if they get the message that they are not allowed there. What's a reasonable amount for trespass, £150 a pop?
We'll also be copying in the Managing Agents.


In UKPC v Davey a injunction was sought against ukpc. Was that because the parking operator kept entering the land and issuing tickets How does one go about getting injunction? Is that dealt with by the courts too?

Thanks to all again for their input.

This post has been edited by Hexx: Sat, 13 Jul 2019 - 15:04

[ostell]

£750 a pop for breaching GDPR by requesting personal details when they had no right or reason to do so.

[Jlc]

Davey was freehold. The exact terms of the leasehold are critical.

[Hexx]

£750 a pop for breaching GDPR by requesting personal details when they had no right or reason to do so.

Sadly not relevant. Driver appealed and gave details. Trespass is the angle of attack.

Davey was freehold. The exact terms of the leasehold are critical.

I've only had a chance to quickly read the contract a few weeks back but we identified the relevant pages and I'll get him to scan and send the pages to me.

This post has been edited by Hexx: Sun, 14 Jul 2019 - 10:26

[nosferatu1001]

Make sure the PPC AND the MA are notified, in writing, that the PPCs "implied right of access" has been explicitly revoked. They are not permitted to entere the space for any reason, including to check for the presence of a "permit" that is not required by the leaseholder

Remind them that the PPCs Code of Practice requires them to have Landholder authorisation to operate, which they explicitly do not as Leaseholder Mr X / Mrs Y has not authorised them to operate on space...

Any further interference with the property at Space... including, but not limited to issuing "tickets" to cars that have the permission of the landholder to be there, will be prime facie evidence of trespass. AS the PPC ... is attempting to operate a business, charging £XX for the space, that is clearly a level of compensation they feel is appropriate, and you will claim the same amount for each incident.

Further trespass may also result in an injunction against MA and their agents, for which I will hold MA fully responsible for the costs of

OP - yes an injunction is a legalorder a court can gratn.

[Hexx]

Make sure the PPC AND the MA are notified, in writing, that the PPCs "implied right of access" has been explicitly revoked. They are not permitted to entere the space for any reason, including to check for the presence of a "permit" that is not required by the leaseholder

Remind them that the PPCs Code of Practice requires them to have Landholder authorisation to operate, which they explicitly do not as Leaseholder Mr X / Mrs Y has not authorised them to operate on space...

Any further interference with the property at Space... including, but not limited to issuing "tickets" to cars that have the permission of the landholder to be there, will be prime facie evidence of trespass. AS the PPC ... is attempting to operate a business, charging £XX for the space, that is clearly a level of compensation they feel is appropriate, and you will claim the same amount for each incident.

Further trespass may also result in an injunction against MA and their agents, for which I will hold MA fully responsible for the costs of

OP - yes an injunction is a legalorder a court can gratn.

Thanks Nos,
That's exactly the kind of wording Im after for the letters to Armtrac and the MA.


Hypothetical scenario question!!!. The landowner revokes access to the parking space and provides the parking operator with the legal paperwork to confirm their authority. The landowner or another driver but not the registered keeper of a vehicle uses the parking space and the car is ticketed. The registered keeper waits until the NTK turns up and issues a demand for £750 for misuse of personal data as the parking operator has no authority to issue a ticket, the landowner issues a demand for £100 for trespass. Hypothetically possible??

[The Rookie]

Hypothetical scenario question!!!. The landowner revokes access to the parking space and provides the parking operator with the legal paperwork to confirm their authority. The landowner or another driver but not the registered keeper of a vehicle uses the parking space and the car is ticketed. The registered keeper waits until the NTK turns up and issues a demand for £750 for misuse of personal data as the parking operator has no authority to issue a ticket, the landowner issues a demand for £100 for trespass. Hypothetically possible??

No, because the PPC now does have the permission (authority) of the landowner!

[Hexx]

Hypothetical scenario question!!!. The landowner revokes access to the parking space and provides the parking operator with the legal paperwork to confirm their authority. The landowner or another driver but not the registered keeper of a vehicle uses the parking space and the car is ticketed. The registered keeper waits until the NTK turns up and issues a demand for £750 for misuse of personal data as the parking operator has no authority to issue a ticket, the landowner issues a demand for £100 for trespass. Hypothetically possible??

No, because the PPC now does have the permission (authority) of the landowner!

Sorry, Im confused. At what point does the PPC have authority from the landowner? (parking space owner)
If the PPC enters the land its trespass surely, for starters. Access has been denied.

[ManxRed]

I think the confusion there was in your hypothetical scenario you proposed providing the parking operator with the legal paperwork to confirm their authority. Was that a typo? If not, the legal paperwork is what is required for them to operate.

If a letter is sent withdrawing all implied access to the land, they are stuffed. That IS trespass.

I think what you meant was that the landowner demonstrates that they ARE the landowner, and withdraws implied access. It just reads a bit funny!

This post has been edited by ManxRed: Tue, 16 Jul 2019 - 13:29

[Hexx]

I think the confusion there was in your hypothetical scenario you proposed providing the parking operator with the legal paperwork to confirm their authority. Was that a typo? If not, the legal paperwork is what is required for them to operate.

If a letter is sent withdrawing all implied access to the land, they are stuffed. That IS trespass.

I think what you meant was that the landowner demonstrates that they ARE the landowner, and withdraws implied access. It just reads a bit funny!

Yes, youre correct there, Manxred I appreciate it does read awkwardly. Landowner (car park space owner) withdraws all implied access. A Car (not the landowners) gets ticketed so trespass has occurred + should they access registered keeper details on the car then a GDPR breach has occurred too.

This post has been edited by Hexx: Tue, 16 Jul 2019 - 15:08

[Hexx]

OK Legal Beagles....Went through the lease today. Heres what I can see.


1. The Official copy of the plan from the Land Registry shows the home and parking space.

2.The property as defined in the lease is the flat and the parking space.

3. The land registry definition of the 'demised property' is the flat and parking space.

4. Schedule 2 of the lease under The Included Rights states the right for the leese and all persons authorised by him in common with all others enjoying the like right at all times and for all purposes incidental to the occupation and enjoyment of the demised premises including access to and egress from the demised premises to use on foot only the Management Company Land including the communal footpaths on the estate and to use with vehicles for access to and egress from the demised premises those aresa intended for vehicular use provided ...….blah blah. then it just says the management company can temporarily close the land for the good estate management. Nothing about parking management.

5. Schedule 3 under 'The Excepted Rights' The easement rights and priviliges over and along through and in respect of the demised premises for the Lessor and the Company and the persons deriving titile under them or anybody authorised by them.
Could this mean a PPC?



My concern here is if I go in to heavy on the response for the LBA they'll realise its non starter and back off. I speak from experience over the years with Armtrac where they realise they've been busted (ghost tickets, outrageously non compliant signage. They capitulate!! We want to wreak maximum damage hereso even if they back off could we still proceed with a trespass claim?
My feeling here is to go in fairly softly on the response telling them the parking space belongs to the flat and they cant issue a ticket and keeping the legal jargon to a minimum and no mention of restricting access and when they proceed with a claim then counterclaim and hit them by revoking access to the parking space and include the MA.
We don't just want the ticket to go away!! The homeowner has informed theres several tenants/owners there with tickets including a neighbour with 6. I'll be looking to make contact with them. What do you think??

This post has been edited by Hexx: Tue, 16 Jul 2019 - 18:00