Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

FightBack Forums _ Private Parking Tickets & Clamping _ UKPC Charge

Posted by: boro12856 Tue, 27 Aug 2013 - 10:43
Post #862398

Hi all, spent a while reading various threads but thought I had best ask for my own personal advice.

Me and my partner rent a flat which has a gated entrance and you have your own space (corresponding to flat number) ours is in the underground section. We had a parking permit which has the number of the space on it to display on a daily basis.

Recently the gates to the carpark have been 'broken' and one side is constantly left open, which now has resulted in three UKPC notices in the space of two weeks.

We currently only have her car at the flat and I very rarely use the car, both occasions I have used it and returned to our parking bay I have once forgotten to put the parking permit on the dashboard, returning to the car next morning to see we had a ticket given to us around 4am for not displaying permit. And the second one for the same reason this time however I am 100% certain the permit was placed on the dashboard, however it wasn't there the next morning and another ticket was given (again around 4am, these idiots love a nightshift)

The third notice we had received was when we had friends staying for a weekend, we have a visitor permit too, which we were not given any advice about how long this could be used for by our landlord. All we were told is that if using a visitor permit please park in the disabled bays. Now this permit was used constantly for around 2 weeks when we first moved in as we had two cars then, and no problems. I have also noticed other cars at the flats always in the disabled spots and not disabled drivers.

But one weekend we gave our permit to friends to park downstairs and my girlfriend parked her car in the visitors bay, on the second night she received another charge notice this time saying that she had over stayed her welcome in the visitors bay.

Now I am just looking for what to do with these pieces of paper I have been given, as there is NO WAY I will be paying them a penny! We need to use an electric fob to gain access to the carpark, and our parking spot corresponds with our flat number. So if they are coming in EVERY NIGHT they must see the car in the same bay using the permit, yet the ONE occasions I genuinely know I forgot to display the permit a ticket is slapped straight on. It is funny however how the influx of tickets corresponds with the gated entrance been broken.

Thanks for any help.

Regards

Posted by: emanresu Tue, 27 Aug 2013 - 13:59
Post #862460

I assume since the 28 days have not expired they are still to contact the Keeper about these. Wait until that comes unless it is a hire/lease car.

In the meantime, dig your lease/rental agreement out and see what it says about parking. It would sound as if you have the right to peaceful enjoyment and they are actually trespassing on your property.

Do you rent from a private individual or a company. Either should be able to tell them to cancel.

Posted by: The Slithy Tove Tue, 27 Aug 2013 - 15:30
Post #862490

The more of these fake tickets you get, the better. Each one is going to cost UKPC £27+VAT when you appeal, have the appeal rejected, then take it to POPLA, and win.

As emanresu says, wait for the NtK, but meanwhile, the LEASE is the important document (not the rental agreement). The LEASE that you landlord has will have something about parking, especially if there's an allocated, numbered space. It will be very useful to get the exact wording in that document. Beyond that, your rental agreement may say something, if only to confer you the rights that the leaseholder has over the space. In other words, does the rental agreement impose any additional restrictions over your parking?

Posted by: boro12856 Wed, 4 Sep 2013 - 11:14
Post #865383

QUOTE (emanresu @ Tue, 27 Aug 2013 - 14:59) *
I assume since the 28 days have not expired they are still to contact the Keeper about these. Wait until that comes unless it is a hire/lease car.

In the meantime, dig your lease/rental agreement out and see what it says about parking. It would sound as if you have the right to peaceful enjoyment and they are actually trespassing on your property.

Do you rent from a private individual or a company. Either should be able to tell them to cancel.



QUOTE (The Slithy Tove @ Tue, 27 Aug 2013 - 16:30) *
The more of these fake tickets you get, the better. Each one is going to cost UKPC £27+VAT when you appeal, have the appeal rejected, then take it to POPLA, and win.

As emanresu says, wait for the NtK, but meanwhile, the LEASE is the important document (not the rental agreement). The LEASE that you landlord has will have something about parking, especially if there's an allocated, numbered space. It will be very useful to get the exact wording in that document. Beyond that, your rental agreement may say something, if only to confer you the rights that the leaseholder has over the space. In other words, does the rental agreement impose any additional restrictions over your parking?


We rent from a company in Portsmouth and when we moved in it sounded like the agents were handing this for a 'friend' of hers but on moving in we received a letter from a estate company outlining details of the parking restrictions in the 'site' as they name it on the letter.

I will contact the estate agent we signed the rental agreement with and ask for the details from her.

The NtK arrived yesterday anyway biggrin.gif

Posted by: The Slithy Tove Wed, 4 Sep 2013 - 11:38
Post #865394

If the estate company is just a management company, they can make up all the rules they want, but they cannot impose conditions over private parking spaces (unless the lease allows).

When this gets as far as POPLA, among all the other appeal points, you will require UKPC to supply and POPLA to review -

• A copy of the current signed site agreement or contract with the landowner/occupier of that site
• A copy of the wording of the current imposed permit scheme with proof that the landowner and the current residents have agreed to/been informed about it
• Evidence that UKPC are legally enabled to override the prior rights, covenants and easements enjoyed by the residents under their lease/rental agreements
• A current map of all the areas and bays of that car park where the permit scheme is and is not applicable, as agreed with the landowner/occupier
• Contemporaneous photos of the actual signs on site taken from the view of the driver of a car at the entrance and in the car park
• A definitive map of where these signs are in that particular car park
• A detailed breakdown of how the amount of the 'charge' was arrived at.
Sice their agreement will be with the management company, and not the landowner/occupier, this is going to be hard for them.

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Thu, 5 Sep 2013 - 01:10
Post #865736

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=63033637&posted=1

HTH with the challenge at this stage.

Posted by: Lynnzer Thu, 5 Sep 2013 - 11:30
Post #865833

I take it that the scumbag ticketing you is also a resident?
They will be operating a self ticketing scheme with a kickback to the $hithead giving you a rough time of it.
Print off a few posters to put through other residents letterboxes telling them of the scam

Keep your eyes open, literally and see who has their lights on in their flat that early in the morning. That'll be them,,,,,

Posted by: boro12856 Sat, 7 Sep 2013 - 20:40
Post #866833

Should I be making a 'soft appeal' now the first NtK has arrived?

I am struggling to find any sort of definitive way of doing this, however I am working nights right now and I am a little tired but will keep searching the forums for what to put down on the appeal.

Thanks

Posted by: boro12856 Sat, 7 Sep 2013 - 20:51
Post #866836

QUOTE (Lynnzer @ Thu, 5 Sep 2013 - 12:30) *
I take it that the scumbag ticketing you is also a resident?
They will be operating a self ticketing scheme with a kickback to the $hithead giving you a rough time of it.
Print off a few posters to put through other residents letterboxes telling them of the scam

Keep your eyes open, literally and see who has their lights on in their flat that early in the morning. That'll be them,,,,,


Not sure if this will be the case as the only time I have saw tickets on the car is when the gates into the parking were broken. I even had a little test one night since the gates were fixed and didnt display permit next morning no ticket.

Posted by: kirkbyinfurnesslad Sat, 7 Sep 2013 - 21:04
Post #866841

Yes appeal to them now. All you need to say is this.

*I don't believe you have the legal right to issue invoices on my parking space.

If you disagree and thus decline my appeal then please send me a popla appeal*

Nothing else is needed

Posted by: boro12856 Sat, 7 Sep 2013 - 21:08
Post #866843

QUOTE (kirkbyinfurnesslad @ Sat, 7 Sep 2013 - 22:04) *
Yes appeal to them now. All you need to say is this.

*I don't believe you have the legal right to issue invoices on my parking space.

If you disagree and thus decline my appeal then please send me a popla appeal*

Nothing else is needed


Thanks Kirby, will get this done and posted on Monday

Posted by: boro12856 Thu, 26 Sep 2013 - 15:59
Post #873669

Just an update, appeal was sent off but yet to receive anything back from UKPC. Also still no letters yet received with regards to the other two tickets I have collected.

I did ring my letting agent and speak to them who told me they would get them all cancelled no problem, however the agent is a little useless and when I rang her a few days later she hadnt contacted anyone with regards to it yet. But due to the fact we are yet to receive anymore NtK's for the other invoices I believe they MAY of been cancelled.

Anyway here's a good one for you all, I recently misplaced the permit I was issued and spoke to my letting agent who have requested a new permit but in the meantime I was told to keep parking in my bay but use my visitors permit. Now I didnt really trust this but last night I parked in my own bay, in the same vehicle which is always parked in the bay even displayed my visitors permit and I even had the courtesy to write a little note stating that the permit was lost but I was informed to still use my bay and display visitors permit. LOW AND BEHOLD AT 4:09AM THIS MORNING!!!!!!!!!! (who the heck works at this ungodly hour issuing invoices) I received another ticket for "failing to display a valid parking permit" I have rang my letting agent again to inform her of this and she has said she will get it cancelled, but seriously this mob are taking the **** and its starting to really annoy me.

If I receive anymore NtK's should I keep appealing? As I am tempted just to ignore all of this from now on.

Regards
Paul

Posted by: andy_foster Thu, 26 Sep 2013 - 16:26
Post #873679

It is perfectly safe to ignore fake parking fines from UKPC. You might be able to have a bit of fun at their expense, but if you really can't be bothered to deal with them, don't.

Posted by: Jlc Thu, 26 Sep 2013 - 16:41
Post #873689

QUOTE (boro12856 @ Thu, 26 Sep 2013 - 16:59) *
LOW AND BEHOLD AT 4:09AM THIS MORNING!!!!!!!!!!

No tickets, no income... The middle of the night one works wonders for them.........

Posted by: instrumentsofjoy Thu, 26 Sep 2013 - 17:31
Post #873708

Sue them for trespass. They have what is known to the BiB as "form".

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?377246-UKPC-liable-for-trespass-**SUCCESS**

We pressed on with our county court Claim against UK Parking control Limited
( UKPC ) in the Winchester County Court.
On 21.1.2013 UKPC in an Order by consent gave undertakings to the Court not to enter our land and not to place any parking chargeNotices on our cars and the Court ordered:
1. Judgment for the Claimants ( ourselves )
2. Damages for trespass in a total of £150.00
3. UKPC to pay our costs in the sum of £ 1280.26 ( now paid )
R.L.Davey

Posted by: boro12856 Fri, 28 Nov 2014 - 19:56
Post #1024850

So it has been a while since I last posted but I am after some further advice.

I have searched both on here and on MSE and found some threads regarding my issue, but I am wondering if anyone can give me personal advice for my situation.

Background info: We continued to get tickets on both our vehicles which were parking in our parking spaces inside an enclosed parking for our flat we rent from a landlady.

I contacted the owner of the land and continued to hassle them regards the workings of UKPC at our flat and in the end it seems the issuing of tickets has now seized (considering neither myself or my partner display any sort of permit)

However in the interim I did begin with responding to every charge, denying to pay and requesting a POPLA. Only on ONE occasion did I ever receive a POPLA code, and as we became barraged with tickets I gave up responding to them all and just began to ignore as people said in other threads and mine that UKPC can be ignored.

Queue today when I received a message from my partner saying she has been issued with a letter from SMALL CLAIM SOLICITORS regarding three PCN received that we had ignored.

I am wondering how to proceed with this, we will not be paying a penny to anyone as we already pay enough in rent which states we have parking spaces in the contract.

Can we continue to ignore or should we send an email back? I have saw that lazydaisy (ex solicitor) recommends responding but doesnt say you should respond.

I have attached the letter to the post, just it personally has both me and my partner worried as we are in the process of arranging our first mortgage and dont want something like this to come and bite us in the a**e!

I havent received one of these myself but I am expecting one in the near future.

Appreciate any help anyone can give me.

Thanks
P



 

Posted by: ostell Fri, 28 Nov 2014 - 22:27
Post #1024911

Did you notice the expression "May issue legal....". Only may.

I would write back to them pointing out again that you have a right to use the land without interference. If they issue a claim then you will counterclaim for the aggravation. If you receive any more letters from them, other than a cancellation, then there will be a charge of £100 per letter. This will be held to be accepted by their actions (someone knows the correct wording).

Point them in the direction of the Winchester case.

Posted by: farmerboy Fri, 28 Nov 2014 - 22:34
Post #1024913

QUOTE (boro12856 @ Fri, 28 Nov 2014 - 19:56) *
However in the interim I did begin with responding to every charge, denying to pay and requesting a POPLA. Only on ONE occasion did I ever receive a POPLA code, and as we became barraged with tickets I gave up responding to them all and just began to ignore as people said in other threads and mine that UKPC can be ignored.


Did you use it and win?

QUOTE (boro12856 @ Fri, 28 Nov 2014 - 19:56) *
Queue today when I received a message from my partner saying she has been issued with a letter from SMALL CLAIM SOLICITORS regarding three PCN received that we had ignored.


Heres a thread with some info on your small claims solicitors.
Not giving a popla code is a no no and a complaint to the BPA would have sorted it out. If you'd have approached this with a bit more effort you could have cost them a significant amount of money and they would have left you alone by now. If its a significant amount of tickets they feel its worth pursuing you in the hope that you'll give in but that's not the case is it though you may have to put some effort in.
This needs a gan letter. You could probably still ignore but I would engage. Look up Davey v UKPC in Winchester. See what others say.

Posted by: boro12856 Fri, 28 Nov 2014 - 23:16
Post #1024930

QUOTE (farmerboy @ Fri, 28 Nov 2014 - 22:34) *
QUOTE (boro12856 @ Fri, 28 Nov 2014 - 19:56) *
However in the interim I did begin with responding to every charge, denying to pay and requesting a POPLA. Only on ONE occasion did I ever receive a POPLA code, and as we became barraged with tickets I gave up responding to them all and just began to ignore as people said in other threads and mine that UKPC can be ignored.


Did you use it and win?

QUOTE (boro12856 @ Fri, 28 Nov 2014 - 19:56) *
Queue today when I received a message from my partner saying she has been issued with a letter from SMALL CLAIM SOLICITORS regarding three PCN received that we had ignored.


Heres a thread with some info on your small claims solicitors.
Not giving a popla code is a no no and a complaint to the BPA would have sorted it out. If you'd have approached this with a bit more effort you could have cost them a significant amount of money and they would have left you alone by now. If its a significant amount of tickets they feel its worth pursuing you in the hope that you'll give in but that's not the case is it though you may have to put some effort in.
This needs a gan letter. You could probably still ignore but I would engage. Look up Davey v UKPC in Winchester. See what others say.


I did appeal in the beginning, but to be quite frank I just got sick of it all and I have a life without sitting and conducting letters none stop to these idiots.

With regards to the POPLA we received no we didnt win, we got another response saying the lowered charge we were offered was to be upheld. With regards to that one it was my car parked in our bay for our flat, and I parked overnight but forgot to display the permit they request me to show. I argued the case saying due to human error blah blah and got the response from UKPC saying they are offering me a lower fee, along with POPLA code.

What is a gan letter? And when you said heres a thread with some info there was no link, can you please share again?

Thanks

Posted by: Fleagle Sat, 29 Nov 2014 - 00:05
Post #1024936

You say your parking space is attached to your flat... What exactly does your lease say?

Just that, if the wording is right, you can sue the private parking company should they fail to stop issuing "parking tickets" after you've sent them an appropriate letter - as long as your lease says 'certain' things wink.gif .

We're talking significant financial sanctions and negative return on 'their' funds here (especially if every leaseholder indulges) wink.gif .

Alternatively (and more blatantly but more simply wink.gif ) - though no-one will suggest this *ahem* - the leaseholders could *allegedly* arrange to park "illegally" in turns of (say wink.gif ) five for every night each week, followed by the next five (or whatever number) parking "illegally" the next week, then the following five (as above) the week after - rinse and repeat until the "parking tickets stop being applied (to quote Jack Carter wink.gif , "I told you it wouldn't take long!!") wink.gif .

The leaseholders who parked "illegally" each week then each have seven "parking notices" which they will individually appeal and request POPLA codes each time (at 27 groats each wink.gif ) every time and it soon multiplies up - at which time the PPC soon exits stage left laugh.gif .

Not that anyone would recommend this organised sabotage.

Oh NO!! wink.gif

Posted by: boro12856 Sat, 29 Nov 2014 - 00:48
Post #1024943

QUOTE (Fleagle @ Sat, 29 Nov 2014 - 00:05) *
You say your parking space is attached to your flat... What exactly does your lease say?

Just that, if the wording is right, you can sue the private parking company should they fail to stop issuing "parking tickets" after you've sent them an appropriate letter - as long as your lease says 'certain' things wink.gif .

We're talking significant financial sanctions and negative return on 'their' funds here (especially if every leaseholder indulges) wink.gif .

Alternatively (and more blatantly but more simply wink.gif ) - though no-one will suggest this *ahem* - the leaseholders could *allegedly* arrange to park "illegally" in turns of (say wink.gif ) five for every night each week, followed by the next five (or whatever number) parking "illegally" the next week, then the following five (as above) the week after - rinse and repeat until the "parking tickets stop being applied (to quote Jack Carter wink.gif , "I told you it wouldn't take long!!") wink.gif .

The leaseholders who parked "illegally" each week then each have seven "parking notices" which they will individually appeal and request POPLA codes each time (at 27 groats each wink.gif ) every time and it soon multiplies up - at which time the PPC soon exits stage left laugh.gif .

Not that anyone would recommend this organised sabotage.

Oh NO!! wink.gif


A similar thing has actually happened with my girlfriends car, after so many notices and appeals they now stop applying the PCN to her car even though she still parks with no permit.

With regards to the parking space we have a space which is numbered for our flat number and block name. They have been putting tickets on the car parked in this space. Now I got in touch with the leaseholder and requested a copy of the lease or at least the part detailing the parking situation but she out right refused. The only information we have is that of a contract agreement for our rental of the flat which states 1 parking space.

Posted by: farmerboy Sat, 29 Nov 2014 - 00:55
Post #1024944

QUOTE (boro12856 @ Fri, 28 Nov 2014 - 23:16) *
I did appeal in the beginning, but to be quite frank I just got sick of it all and I have a life without sitting and conducting letters none stop to these idiots.


Wish I had a life..... Oh I do. If you'd have followed direction you wouldn't be back here now. Sorry, yes its a bore but alternatively you can ignore.

QUOTE (boro12856 @ Fri, 28 Nov 2014 - 23:16) *
What is a gan letter? And when you said heres a thread with some info there was no link, can you please share again?


Sorry. forgot to attach. http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=87052
You can do a search for more threads on them.
Gan is the forums master scribe at succinct letters to these clowns. He may be passing at some point.

Posted by: boro12856 Sat, 29 Nov 2014 - 01:07
Post #1024947

QUOTE (farmerboy @ Sat, 29 Nov 2014 - 00:55) *
QUOTE (boro12856 @ Fri, 28 Nov 2014 - 23:16) *
I did appeal in the beginning, but to be quite frank I just got sick of it all and I have a life without sitting and conducting letters none stop to these idiots.


Wish I had a life..... Oh I do. If you'd have followed direction you wouldn't be back here now. Sorry, yes its a bore but alternatively you can ignore.

QUOTE (boro12856 @ Fri, 28 Nov 2014 - 23:16) *
What is a gan letter? And when you said heres a thread with some info there was no link, can you please share again?


Sorry. forgot to attach. http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=87052
You can do a search for more threads on them.
Gan is the forums master scribe at succinct letters to these clowns. He may be passing at some point.


I didnt mean to cause offence from that statement, its late and im working the nightshift. It just all became so tedious we just started to ignore especially after all our appeals initially seemed to fall on deaf ears.

Thanks for the link

Posted by: Jlc Sat, 29 Nov 2014 - 07:13
Post #1024959

QUOTE (boro12856 @ Sat, 29 Nov 2014 - 01:07) *
after all our appeals initially seemed to fall on deaf ears.

Their only income is often people paying these infernal things - they aren't going to give up easily... That's why they need a duffing at POPLA.

They are still unlikely to actually issue proceedings but out of all the PPC's out there this lot are the most likely to consider doing so going forwards - they seem to be trying just this is Scotland but haven't had much success. They have 6 years to do so.

Personally, I think a terse letter is required clearly setting out your position - they tend to pick on easier targets as actually taking people to court generally is a lot of effort and can be loss making.

Posted by: boro12856 Thu, 8 Jan 2015 - 21:06
Post #1036334

Some further advice is sought after, I managed to write a response to SCS who have obviously referred everything back to DRP and we received a letter from them today in relation to 7 references of parking charge notices.

What really made me laugh was the comment about Internet templates my response was that I would not be entering any payments to them as I believe I haven't entered any contract with them.

I have attached the letter, if anyone can help be greatly appreciated.




Posted by: emanresu Fri, 9 Jan 2015 - 07:31
Post #1036425

Its known as a loop. One computer does not know what to do so send a ping to another computer which sends out a letter.

Send a letter to DRP to refer it back to their client and not to bother you again.

See how many loops they go through before someone switches the damm thing off.

Posted by: Jlc Fri, 9 Jan 2015 - 08:31
Post #1036432

7 tickets though does increase the chance of them actually issuing a claim. (£1k+ may be worth their while)

Posted by: emanresu Fri, 9 Jan 2015 - 09:59
Post #1036457

QUOTE
7 tickets though does increase the chance of them actually issuing a claim. (£1k+ may be worth their while)


I'll eat my hat if the do - plus dig out the case of East Riding v UKPC to see if there is any more porridge available.

Posted by: boro12856 Fri, 9 Jan 2015 - 10:04
Post #1036458

QUOTE (emanresu @ Fri, 9 Jan 2015 - 07:31) *
Its known as a loop. One computer does not know what to do so send a ping to another computer which sends out a letter.

Send a letter to DRP to refer it back to their client and not to bother you again.

See how many loops they go through before someone switches the damm thing off.


What sort of letter should I be sending back? Just a blunt I will not be paying please inform UKPC that I do not wish to pay said charges? Or go more in depth?

Thanks

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Fri, 9 Jan 2015 - 10:38
Post #1036471

Have a search on here for Gans letters on "debt denied"

They are short, sweet and to the point. Get one, tailor to your situation, and do NOT embellish it. They are concise to avoid the chance of the DR people using your words against you, to confuse or confabulate the position to keep engaging with them.

There are plenty of examples - get Gans user name and click on their posts, you will see plenty of examples/. Post a draft here.

Posted by: emanresu Fri, 9 Jan 2015 - 10:48
Post #1036477

It may be better to do the "debt is denied but.. letter"

QUOTE
Dear Sirs

Your client obviously thinks I owe them some money. I do not.

If your client wishes to press a claim he may do so but prior to that I wish to have the following information

• A copy of the current signed site agreement or contract with the landowner/occupier of that site
• A copy of the wording of the current imposed permit scheme with proof that the landowner and the current residents have agreed to/been informed about it
• Evidence that UKPC are legally enabled to override the prior rights, covenants and easements enjoyed by the residents under their lease/rental agreements
• A current map of all the areas and bays of that car park where the permit scheme is and is not applicable, as agreed with the landowner/occupier
• Contemporaneous photos of the actual signs on site taken from the view of the driver of a car at the entrance and in the car park
• A definitive map of where these signs are in that particular car park
• A detailed breakdown of how the amount of the 'charge' was arrived at.

In the alternative, should you or your client or any of your clients agent continue to write to me, I will happily reply at the cost of £100 per letter. Acceptance will be by performance.

Yours etc


Hat tip to ST for the content. This letter simply highlights that they can do 1 of 2 things. Go to court when they would need to show the information above anyway. Or continue to write to you at £100 per letter. (I think the current record for stupidity for a PPC to continue to reply is about £1400 but there have been a few lesser amounts)

It would also be an ideal opportunity to present to court the findings of UKPC's own criminal conviction for a false and misleading appeals system. I am sure their current appeals system is in no way false and misleading - or in anyway criminal.

Posted by: Jlc Fri, 9 Jan 2015 - 12:08
Post #1036504

QUOTE (emanresu @ Fri, 9 Jan 2015 - 09:59) *
QUOTE
7 tickets though does increase the chance of them actually issuing a claim. (£1k+ may be worth their while)


I'll eat my hat if the do - plus dig out the case of East Riding v UKPC to see if there is any more porridge available.

Increase doesn't mean they will of course - as above I think it's worth parking (pardon the pun) the matter back to them. The chance of them actually issuing a claim is still small. Indeed, it might be even worth a 'pop' just raising a claim to see if the OP pays up rather than fight the matter - they may not seriously intend to see the inside of a court room.

Persecuting people in regards to their own spaces is about as low as private parking gets.

Posted by: boro12856 Fri, 9 Jan 2015 - 12:14
Post #1036506

Thanks for the advice, will send a letter back to them today.

Posted by: boro12856 Thu, 29 Oct 2015 - 21:22
Post #1123157

Back again guys!

So after last time I responded to both the 'solicitors' letter and DRP, however today we received five seperate letters from DRP titled 'Letter before referral for legal action'.

The references are all previously used references on the letter I received last time from DRP and I did respond saying about charging them for any future letters so I am just after some advice on how to respond to these five letters Daniel Tomkins who has now taken over as the collections manager from Graham.

Appreciate any help!

Also just as an update, we have now moved from the flat and live in a house with a garage which is great but also I know from speaking to the management agency who owned the flat complex that they seized all contracts with UKPC due to on going issues, shall I use this as reference too?

Thanks

Posted by: emanresu Fri, 30 Oct 2015 - 05:53
Post #1123204

QUOTE
Its known as a loop. One computer does not know what to do so send a ping to another computer which sends out a letter.


Confuse the computer by not replying and filing the paperwork

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Fri, 30 Oct 2015 - 10:26
Post #1123240

INdeedd. File and ignore DRP

Letter before action - something saying court action WILL happen in X days - then come back here
Real court papers from Nottingham - come back here.

Posted by: Jlc Fri, 30 Oct 2015 - 10:30
Post #1123242

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Fri, 30 Oct 2015 - 10:26) *
Real court papers from Nottingham - come back here.

Has Robin Hood invaded Northampton then? cool.gif

Posted by: boro12856 Mon, 20 Aug 2018 - 17:30
Post #1409633

Hi everyone, so its been a while but I am back again. My partner received this letter last week which we have now gotten added to our previous letter THREE more claims. However my first notice, is that all the reference numbers have changed and they hold no comparison to the original claim references.



I have been doing plenty of reading but my brain is frazzled today. I have begun to draft a letter however using some information and wording from other posts on here and MSE and I have this. Is this ok, or too much? Would appreciate feedback.

UKPC issued me with parking charge notices dated ..... which were unfairly and unlawfully issued. I will not be paying your demand for payment for the following reasons:

The alleged contravention did not occur

1. Quite simply, the parking attendant got it wrong and the vehicle was not parked inappropriately at the time the ticket was issued, the claim states that the vehicle was 'parked for longer than allowed' how can this be determined? The vehicle left the premises to my knowledge everyday and returned and parked again. There is no stipulation of returning vehicles cannot park in the same bay within a certain timeframe. So as stated the vehicle was indeed not parked 'for longer than the allowed time'.

2. The charges are disproportionate and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss

The amount being charged is not based upon any genuine pre-estimate of loss to UKPC or the landowner, and far exceeds any costs incurred. Furthermore, I fail to understand how UKPC or the landowners have faced any loss by the driver being parked in their own designated space. The car park can only be accessed with an electronic key fob and permits are provided to prevent non-residents entering and parking in the car park; not for UKPC to generate an income from residents parked in their own spaces! Please provide me with an exact breakdown of the charges you are claiming and how you reached these figures, because they are completely excessive.

3. There is insufficient evidence to prove that I, as the registered keeper, am liable for these charges

Your client has failed to provide me with proof that a contract was in place with the landowner/managing agent at the time of the parking tickets. Regardless of this, tenants are not a party to this and no contract was ever signed to reflect this. Please provide: written confirmation from the managing agents that the landlord agreed to these charges, written confirmation from the landlord that he/she agreed to these charges, written confirmation from the landlord that he/she agreed to court action.

4. Finally, if you choose to pursue me please be aware that I have sought legal advice and will not enter into any further correspondence. This will be the only letter you will receive from me until you answer the specific points raised in my letter. Should this be pursued, I will be seeking compensation for the distress your harassment is causing, as well as claiming for the amount of my time that you have consumed with the ridiculous claims your client is making.

Please note that I will be making a formal complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner, as well as complaining in writing to my MP and ensuring that they are appraised of the debate where Parliament agreed unanimously: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists should not have to put up with this. I am fully aware that your client was recently banned from the DVLA (for the second time), for the unlawful and fraudulent issuing of parking tickets. Even going to the extent of creating false photos and evidence. I'm shocked that any legitimate law firm would willingly represent a company like this; frankly it should be embarrassing for you to do so.

To summarise, should you choose to pursue this, I will require the following information for my case (in addition to my requests in above):

1. A full explanation of the cause of action
2. Whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
3. Whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
4. What the details of the claim are (where it is claimed the car was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated, what contractual breach (if any) is being claimed)
5. A copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim
6. A copy of any alleged contract with the driver
7. A plan showing where any signs were displayed
8. Details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)
9. If they have added anything on to the original charge, what that represents and how it has been calculated.

Yours sincerely,

TIA P

Posted by: Eljayjay Mon, 20 Aug 2018 - 18:08
Post #1409638

I think you can ask for more than that. You could, for example, try something like this...


Dear <salutation>,

Thank you for your <letter/email/parking charge notice> reference <their ref> of <date> in relation to a parking issue at <location>.

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle on which the parking charge notice was placed.

If your client wishes to continue its attempt to recover the alleged parking charge, it will need to establish its right to the money through the County Court.

Before taking court action against me, however, in accordance with The Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims as made by the Master of the Rolls as Head of Civil Justice, your client must send me a letter of claim.

The purpose of The Pre-Action Protocol is to give both your client and myself an opportunity to narrow the issues between us. That being so, after the letter of claim has been sent, your client must give me a window of time in which to respond to the letter and to request information and documents from it.

If your client would like me to reconsider my position before we get to that stage, it may wish to provide now the information and documents, which I shall otherwise request later, so that we can attempt to narrow the issues between us now. If so, please arrange for your client to send me the following:-

<tab> a full explanation of the cause of action;

<tab> a statement as to whether your client is pursuing me as driver or keeper;

<tab> if your client is pursuing me as keeper, a statement detailing how and when your client complied with each of the requirements of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 for each of the parking events;

<tab> a statement giving full details of the claim, e.g. where precisely the vehicle was parked (i.e. the precise parking space), the period of parking, how the amounts claimed arose and have been calculated, what contractual breach (if any) arose for each of the parking events;

<tab> the parking agreement between your client and the owner or occupier of the land purporting to grant the right to your client to charge for parking on the land;

<tab> the site plan provided by your client to its accredited trade association;

<tab> a copy of the written contract for the alleged debt;

<tab> the accredited trade association’s code of practice to which your client claims to adhere;

<tab> evidence that signage meeting the requirements of that code of practice and also meeting the standards mentioned in the Parking Eye v Beavis judgement in terms of positioning, size of signs, size of font, height at which displayed, distance from nearest common part was in place at the time of each of the parking events;

<tab> if there is a lease governing parking on the land, a copy of the lease;

<tab> if there is any other agreement governing parking on the land, such as a tenancy agreement, a copy of that document;

<tab> if a lease or other agreement exists and contains express provision to allow your client to operate a parking scheme on the land, a note of the specific clauses in the lease or tenancy agreement applicable to this situation;

<tab> if a lease or other agreement exists and any rules or regulations have been made in accordance with its provisions to allow your client to operate a parking scheme on the land:-

<tab><tab> (a) a copy of those rules or regulations duly signed, etc. by the person(s) who made them; and

<tab><tab> (b) a note of the specific clauses in the lease in accordance with which those rules or regulations were made;

<tab> if a lease or other agreement exists and it granted individual rights to park on the land to a particular person, e.g. the lessee or tenant, a note of the name and address of that person and a copy of the instrument which either transferred those individual rights from that person to your client or transferred a share of those individual rights from that person to your client – if there is more than one such person, please provide the same information and documentation for each of them;

<tab> if a lease exists or other agreement exists and its terms do not permit third parties, e.g. your client, to enforce the lease’s terms, a note explaining how your client has concluded that it has acquired such a right;

<tab> if a lease or other agreement exists and your client’s parking scheme has not been introduced in accordance with its provisions, a note explaining how your client has concluded that its alleged parking contract with the driver has acquired primacy of contract over the lease;

<tab> notes giving details of the due diligence process undertaken by your client to ensure that not only the contract between your client and its principal but also the purported contract between your client and the driver met the “Implied term about care and skill” requirement contained in the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982; and

<tab> any other information and documents on which your client would rely in court.

Of course, I am sure that, like me, your client has great respect for the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims and, particularly, its aims as expressed in its paragraph 2. In these circumstances, I am sure that your client would like to narrow and, if at all possible, resolve the issues between us by providing the information and documents requested above at the earliest possible opportunity.

In that event, I shall gladly reconsider my position on receipt of them.

As I am sure you will realise, in the event that your client does not provide the information and documents prior to court action being taken against me, I shall apply to the court for your client’s claim to be struck out for its failure to comply with The Protocol.

Furthermore, in the event of court action being taken against me, I shall launch a counterclaim against your client.

I look forward to receiving your reply.

Yours sincerely,

Posted by: boro12856 Tue, 21 Aug 2018 - 09:44
Post #1409793

Thanks for that Eljayjay, however the letter my other half has received is the LBC, so im a little confused by the first part of your reply. I will amend the latter half of my reply and include some more sections of requests that you have added.

Posted by: Eljayjay Tue, 21 Aug 2018 - 11:09
Post #1409819

Sorry, I didn't realise that but...

All you need to do is to adjust the letter slightly, perhaps as shown below.


Dear <salutation>,

Thank you for your letter of claim reference <their ref> of <date> in relation to a parking issue at <location>.

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle on which the parking charge notice was placed.

I still dispute the alleged debt because, despite my previous representations, I have not received an adequate explanation as to why your client believes it has a right to any parking charge from me. As a result, I need more documents and information in order to assess the validity or otherwise of your client’s claim. If your client wishes to continue its attempt to recover the alleged parking charge, it will need to establish its right to the money either to my satisfaction or through the County Court.

The Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims does, of course, now provide us with an opportunity to narrow the issues between us by allowing me to request information and documents and information and you to provide the information and documents required.

In addition to all of the information which your client should have provided in the letter of claim, therefore, I also require your client to provide me within the next 30 days all of the following:-

<tab> a full explanation of the cause of action;

<tab> a statement as to whether your client is pursuing me as driver or keeper;

<tab> if your client is pursuing me as keeper, a statement detailing how and when your client complied with each of the requirements of Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 for each of the parking events;

<tab> a statement giving full details of the claim, e.g. where precisely the vehicle was parked (i.e. the precise parking space), the period of parking, how the amounts claimed arose and have been calculated, what contractual breach (if any) arose for each of the parking events;

<tab> the parking agreement between your client and the owner or occupier of the land purporting to grant the right to your client to charge for parking on the land;

<tab> the site plan provided by your client to its accredited trade association;

<tab> a copy of the written contract for the alleged debt;

<tab> the accredited trade association’s code of practice to which your client claims to adhere;

<tab> evidence that signage meeting the requirements of that code of practice and also meeting the standards mentioned in the Parking Eye v Beavis judgement in terms of positioning, size of signs, size of font, height at which displayed, distance from nearest common part was in place at the time of each of the parking events;

<tab> if there is a lease governing parking on the land, a copy of the lease;

<tab> if there is any other agreement governing parking on the land, such as a tenancy agreement, a copy of that document;

<tab> if a lease or other agreement exists and contains express provision to allow your client to operate a parking scheme on the land, a note of the specific clauses in the lease or tenancy agreement applicable to this situation;

<tab> if a lease or other agreement exists and any rules or regulations have been made in accordance with its provisions to allow your client to operate a parking scheme on the land:-

<tab><tab> (a) a copy of those rules or regulations duly signed, etc. by the person(s) who made them; and

<tab><tab> (b) a note of the specific clauses in the lease in accordance with which those rules or regulations were made;

<tab> if a lease or other agreement exists and it granted individual rights to park on the land to a particular person, e.g. the lessee or tenant, a note of the name and address of that person and a copy of the instrument which either transferred those individual rights from that person to your client or transferred a share of those individual rights from that person to your client – if there is more than one such person, please provide the same information and documentation for each of them;

<tab> if a lease exists or other agreement exists and its terms do not permit third parties, e.g. your client, to enforce the lease’s terms, a note explaining how your client has concluded that it has acquired such a right;

<tab> if a lease or other agreement exists and your client’s parking scheme has not been introduced in accordance with its provisions, a note explaining how your client has concluded that its alleged parking contract with the driver has acquired primacy of contract over the lease;

<tab> notes giving details of the due diligence process undertaken by your client to ensure that not only the contract between your client and its principal but also the purported contract between your client and the driver met the “Implied term about care and skill” requirement contained in the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982; and

<tab> any other information and documents on which your client would rely in court.

Of course, I am sure that, like me, your client has great respect for the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims and, particularly, its aims as expressed in its paragraph 2. In these circumstances, I am sure that your client would like to narrow and, if at all possible, resolve the issues between us carrying out its obligation under the Protocol to provide the information and documents within the next 30 days.

In that event, I shall gladly reconsider my position on receipt of them.

As I am sure you will realise, in the event that your client does not provide the information and documents prior to court action being taken against me, I shall apply to the court for your client’s claim to be struck out for its failure to comply with The Protocol.

Furthermore, in the event of court action being taken against me, I shall launch a counterclaim against your client.

I look forward to receiving your reply.

Yours sincerely,

Posted by: boro12856 Tue, 21 Aug 2018 - 11:13
Post #1409822

Thanks again, I will get that typed up and posted off. So I do not need to mention anything regarding why I reject the claim as of yet.

Posted by: Eljayjay Tue, 21 Aug 2018 - 13:01
Post #1409850

I have edited the third and fourth paragraphs so that you state that you still dispute the alleged debt and to fix a couple of typos.

I imagine that the letter of claim simply asks you for money as opposed to documents and information. In that event, you do not have to provide anything at this stage.

Posted by: boro12856 Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 09:27
Post #1410406

Eljayjay, also with the LBC they sent was a reply form (a dodgy printed out tick sheet) do I need to fill this out and send back with my letter of reply too?

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 10:08
Post #1410428

Youre not required to use ANY form.

Posted by: boro12856 Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 11:18
Post #1410453

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 11:08) *
Youre not required to use ANY form.


Thanks, I have just emailed off the reply in assistance with Eljayjay above.

Just for any further information with what I have dug out, I had previously tried to contact the management agent of the site to cancel the tickets and rebuff the tactics of UKPC and the scrutiny they are under in both media and parliament. Which previously has fallen on deaf ears, but I have sent another email today. However the MA are not the leasehold of the property (which I have just paid to get the leasehold from land registry today). This is held by two separate companies (for which bar companies house, no other info is available). They were still liable to the MA for bills such as gas which were sent in a bill form from MA to leasehold and then passed to myself (does this make sense).

The lease I have gotten hold of also doesn't reference anywhere parking, but I did only get the online copy of such. The claim from SCS is regarding a visitors bay however, if this does go further, where do I stand on this matter? The visitors bay were still within the gated entrance, a valid permit had to be displayed (which was) and the permits were only given to residents (which we were at the time). We no longer rent the property and moved out three years ago. Sorry I am not very savvy with my words, I am more just persistent in the fact I do not want to give my money to UKPC when I do not believe they have suffered any loss by a vehicle being parked in a visitors bay with a valid permit. Another problem I have is that when we first started fighting these claims, because nothing was heard for years now, we believed it had all been dropped (although nothing in writing). So never needed to get photos of signage etc for our own use, and now as moved out can no longer gain access to the car park.

Is there anything I can be doing in the meantime to assist myself for when this goes further. I have now spent three days solid reading both here, MSE and parking pranksters site and my brain is absolutely fried.

TIA

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 11:25
Post #1410458

The online copy is NOT the lease. You need to fill out form OC2 to get the real lease.
You need the lease, because common areas such as visitors bays must be considered in the actual lease.


FORGET LOSS. SERIOULSY, FORGET LOSS. This is NOT teh reason they get paid - it really isnt. They NEVER have a loss as they DONT own the land!

Posted by: Jlc Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 11:39
Post #1410462

'Disengaging Beavis' is a tough ask - but it can happen, http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/01/ukpc-lose-residential-case-charge-not.html

But it's not the main show in town.

Posted by: boro12856 Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 11:48
Post #1410465

QUOTE (Jlc @ Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 12:39) *
'Disengaging Beavis' is a tough ask - but it can happen, http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/01/ukpc-lose-residential-case-charge-not.html

But it's not the main show in town.


Disengaging Beavis?

Posted by: Jlc Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 11:52
Post #1410468

QUOTE (boro12856 @ Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 12:48) *
Disengaging Beavis?

The Supreme Court case of ParkingEye v Beavis. Decided that £100 (or £85 as it was) did not have to be a (genuine pre-estimate of) loss and was enforceable.

Most Judges will apply it fairly uniformly when arguing the amount is a penalty - disengaging the ruling does happen as per my link...

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 11:52
Post #1410469

In order for you to argue "loss", you need to point out how this case differs from Parking EYe vs Beavis. A supreme COurt case decided in favour of PE in 2015.

Posted by: emanresu Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 11:56
Post #1410474

QUOTE
Disengaging Beavis?


The whole PPC industry is about enforcement of controls of some form. If there is a purpose to it (in the Beavis case it was overstaying) then the £100 is "acceptable" whereas if there is no purpose to it then "loss" is the maximum that can be claimed.

The test is "legitimate interest" - a test that applies in many areas of law.

What the Jopson case / Aziz case were about was the lack of purpose that allows them to justify £100 which is greater than their loss.

Clearly someone parking in their own space is not a nuisance and issuing tickets has no purpose. You have to get UKPC to explain in clear terms what their purpose was in a) ticketing and b) leaving it this late to issue a claim.

Posted by: boro12856 Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 13:55
Post #1410529

Thanks for all the replies, they did refer to Parking Eye v Beavis in the LBC I was sent, however as this is residential I just disregarded that comment. As I have stated the car park for the flats was a gated entrance which only residents are given a fob for, as well as residents are given a permit for allocated space and a visitors pass only to be used in a visitors bay (which is where my case lies). Which is where I struggle to see any 'loss' as we (residents) were not charged to park, so how can they say a loss was made by parking in a visitors bay using a visitors pass (for longer than stated) although unless they are sitting by the vehicle for 24 hours how can they confirm if the car was parked for such times. From what I recall there was no notice to say "no return within..."

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 13:59
Post #1410532

Yes, and we know that

So do you know PE vs Beavis well enough to arue how it does NOT apply here?

Posted by: Jlc Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 14:12
Post #1410543

Read emanresu's post #52 carefully. There's no loss, we all know that but there doesn't have to be a loss...

The first test will not be whether there was a loss, i.e. you can't work backwards from that. Going forwards, if the PPC can successfully argue there's a legitimate reason to have a £100 charge to provide deterrence then the actual loss argument will be covered by Beavis. Even for a gated car park (broken gate aside) it still may be argued that the charge is required to dissuade 'abuse' by residents.

I've been back through the thread and I can't see pictures of the signs?

Posted by: boro12856 Fri, 21 Sep 2018 - 19:34
Post #1418713

Hi everyone, so I wrote a letter to SCS Law pretty much what Eljayjay given in this thread and got a response today:

We write further to your email below.



Please find enclosed the following documentation, as per your request:-



· The Parking Charge Notices issued and follow up letters;

· A contract authorising our client to control parking at the site (redacted for reasons of commercial sensitivity);

· Photographs of the signage at the site;

· An annotated site map showing signage locations; and

· Photographs of your vehicle in situ.



Please note, we have adopted the same numbering to the points raised in your letter and have provided our response below:-



1. Our client’s claim is for breach of contract;



2. Under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, our client has the right to pursue you as the registered keeper of the vehicle for the parking contraventions;



3. Please see point 2 and the attached documentation demonstrating compliance;



4. On multiple occasions, your vehicle was parked at .......... An offer was made by the signage present at the site in question and upon entering the site the driver agreed to abide by the terms and conditions for parking (as per the signage). Therefore, by parking at the site in question the driver entered into a contract by conduct. As the driver failed to abide by the terms and conditions by parking for longer than the allowed time, your vehicle was issued with the parking charge notices in question.



The signage attached confirms that each parking charge was issued for the sum of £90.00 and would have been reduced to £50.00, if paid within 14 days. Given that the parking charges remained unpaid, the matter was passed to our client’s debt recovery agent and an additional charge of £60.00 was applied, as outlined on the signage. Each parking contravention is now outstanding for the sum of £150.00;



5. Please refer to the contract attached. Our client manages parking at the site in question pursuant to the contract with Premier Estates Limited, who are the managing agent of the site on behalf of the landowner;



6. An annotated site map showing signage locations is attached;



7. Please see point 4;



8. Our client follows the BPA Code of Practice under which written authorisation is required from the landowner or their agent to manage parking at the site;



9. The photographs of the signage are attached;



10.-16. Please confirm if you seek to rely on any leasehold agreement in relation to this site if you allege that any such agreement gave the driver of the vehicle a right to park in breach of the terms and conditions, and provide us with a copy of the same.



17. Our client's position is that they have complied with the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, as the service provided to you by our client was the provision of a parking space to be used in compliance with the terms and conditions, as per the signage, which was erected at the site in question. As you failed to comply with these terms and conditions, a breach of contract occurred and therefore our client was at liberty to issue you with the parking charge notices.



18. Our client will be relying on all the documentation that is relevant to this case.





In light of the above, it is our client’s position that the parking charge notices in the sum of £750.00 were validly issued and that they remain due and owing.



We look forward to hearing from you within 30 days, after which time, we anticipate instructions to continue with proceedings accordingly.


Yours sincerely,



Along with this the evidence bundle was attached which included copies of all tickets, photos of the car, the signs, the contract between client and UKPC (which was in date), and map of the areas to be covered (which all bays included).

I am unsure how to proceed, this is in my partners name the claim, and she is at home panicking like mad at the minute and just wants to pay the £750. I have told her we will fight it, but personally I am really unsure on what grounds.

I did email the client and owner of the complex and after they kindly tried to assist (I did try to contact them back in 2014 I think to no avail, when the first ever SCS letter arrived), they got a response from UKPC which said the following:

Thank you for getting back to me and providing the explicit consent.



Unfortunately these charges have escalated to a stage whereby I cannot cancel them. The charges were issued from 6th April 2014 until 20th June 2014. The charges have gone to a stage where our Legal Team have started to take action to retrieve the monies owed for each of the parking charge notices.



If the driver would like to discuss this with our Legal Team, I am able to provide their email and direct dial.



So the client has requested on my behalf that the tickets all be cancelled but UKPC have said no! Surely the client can demand the tickets to be cancelled? This is what I said back to them by email.


I would really appreciate any help with the matter, as I have previously said I am definitely not very au fait with legal terms, so an ELI5 (explain like im 5) reply would be great!

TIA

Posted by: Eljayjay Sat, 22 Sep 2018 - 00:05
Post #1418748

Where is the lease?

The lease is the document of paramount importance. What you obtained online was the title, not the lease.

As explained by nosteratu1001, if you do not already have the lease, you need to obtain a copy from the Land Registry by completing form OC2 and paying a modest fee. Please get this done and, after redacting any personal data, post it here. [Due to its size, you will almost certainly have to upload it to another website and post a link here.]

Get moving on the lease NOW.

In addition, post your letter here (i.e. the letter which was based on my draft) so that we can see, where they refer to your paragraph numbers, to what they are actually referring.

Posted by: The Rookie Sat, 22 Sep 2018 - 05:19
Post #1418755

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 12:25) *
The online copy is NOT the lease. You need to fill out form OC2 to get the real lease.
You need the lease, because common areas such as visitors bays must be considered in the actual lease.

Well you've had a month so far, and......


QUOTE (boro12856 @ Fri, 21 Sep 2018 - 20:34) *
1. Our client’s claim is for breach of contract;

No its not, that would then be for loss, its for a contractually agreed sum, but of course that's hard to justify on someones own land.

Posted by: boro12856 Sat, 22 Sep 2018 - 08:57
Post #1418771

I am inwork until this afternoon, I will look to get the lease filled out today. Tbh apart from sending the two emails one to scs and one to the owner of the complex, I hadn’t done anything else. Purely based on the fact the owner said they weren’t going to look into getting them cancelled.

Posted by: Eljayjay Sat, 22 Sep 2018 - 11:59
Post #1418805

You have three choices: the first is to spend some time and effort defending the claim; the second is losing the case and paying out lots of money; the third is losing the case, not paying but having a CCJ (and all that goes with that) hanging over your head for a number of years.

It’s make your mind up time.


Posted by: boro12856 Sat, 22 Sep 2018 - 12:23
Post #1418808

QUOTE (Eljayjay @ Sat, 22 Sep 2018 - 12:59) *
You have three choices: the first is to spend some time and effort defending the claim; the second is losing the case and paying out lots of money; the third is losing the case, not paying but having a CCJ (and all that goes with that) hanging over your head for a number of years.

It’s make your mind up time.


Yeah I understand that, I want to fight it. But I am struggling to see on what grounds I can. Signs were erected, contract was in place, the areas they ticketed were outlined in the contract between client and UKPC. The sign states upon entering you are engaging in contract. When the tickets were sent I took ill advice initially and ignored as many people did years ago. I appealed some and got nowhere. I spoke to owner of complex and got nowhere. Then after first letter from SCS back in 2015 I replied and got nothing back. So I premised it had all gone away.

Like I said when I get back from work I will fill out the form to request lease and go from there.

Is there anything else worth posting in the thread?

Edit - this wasn’t a case of ignorance, we parked in the same manner for almost a year before tickets began appearing

Posted by: Eljayjay Sat, 22 Sep 2018 - 14:58
Post #1418817

In addition to getting hold of a copy of the lease, you need to familiarise yourself with the issues involved in residential parking cases by reading some other threads.

You will find one thread where, if my memory serves me well, the original poster had received over 30 tickets for parking in her own parking space. Her lease provided the crucial evidence which she needed not only to successfully defend the claim but also to win over £4,500 by making a counterclaim. The parking operator may appeal the decision; however, even if it does, it is my opinion that the parking operator will not succeed.

If well defended, it is almost impossible for a parking operator to win a residential parking case.

I can only recall one recent case where a tenant lost a residential case. I wonder if you can guess why she lost. It was because (1) she left it far too late to get a copy of the lease and (2) she failed to familiarise herself with the issues.

Posted by: boro12856 Sat, 22 Sep 2018 - 15:24
Post #1418821

QUOTE (Eljayjay @ Sat, 22 Sep 2018 - 15:58) *
In addition to getting hold of a copy of the lease, you need to familiarise yourself with the issues involved in residential parking cases by reading some other threads.

You will find one thread where, if my memory serves me well, the original poster had received over 30 tickets for parking in her own parking space. Her lease provided the crucial evidence which she needed not only to successfully defend the claim but also to win over £4,500 by making a counterclaim. The parking operator may appeal the decision; however, even if it does, it is my opinion that the parking operator will not succeed.

If well defended, it is almost impossible for a parking operator to win a residential parking case.

I can only recall one recent case where a tenant lost a residential case. I wonder if you can guess why she lost. It was because (1) she left it far too late to get a copy of the lease and (2) she failed to familiarise herself with the issues.


I have just got back and getting on with getting hold of the lease. The only issue we have is that this was from parking in a visitors bay, which was on a first come first serve etc. We had two cars, so one was in the spot for the flat (my car, which I still got tickets on but nothing came of these after i appealed) and the second visitor which my partner used, displaying the visitors pass. The tickets arrived on occasions where it was deemed to have over stayed the 24hour welcome and no return within 48 hours (which is absurd for a residents parking). I will try and have a read, theres some much information on here its actually overwhelming.

Posted by: boro12856 Sat, 22 Sep 2018 - 15:38
Post #1418826

Can anyone assist with OC2 form? I do not have a clue what I am to be filling out and even searching google hasnt proved any help. How am I meant to find out the title number and what relevant document? If someone can PM it would be greatly appreciated.

I have also contacted DVLA to find out how many times they requested Keeper details.


EDIT - Ok so I have found the title numbers etc off the forms I downloaded a month ago, however the leasehold only includes the flat we rented and on the second floor of the building nothing else. So am I wanting to request the details for the freehold which includes details of every flat in the whole complex (there was three buildings within the gated entrance).

Posted by: Eljayjay Sat, 22 Sep 2018 - 15:57
Post #1418827

A month ago, you downloaded the Title document for the flat. I imagine that it was two or three pages long at most.

You needed and you still need the LEASE for the flat. The LEASE will very probably be about 30 or 40 pages long. The LEASE is much longer than the Title document because it contains all of the detail which is missing from the Title document.

The LEASE contains everything that there is to say about the rights and obligations of the parties to it. It will almost certainly include details of the rights and obligations which apply to parking in both the flat's allocated parking space (if any) and in the visitors' parking spaces.

I shall give a response to your 16:24 post soon.

Posted by: boro12856 Sat, 22 Sep 2018 - 16:31
Post #1418830

As I am just after a copy of the lease am I right in thinking the fee should be £7? Just another site I just read they say to put £24. Also I can only pay by cheque but dont carry my chequebook with me. I am currently away for work and wouldnt be back until end of this month. I may have to fill out the form and request my partner to sort it.

edit - what do I put in the Reference?

Posted by: Eljayjay Sat, 22 Sep 2018 - 16:59
Post #1418834

The lease is a matter of public record. Anyone can apply for it. I do not keep up-to-date on the cost of obtaining a lease, but do not use any "Land Registry" website unless it is a gov.uk website. All others are scammers who will charge much more for documents than you would pay to the Land Registry for the same thing.

If you have any more questions about how to fill in a form OC2 and apply for a copy of the lease, you or your partner should direct those questions to the Land Registry.

Turning to your 16:24 post...

In that post (#63), you stated:-

“I have just got back and getting on with getting hold of the lease. The only issue we have is that this was from parking in a visitors bay, which was on a first come first serve etc. We had two cars, so one was in the spot for the flat (my car, which I still got tickets on but nothing came of these after i appealed) and the second visitor which my partner used, displaying the visitors pass. The tickets arrived on occasions where it was deemed to have over stayed the 24hour welcome and no return within 48 hours (which is absurd for a residents parking). I will try and have a read, theres some much information on here its actually overwhelming”

The lease will almost certainly tell us what rights you have to park in not only the flat’s allocated parking space but also the visitors’ parking spaces.

The rights and obligations of the parties to the lease are governed by the lease and any regulations made in accordance with the lease. It is vital that you understand that.

My understanding is that you are the tenant of one of those parties, the leasehold owner of your flat. You will, therefore, have rights and obligations derived from the lease through him or her. It is vital that you understand that.

If you have failed to park in accordance with the lease and any regulations made in accordance with it, you are in breach of the lease. It is vital that you understand that.

If you have breached the lease, the remedy would be for the other parties to it to seek damages from you and/or to seek an injunction ordering you not to repeat the breach. It is vital that you understand that.

The car park was provided for the exclusive use of the residents and their visitors. The car park was not provided so that a parking operator could come along, put up some signs and start using it for the purposes of its business. It is vital that you understand that.

If the parking operator’s parking scheme has been introduced in accordance with the terms of the lease, it will almost certainly fall foul of the longstanding legal principle of ‘privity of contract’. Put simply, privity of contract means that a person who is not a party to a lease cannot enforce the terms of the lease. The parking operator will not be a party to the lease and, as a result, it cannot claim parking charges or any other charges under the lease. It is vital that you understand that.

If, on the other hand, the parking operator’s parking scheme has not been introduced in accordance with the terms of the lease, it can have no validity insofar as leaseholders and their tenants are concerned because their rights and obligations are governed by the leases which have primacy of contract over the parking operator’s contract with its client. It is vital that you understand that.

What we now need to do is to make sure that the lease does not detract from the points that I have made above and we can only do that if you provide a copy of the lease. It is vital that you understand that too.

Posted by: boro12856 Sat, 22 Sep 2018 - 17:10
Post #1418837

Brilliant, thank you so much for that Eljayjay. How long does it normally take for HM Land Registry to send out the documents? I have 30 days to reply to SCS obviously as they stated in the email. But I will not be able to get hold of my cheque book to send payment until next week. I will then send the form off and the money fastest post I can.

I am hoping it is a case of that the lease will stand over the agreement between client and UKPC because the lease was obtained in 2009 for the property and UKPC didn't sign the agreement with client until 2013.

I do however struggle understanding the following

If, on the other hand, the parking operator’s parking scheme has not been introduced in accordance with the terms of the lease, it can have no validity insofar as leaseholders and their tenants are concerned because their rights and obligations are governed by the leases which have primacy of contract over the parking operator’s contract with its client. It is vital that you understand that.

Is this saying that if the agreement between client and UKPC is not in the terms of lease it is completely invalid?

Posted by: Eljayjay Sat, 22 Sep 2018 - 17:43
Post #1418847

I have no idea how long the Land Registry will take to send you a copy of the lease but, as I have already said, you can get someone else to apply for it while you are away.

The lease is the document of paramount importance when it comes to a leasehold property.

So, generally, the answer to your question "Is this saying that if the agreement between client and UKPC is not in the terms of lease it is completely invalid?" would, unless the lease contains something truly exceptional, be "yes".

The vast majority of parking schemes in residential car parks are operated on the basis of bluff.

Posted by: Eljayjay Sat, 22 Sep 2018 - 19:24
Post #1418872

In an attempt to gain some more time for yourself and your partner, I would suggest that your partner (as it is your partner against whom the claim is being made) sends the letter or email below to SCS Law.

In case you do not know already, if you post a letter about parking matters, use first-class mail, hand the envelope over at a Post Office counter, and request a free certificate of posting. If your partner sends an email, copy it to self or you - this is useful in case the addressee denies receiving it.

I would also suggest that, apart from correcting any typos or anything factually incorrect, you do not make any changes to what I have drafted or send anything else to anyone without posting it here first.



Thank you for your letter of <xx September 2018>.

In your combined response to my points 10 to 16, you ask:-

<tab> “Please confirm if you seek to rely on any leasehold agreement in relation to this site if you allege that any such agreement gave the driver of the vehicle a right to park in breach of the terms and conditions, and provide us with a copy of the same.”

What your request reveals is that, prior to your client entering into a contract with Premier Estates Limited and prior to your client purporting to enter into contracts with drivers, your client failed to apply due diligence to the pre-existing leases which govern the relationships, behaviours, rights and obligations of the parties to them insofar as numerous matters including parking are concerned. If your client had not been so negligent, you would not now need to ask me to supply you with a copy of the lease relating to my flat. Instead, your client would already be familiar with the lease and the other leases relating to the other flats at the development.

The leases are, of course, readily available from the Land Registry and, as such, they are documents in the public domain. You do not, therefore, need me to supply you with a copy of the lease for my flat. You do not even need permission to obtain a copy of the lease for my flat. One of the Land Registry’s raisons d'être is to provide leases, etc. to persons (e.g. your client and its solicitors) needing to obtain information on pre-existing rights affecting land.

It is obvious that neither you nor your client have any knowledge whatsoever of the leases relating to the development. In these circumstances, I must insist that you take steps to obtain a copy of the lease for my flat and, once you have it, provide the information and documents requested below:-

<tab> as Premier Estates Limited is not the owner of the land, the evidence provided by Premier Estates Limited that that company was acting on behalf of the owner(s) and occupier(s) of the land when it entered into the parking contract with your client;

<tab if the lease contains express provision to allow your client to operate a parking scheme on the land, a note of the specific clause(s) in the lease applicable to this situation;

<tab> if the lease contains express provision to allow your client to operate a parking scheme on the land, a note of the specific clause(s) in the lease applicable to this situation;

<tab> if any rules or regulations have been made in accordance with the lease’s provisions to allow your client to operate a parking scheme on the land:-

<tab><tab> (a) a copy of those rules or regulations duly signed, etc. by the person(s) who made them; and

<tab><tab> (b) a note of the specific clause(s) in the lease in accordance with which those rules or regulations were made;

<tab> if the lease granted individual rights to park on the land to a particular person, a copy of the instrument which either transferred those individual rights from that person to your client or transferred a share of those individual rights from that person to your client;

<tab> if the lease granted collective rights to park on the land to a particular group of persons, e.g. residents and/or their visitors, a copy of the instrument which either transferred those collective rights from that group of persons to your client or transferred a share of those collective rights from that group of persons to your client;

<tab> if the lease does not permit third parties, e.g. your client, to enforce the lease’s terms, a note explaining how your client has concluded that it has acquired such a right;

<tab> if your client’s parking scheme has not been introduced in accordance with the lease’s provisions, a note explaining how your client has concluded that its alleged parking contract with the driver has acquired primacy of contract over the lease;

<tab> an explanation as to why your client felt it was unnecessary to use care and skill to assess the situation relating to pre-existing rights were concerned and, in consequence, failed to ensure that not only the contract between your client and Premier Estates Limited but also the purported contract between your client and the driver met the “Implied term about care and skill” requirement contained in the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982;

<tab> a note giving the Company’s explanation as to how the current ticketing and charging regime accords with the legal principle of non-derogation from grant implied in all leases;

<tab> a note giving the Company’s explanation as to how the current parking regime with its exorbitant parking charges and threats of court action against lessees using their own allocated parking spaces accords with the legal principle of quiet enjoyment implied in all leases;

<tab> any other information and documents not already provided on which the Company would rely in court in support of its belief that the current parking regime is valid.

As you are no doubt aware, paragraph 5 of the Protocol reads as follows:-

<tab> 5 DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS

<tab> 5.1 Early disclosure of documents and relevant information can help to clarify or resolve any issues in dispute. Where any aspect of the debt is disputed (including the amount, interest, charges, time for payment, or the creditor’s compliance with relevant statutes and regulations), the parties should exchange information and disclose documents sufficient to enable them to understand each other’s position.

<tab> 5.2 If the debtor requests a document or information, the creditor must –

<tab> (a) provide the document or information; or

<tab> (b) explain why the document or information is unavailable,

<tab> within 30 days of receipt of the request.

Naturally, I fully expect your client (or your firm on its behalf) to meet the requirements mentioned paragraph 5.2 above.

I do, therefore. look forward to receiving either the documents and information which I have requested or your explanation why they are unavailable within the deadline set by the Protocol.

Yours…

Posted by: boro12856 Wed, 26 Sep 2018 - 12:19
Post #1419827

Hi all, I have been involved in a long chain email with the company who owns the compex regarding these tickets and trying to get them to cancel which unfortunately hasn’t happened. I read elsewhere to request a copy of the Long Term Service Contract made between Premier Estates Ltd & UKPC Ltd under Section 20 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985. I did this today and this is the response I received from them:

As no money was paid for the ongoing service to UKPC, the works did not qualify for a Long Term Service Contract.

Would this have any bearing on the case?

TIA

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 26 Sep 2018 - 12:39
Post #1419831

Then just ask for a copy of the contract anyway, as you have a right to see the obligations they have entered the tenants into.

Posted by: boro12856 Wed, 26 Sep 2018 - 13:43
Post #1419848

This was the response to asking for contract:

Any contract between Premier Estates and UKPC is irrelevant as you effectively entered a contract with UKPC when you parked on private land where their signage is erected. This is regardless of whether you were a resident or not. Their signage is their contract with anyone who parks on site.

Posted by: Eljayjay Wed, 26 Sep 2018 - 16:39
Post #1419905

Post the letter which you have received from Premier Estates Limited.

Posted by: Churchmouse Wed, 26 Sep 2018 - 18:30
Post #1419928

QUOTE (boro12856 @ Wed, 26 Sep 2018 - 14:43) *
This was the response to asking for contract:

Any contract between Premier Estates and UKPC is irrelevant as you effectively entered a contract with UKPC when you parked on private land where their signage is erected. This is regardless of whether you were a resident or not. Their signage is their contract with anyone who parks on site.

Of course, it may or may not be relevant, but that very much depends on what it says. For example, if it requires the PPC to cancel parking charges upon the client's request...

QUOTE (boro12856)
So the client has requested on my behalf that the tickets all be cancelled but UKPC have said no! Surely the client can demand the tickets to be cancelled?

...and the PPC has refused, then it may be in breach of the contract authorising it to operate on the site. There could be other provisions relevant to you, but if they refuse to provide it, I'm not sure there's much you can do (apart from demanding it from the PPC).

These sorts of contracts are negotiated at arm's length between the PPC and the landowner or its agent, so I'd be very surprised if the contract required the PPC to obey any and all requests/orders from the "client", as each time they did so the PPC would lose potential income. In other words, these contracts are not simple agency agreements: the PPC is acting on its own behalf, rather than on behalf of the "client" (and certainly not on behalf of the residents!)

--Churchmouse

Posted by: boro12856 Wed, 26 Sep 2018 - 19:51
Post #1419955

QUOTE (Eljayjay @ Wed, 26 Sep 2018 - 17:39) *
Post the letter which you have received from Premier Estates Limited.


I didnt receive a letter, it was just a chain of emails between myself and the Estates Manager for the complex

Posted by: Eljayjay Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 02:35
Post #1419995

Have you sent the letter, which I drafted for you, to SCS?

Has the application for the lease been made?

Do not continue the email chain with the Estates Manager for the time being.

Posted by: boro12856 Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 17:46
Post #1420242

QUOTE (Eljayjay @ Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 03:35) *
Have you sent the letter, which I drafted for you, to SCS?

Has the application for the lease been made?

Do not continue the email chain with the Estates Manager for the time being.


Letter to SCS has been sent yes, application for lease will be sent tomorrow, I could not get my cheque book until then.

Posted by: boro12856 Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 12:45
Post #1423812

QUOTE (Eljayjay @ Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 03:35) *
Have you sent the letter, which I drafted for you, to SCS?

Has the application for the lease been made?

Do not continue the email chain with the Estates Manager for the time being.


Response from SCS law in reply to the letter you drafted

I write further to your email below.

Please can you provide us with the address of the property at the site which you allege grants you a right to park at the site. We will then obtain a copy of the relevant documentation from the Land Registry in due course.

In the absence of confirming the above, we anticipate instructions from our client to proceed further with this matter and also reserve the right to refer to this correspondence on the question of costs.

We look forward to hearing from you within 7 days.

Yours sincerely,

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 18:09
Post #1423957

Give them the residential address, as requested, and tell them they must share with you a copy of their findings from the LR that they say they will apply for, and not just selected excerpts or you will report them to the SRA and ICO.

And in the meantime the file must be marked for Restriction of Data Processing, and any litigation placed on hold.

Posted by: Eljayjay Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 19:35
Post #1423998

boro12856

Do you now have a copy of the lease?

What was the date of SCS's letter?

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 23:32
Post #1424054

Parking Cowboys is a useful resource again, now they've ditched the dodgy links I see:

https://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/residential-parking/


Posted by: boro12856 Thu, 11 Oct 2018 - 04:57
Post #1424065

QUOTE (Eljayjay @ Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 20:35) *
boro12856

Do you now have a copy of the lease?

What was the date of SCS's letter?


Lease I am still awaiting on the form was sent off with the cheque almost 2 weeks ago, although the cheque was sent back to me within 3 days as I had stupidly forgot to date it. I am back away with work but I have been pestering my other half every day to go through the post and nothing yet.

SCS latest letter requesting the address arrived yesterday so 10-10-18

Edit - just checked my bank this morning and the payment for the lease has came out so I should expect it within next couple days I’d imagine

Posted by: boro12856 Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 11:57
Post #1425348

QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Wed, 10 Oct 2018 - 19:09) *
Give them the residential address, as requested, and tell them they must share with you a copy of their findings from the LR that they say they will apply for, and not just selected excerpts or you will report them to the SRA and ICO.

And in the meantime the file must be marked for Restriction of Data Processing, and any litigation placed on hold.


I am looking to reply to them today, I am unsure as to what SRA & ICO are. Would you be able to give me a written example of how to reply, or just be blunt, here’s address etc.

Also the lease has arrived, I am not home from work until 22nd and there’s no one who can upload the documents in the meantime. But I suppose replying to the request for address to SCS will buy me more time.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Mon, 15 Oct 2018 - 13:48
Post #1425377

Solicitors Regulation Authority - google'able
Ditto ICO - Information Commissioners Office

Posted by: boro12856 Thu, 18 Oct 2018 - 08:09
Post #1426252

Morning all, so I have just returned from work and the lease has arrived. Personally through looking at it, I am not sure if things are looking in my favour. Its something like 50 pages long, is there any specifics to upload or shall I upload the whole document to an external link? TIA

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Thu, 18 Oct 2018 - 13:04
Post #1426323

Well anythign that deals with
- your property and the definituons of such
- anything to do with parking, parking spaces, communical spaces, and the definitions of such
- any covenants etc youre bound by relating to use of car spaces
- any rights for them to vary Esatte regualtions / introduce new ones and WHY they can do so.

Posted by: ostell Thu, 18 Oct 2018 - 21:41
Post #1426521

"Demised space"

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Thu, 18 Oct 2018 - 21:43
Post #1426523

Also look for rights to peaceful enjoyment, and anything about the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act.

Posted by: boro12856 Mon, 22 Oct 2018 - 16:52
Post #1427446

Went through this afternoon and these are all I can find so far, I have read through twice. But I will admit there's an awful lot of wording that is way beyond me. I am going to have another read through in the morning in case I missed anything.

Thanks

http://s000.tinyupload.com/download.php?file_id=97196821517870392391&t=9719682151787039239170767

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Tue, 23 Oct 2018 - 00:03
Post #1427590

Can't get that to work, can you host on Dropbox or type it out here in a reply?

Posted by: boro12856 Tue, 23 Oct 2018 - 07:19
Post #1427614

QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Tue, 23 Oct 2018 - 01:03) *
Can't get that to work, can you host on Dropbox or type it out here in a reply?


https://www.dropbox.com/s/ivx1d0pjt5mypb2/2018-10-22%2017-37.pdf?dl=0

Posted by: boro12856 Mon, 5 Nov 2018 - 18:22
Post #1431387

Reply from SCS regarding the lease, I had already informed them I rented the property at the time, so unsure as to why the questions

Re: UK Parking Control Ltd



Further to your email below, please find attached a copy of the lease dated 18 August 2009 ("the Lease") that we have obtained from the Land Registry in respect of Flat....



Firstly, we note that neither the Lease nor the Title Register (attached) contain your name anywhere in the document. Accordingly, can you please clarify your position and explain to us why you believe that you were entitled to park at the site in question?



Having considered the attached Lease, we note that under Schedule 2, clause 8 on page 21 of the Lease, it grants the Lessee the right to use the car parking space edged green on the Plan (bay number 5) or any other parking space if allocated by the Lessor from time to time within the Development, for the purpose of parking one fully taxed and licensed private motor car or motor cycle only.



You are not the leaseholder of the property and therefore the above clause does not apply to you (unless you can prove otherwise). We refer you to clause 8.1 on page 15 of the Lease, which states that pursuant to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, the Lease does not confer a benefit on any person who is not a party to this lease. Accordingly, it appears that you have no right under the Lease and therefore you do not have an unfettered right to park your vehicle at the site in question.



In addition, we refer you to Schedule 4, clause 18.1 on page 28 of the Lease, which states that the leaseholder must comply with the regulations as imposed by the Lessor in regard to the proper management of the Apartments, the Reserved Property and the Development (please see the definitions set out in the Lease). It is our client’s position that the implementation of a parking scheme at the site are such regulations and therefore the leaseholder is bound to comply with the same.



Given the above, it is our client’s position that the parking charge notices for the sum of £750.00 were validly issued against you and remain due and owing.



We look forward to hearing from you.


Yours sincerely,

Posted by: Eljayjay Wed, 7 Nov 2018 - 11:32
Post #1431886

How can anyone offer guidance on this when you have still not given us sight of the lease?

The fact that you are a sub-tenant (and it would be difficult to imagine any apartment lease which does not take sub-tenants into account) means that, "as a member of a class or as answering a particular description" (see the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999), you almost certainly have a right to enforce the lease's terms.

Without having seen the lease, however, I cannot confirm that.

Posted by: Churchmouse Wed, 7 Nov 2018 - 16:06
Post #1431977

Indeed.

As for the PPC argument re the lease requiring compliance with "regulations as imposed by the Lessor" includes requiring the tenant to engage in contractual relations with a third party PPC, http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=123493&hl=contains some very good language refuting any such obligation.

--Churchmouse

Posted by: boro12856 Thu, 8 Nov 2018 - 12:11
Post #1432192

QUOTE (Eljayjay @ Wed, 7 Nov 2018 - 11:32) *
How can anyone offer guidance on this when you have still not given us sight of the lease?

The fact that you are a sub-tenant (and it would be difficult to imagine any apartment lease which does not take sub-tenants into account) means that, "as a member of a class or as answering a particular description" (see the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999), you almost certainly have a right to enforce the lease's terms.

Without having seen the lease, however, I cannot confirm that.


Hi Eljayjay, I did upload the pages I believed of reference from the lease to the thread in two places. The latest upload was to dropbox just two posts above yours I believe. I can upload the full lease if that will be better?

Thanks

EDIT - Here is the full lease uploaded http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=09257836369746228866

Posted by: Eljayjay Thu, 8 Nov 2018 - 18:28
Post #1432371

I shall let you have my comments on the lease, etc. tomorrow.

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 01:30
Post #1432475

QUOTE (boro12856 @ Thu, 8 Nov 2018 - 13:11) *
Here is the full lease uploaded http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=09257836369746228866


I've looked at the lease and don't think you should hang your hat on it, given the unallocated bays in question, the terms of the lease and the fact you were a tenant. Where is a copy of your tenancy agreement, have we seen that or can you get it fairly urgently, perhaps by sending a SAR to the Letting Agent you dealt with which advertised the flat all those years ago?

Anyway re the Lease:

The leaseholder - and you as tenant at the time had a right 'in common with all others entitled to the like right' to use and park in a visitor bay. BUT for not more than 24 hours in a 48 hr period. As your leasehold owner landlord only had a right to park in those visitors bays on a ''first come first served basis'' then they cannot have actually promised the use of those spaces as a right or grant to their tenant (you).

However what did your tenancy agreement actually say about parking, and who told you that you ''could'' use those bays? Is it in writing? I think your tenancy agreement is more important here than the lease, because we are not talking about demised or allocated bays or exclusive rights to park that could be granted to a tenant as such, we are talking about bays that (as you were told) you could use if they were empty, 'in common with all others entitled to the like right'.

The flat's lease defines 'regulations' saying that the freehold landowner only has a limited right to make 'reasonable' regulations for the proper management of the estate 'which do not unnecessarily restrict the enjoyment of the premises'.

6.1. says: ''the lessee shall and may peaceably and quietly hold and enjoy the premises...without any lawful interruption or disturbance from or by the lessor or any person or persons rightfully claiming under or in trust for it''.

and 8.1. ''this lease shall not be construed as providing nor purporting to confer a benefit on any person who is not a party to this lease pursuant to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties Act) 1999.''

I reckon emanresu is about to have to put some seasoning on his hat but to be fair, this comment was in early 2015, months before the Beavis case opened the floodgates:

QUOTE (emanresu @ Fri, 9 Jan 2015 - 10:59) *
QUOTE
7 tickets though does increase the chance of them actually issuing a claim. (£1k+ may be worth their while)


I'll eat my hat if the do - plus dig out the case of East Riding v UKPC to see if there is any more porridge available.



The PCNs in the SCS letter are for allegedly parking for too long in the 24 hr visitors bay in 2014 (a limitation which IS mentioned in the lease). But, you said ages ago:

QUOTE
From what I recall there was no notice to say "no return within..."


But I cannot find that you commented once SCS produced the photos of the car and signs, whether you can actually make out from the photos taken on the days (not from stock images UKPC might have mocked up of 'here's what the sign said') whether it DID say beside the visitors bays that residents/visitors could only park for 24 hours? We've seen such signs before with a little clock icon but unreadable tiny wording. So, do the photos SCS sent show the signs near the car on ALL occasions, saying that there is a £100 charge (large lettering, readable?) AND that there is a 24hr time limit? did they provide photos from each and every date showing the words on the signs at the visitors bays?

The charge - even if legible (and I bet it is not) - was not £150 so they cannot claim £150 a pop (plus try to trouser over 4 years worth of interest due to their own inaction).

I would suggest a reply to SCS Law with something like this:



Dear Sirs,

Re: UK Parking Control Ltd

I refer to your reply attaching a copy of the lease dated 18 August 2009 ("the Lease") that you obtained from the Land Registry.

Whilst it is noted with interest that you ''note that neither the Lease nor the Title Register (attached) contain your name anywhere in the document'' and ask ''can you please clarify your position and explain to us why you believe that you were entitled to park at the site in question?'' I reiterate that you have already been informed that we were tenants at the material time in 2014. As residents we enjoyed the right 'in common with all others entitled to the like right' to use visitors bays on a first come first served basis.

Further, whilst it is noted that you note that ''under Schedule 2, clause 8 on page 21 of the Lease, it grants the Lessee the right to use the car parking space edged green on the Plan (bay number 5) or any other parking space if allocated by the Lessor from time to time within the Development, for the purpose of parking one fully taxed and licensed private motor car or motor cycle only'' I fail to understand why you would have noted that section, given that your client's charges are not relating to an allocated bay.

It will be common ground that as I was renting the flat I was not the leaseholder of the property. I agree with your sentence ''therefore the above clause does not apply'' because clearly, the above clause is about allocated bays. Can you please clarify your position.

I found it ironic to note that you helpfully referred me to clause 8.1 on page 15 of the Lease, which states that pursuant to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, the Lease does not confer a benefit on any person who is not a party to this lease. Accordingly, it appears that your clients have no right to enforce any sections under the Lease at all and therefore your client does not have any cause of action (unless you can prove otherwise).

In addition, I note that you also referred me to Schedule 4, clause 18.1 on page 28 of the Lease, ''which states that the leaseholder must comply with the regulations as imposed by the Lessor in regard to the proper management of the Apartments, the Reserved Property and the Development...'' As you rightly say, it then continues: ''(please see the definitions set out in the Lease)'' and so I did, and I refer you to the DEFINITIONS at 1.30 which clarifies the limited right to make 'reasonable' regulations 'which do not unnecessarily restrict the enjoyment of the premises'.

By any interpretation, a third party imposing parking charges against tenants at their home location, where no relevant obligations or contractual relations exist is unreasonable. Further, allowing a notorious third party firm like UKPC (who you have helpfully admitted, are familiar with clause 8.1 on page 15 of the Lease, that it ''does not confer a benefit on any person who is not a party to this lease'') to harass me for some five years under the spurious excuse of trying to enforce a lease that grants your client no rights at all, certainly 'unnecessarily restricted' and is fundamentally incompatible with a tenant's right to the peaceful enjoyment of the premises.

Even if a Landowner is permitted to impose such onerous restrictions, the Lease you refer to did not entitle anyone to impose on me a contractual relationship with a third party, nor to require me to pay a set charge (in this case £100 which has risen inexplicably to £150) for any failure to comply with a lease that I am not party to. If sections of the lease were allegedly breached, then that would be a matter solely for the parties to that lease, and is nothing to do with me or indeed, UKPC.

Even if it is your client’s position that ''the implementation of a parking scheme at the site are such regulations and therefore the leaseholder is bound to comply with the same'' this is of no relevance to me, because again, this has nothing to do with UKPC or me. Tell your story to the leaseholder if it is your client's case that UKPC can bind the leaseholder to comply with their third party terms and pay additional charges.

Can you please clarify your position and explain to me why you believe that your clients, as a third party, were entitled to operate and enforce the Lease at the site in question? I note that neither the Lease nor the Title Register contained their name anywhere in the document.

I note you say that ''it is our client’s position that the parking charge notices for the sum of £750.00 were validly issued against you and remain due and owing'' but this is denied and there were no signs in any case, that could possibly have set any purported parking charge at £150. I note you have sent a few photographs to me already but I am aware this is not all of the data held by your client and I now ask for ALL photographs taken on the material dates which show the car and/or the signs and lines. Kindly note: I am not interested in a template of how UKPC say the sign might have looked on any date. I also require all letters, emails and communications sent to myself or any third party, including each and every PCN and 'Notice to Keeper' (howsoever described), front and back.

Your client must consider this a Subject Access Request ('SAR') under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and as such, their Data Protection Officer must now restrict all data processing whilst their records are interrogated to ensure that this time, I am furnished with all photographs, all paperwork, all telephone notes, letters and emails exchanged about me/this car/these charges, including a copy of their refusal to cancel the PCNs once they received the clear instruction to do so, from their principal the Managing Agent. Since UKPC and SCS Law already have sufficient identifying information to be satisfied that I was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question, do not delay the SAR under any flimsy excuse of asking for any unjustified additional identification.

With the SAR reply, I require UKPC to explain to me and clarify the reason for this untrue statement their company made recently, to the Managing Agent about my case:

''Unfortunately these charges have escalated to a stage whereby I cannot cancel them. The charges were issued from 6th April 2014 until 20th June 2014. The charges have gone to a stage where our Legal Team have started to take action to retrieve the monies owed for each of the parking charge notices.''

It is untrue for your client to tell the Managing Agents that they ''cannot'' cancel these PCNs because legal action had 'started'. As a firm of solicitors who knows otherwise, I suggest you now explain to your clients that engagement with the pre-action protocol for debt claims is not a stage where ''legal action has started'', and indeed a resolution of a dispute such as this outside of the court process remains the overriding objective. Hence, I urge UKPC to reconsider their refusal to cancel and their lack of cause of action or standing, given the fact that we both know that the Managing Agents (on behalf of the freehold owners) do not condone the charges against me. I will require UKPC to explain their mendacious statement at trial, and their refusal to cancel the charges despite the absence of support from their principal and therefore, the absence of any legitimate interest to save these unconscionable, punitive charges from the penalty rule.

I trust you will now place the matter on hold whilst you revert to your client and I look forward to a more relevant and substantive reply including the SAR data, within 30 days.

yours faithfully,

Posted by: Pensioner Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 10:21
Post #1432511

Well done SRM.



Posted by: Eljayjay Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 18:05
Post #1432679

boro12856 -

I would suggest that you reply to SCS as follows:-


Dear <salutation>,

Thank you for your letter of <date> enclosing a copy of the lease obtained from the Land Registry in respect of Flat <rest of address>.

As I have already mentioned in previous correspondence, I was a tenant of the flat’s Lessee and I derived my right to park there from my tenancy agreement with the Lessee. I derived rights to enforce the terms of the lease under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 by virtue of clauses 5.1 (of the Covenants by the Lessee on page 12) and 8.1 (of the General Provisions on page 15) of the lease.

You appear to have been lax in referring to the Parking Space clause (clause 8 on page 26 of the lease). That clause actually confers on the Lessee, my landlord, “The right (to the exclusion of all others) to use the car parking space(s) edged green on the Plans or any other parking space{s) (if any) allocated by the Lessor from time to time within the Development for the purpose of parking one fully taxed and licensed private motor car or motor cycle only”. Clearly, the words “to the exclusion of all others” means that your client has no right to use the parking space for the purpose of parking which, in turn, results in your client having no consideration to offer in return for a parking charge.

The lease neither expressly provides that your client may in its own right enforce any term of the lease nor contains any term purporting to confer a benefit on your client. Put simply, it is your client, not I, who has no right to enforce any term of the lease pursuant to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. Clearly, as the Act confers no rights on your client, privity of contract continues to prevent your client enforcing the leases’s terms. In any event, there is no term within the lease which allows any of the parties to it (let alone a stranger to it) to levy parking charges.

There are two Lessee’s covenants which apply to “Parking” (clause 9 on page 25 of the lease) and the “Parking Space” (clause 19 on pages 28 and 29 of the lease). Neither of these covenants require the Lessee (or the Lessee’s tenants) to display a parking permit when using the parking space or to pay a parking charge in the event of not displaying a parking permit. There is nothing to suggest that the Regulations clauses (clauses 18.1, 18.2 and 18.3 on page 28 of the lease) are intended to cover parking matters.

In any event, any regulations made by the Lessor permitting a parking operator, such as your client, to use a Lessee’s parking space for the purpose of the parking operator’s business would be neither reasonable nor consistent with the provisions of the lease given the wording of the Parking Space clause (clause 8 on page 26 of the lease). That would clearly be contrary to the longstanding principle of non-derogation from grant implied in all leases.

Such regulations would also be neither reasonable nor consistent with the lease’s provisions given that the lease makes no provision for the Lessor to levy (or to authorise others to levy) parking charges.

The lease’s terms can only be changed in one of three ways: by a deed of variation made between the parties; by making a successful application to the appropriate tribunal for an order varying the lease in such manner as is specified in the application; or by regulations made by the Lessor in accordance with the lease and in compliance with its terms. I am not aware of any deed of variation or of any order or of any regulations having been made to change the terms of the lease. Furthermore, no variation to the terms of the lease has been registered at the Land Registry.

In these circumstances, it does seem that your client’s lack of knowledge of the lease’s terms demonstrates that it did not carry out due diligence before commencing its operations on the land. As a result, when entering into a contract with the Lessor or its agents, it is very obvious that your client failed to comply with Section 13 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, which is headed “Implied term about care and skill” and states that “In a relevant contract for the supply of a service where the supplier is acting in the course of a business, there is an implied term that the supplier will carry out the service with reasonable care and skill”. Similarly, when purporting to enter into contract with the driver of a vehicle, it is very obvious that your client your client has failed to meet its obligations under Section 49 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which is headed “Service to be performed with reasonable care and” and states “Every contract to supply a service is to be treated as including a term that the trader must perform the service with reasonable care and skill”.

In short, your client has failed to satisfy me that it has any right to any parking charges from me and, as I am sure you will realise from the contents of this letter, in the event that your client makes a formal claim against me, the claim will be robustly defended.

Yours…

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Fri, 9 Nov 2018 - 22:19
Post #1432724

QUOTE
There are two Lessee’s covenants which apply to “Parking” (clause 9 on page 25 of the lease) and the “Parking Space” (clause 19 on pages 28 and 29 of the lease). Neither of these covenants require the Lessee (or the Lessee’s tenants) to display a parking permit when using the parking space or to pay a parking charge in the event of not displaying a parking permit.


Hmmm...but...the tickets in this claim are not for non-display of permit.

Worse, the above template relies upon the Lease in defence, which this OP should not, given the facts of this case and what the Lease actually says.

I say the OP should steer right away from relying on this Lease that they are strangers to, and which they had previously never seen before, because it sets out in simple terms, the contravention they are accused of. Hence why I wrote my reply as I did, which tries to answer and reflect the points made by SCS, rather than talking over them with a template that's not suitable.

You also say this in that template:

QUOTE
the Parking Space clause (clause 8 on page 26 of the lease). That clause actually confers on the Lessee, my landlord, “The right (to the exclusion of all others) to use the car parking space(s) edged green on the Plans or any other parking space{s) (if any) allocated by the Lessor from time to time within the Development for the purpose of parking one fully taxed and licensed private motor car or motor cycle only”. Clearly, the words “to the exclusion of all others” means that your client has no right to use the parking space for the purpose of parking which, in turn, results in your client having no consideration to offer in return for a parking charge.


...but that is not the space this claim relates to, and the OP has no rights to it, to the exclusion of all others.

Your quotes are as misconceived as SCS Law's.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Sat, 10 Nov 2018 - 09:52
Post #1432785

It might have addressed SCS points, but unlike SRM doesn't deal with the out of bay nature of this case

Can you elaborate on why not, and leave the attempt to smear our of this thread? Your posturing helps no one.

Posted by: boro12856 Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 09:18
Post #1433232

Well this thread escalated over the weekend. Thanks for the replies everyone, I have been away for the weekend so just going to settle down and read through what has been posted. Regarding the post above, I have got a copy of the tenancy agreement I just need to edit out the sensitive info from this. I have a copy of the visitors permit still in my possession so I will take a photo of that, and yes I have all the evidence provided including photos of the signs which I will dig out and post too.

I will be back later today. Thanks

EDIT - I have to pop out for the morning but I have uploaded the AST now at the following link http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=33482358173255962296

also I thought it was a visitor pass we still had in the drawer but it was a resident one, the pass itself didn't appear legit, it was a photo copy, laminated with address written over the laminate hence why no longer legible. http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=22737368943278434341

Also I have just quickly scanned the evidence bundle and regarding the photos, on one of the alleged contraventions, the photo of the sign was obviously not taken at the same time (as its day/night) and also does not have a timestamp on the sign photo. And on the others the writing on the sign is not readable. I will get round to editing and uploading of this when I am back this afternoon. Thanks again.

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 20:40
Post #1433518

QUOTE (boro12856 @ Mon, 12 Nov 2018 - 10:18) *
Also I have just quickly scanned the evidence bundle and regarding the photos, on one of the alleged contraventions, the photo of the sign was obviously not taken at the same time (as its day/night) and also does not have a timestamp on the sign photo. And on the others the writing on the sign is not readable.


Good, those are the sort of things that will win you the case at trial.

Your AST doesn't mention parking, so can you answer the Qs I asked you in my last post?

I repeat my earlier advice and the reply I wrote for you to send, and the advice to get a SAR so you can see ALL photos taken/all letters sent, to see their entire hand in advance.

I also take this opportunity to warn you NOT to reply to any private message you might get from a poster...just keep it all here and listen to the consensus of opinion, not the aggressor.

Posted by: boro12856 Tue, 13 Nov 2018 - 17:38
Post #1433810

QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Sun, 11 Nov 2018 - 21:48) *
@ boro12856, what does your Assured Shorthold Tenancy say, and what did the advert for the flat say about parking rights?


As you have seen nothing, I do have another agreement type thing we were given when we signed for the flat, I am sure I still have that so I will try and dig it out tomorrow and have a read through, again not sure it mentions parking however.

QUOTE
What did the permit say?

Permit was similar to the one I posted up yesterday apart from saying resident it said VISITOR and could only be used when using the visitor parking spaces

QUOTE
What do the signs look like?

Signs in the car park? Like the sign they posted in the evidence bundle, however we did not take much notice of them. Theres a couple of photos that show the sign and the vehicle in the same picture. One was posted quite low on the back of a bin shed. The other was on a lampost but not visible from the visitor bay as it was central. Say you had 20 parking spaces, the two on the far left were visitor, the two far right visitor and the rest in between residencial, the sign was in the very centre of the row. So unless you walked down you never saw the sign.

QUOTE
Do they have photos of every event, showing the car and the sign, with readable terms x 5 times?

From the evidence bundle, yes they have photos of every event with timestamps. However as previously mentioned, one does NOT have a timestamped photo of the sign (and different time of day), and all the others the photos of the sign no writing is legible at all. Also they mockup of the sign they have included in the evidence bundle too, and on the sign is says a charge of £90 and NOT £150 as they are claiming.

It has been my partners birthday today so not been able to get much reading done, shes out at the minute with friends so going to read the replies now and get ready to send a reply to SCS tomorrow morning.

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Wed, 14 Nov 2018 - 20:11
Post #1434138

QUOTE
Theres a couple of photos that show the sign and the vehicle in the same picture. One was posted quite low on the back of a bin shed. The other was on a lampost but not visible from the visitor bay as it was central. Say you had 20 parking spaces, the two on the far left were visitor, the two far right visitor and the rest in between residencial, the sign was in the very centre of the row. So unless you walked down you never saw the sign.
OK, so your defence - in due course - will need to go in strong about the signage (or lack of) and certainly not rely on the only thing that states there is a 24/48 hr rule (the lease that isn't yours and which you have never seen). Can't say it clearly enough, do NOT rely on that lease.

So sorry about the elephant in the room taking your thread off on a tangent. It's not normal for this forum.

Posted by: boro12856 Mon, 19 Nov 2018 - 18:03
Post #1435390

Evening everyone, so I sent through the drafted response and received a reply from SCS today.

Re: UK Parking Control Ltd



I write further to your email below.



I would be grateful if you could please provide me with a copy of your tenancy agreement so that our client can consider whether you have any right to park your vehicle at the site in question, as you have suggested. We remind you that parties to litigation are expected to act reasonably with each other in order to understand each other's position.



In respect of the other points raised in your email, our client is not included in the Lease nor the Title Register, as our client manages parking at the site pursuant to a contract with the managing agent of the site who acts on behalf of the landowner (this document was provided to you on 21 September 2018). I refer you to Schedule 4, clause 18.1 on page 28 of the Lease; the regulations imposed by the Lessor in regard to the management of the site include the implementation of a parking scheme. Therefore, our client has the right to issue and enforce parking charge notices, if the terms and conditions of parking have not been complied with.



Please note, we will respond to you in due course in respect of your Subject Access request.



Yours sincerely,


Posted by: SchoolRunMum Mon, 19 Nov 2018 - 19:26
Post #1435405

Is that in reply to my suggested response?

I would show them some redacted info from your tenancy agreement that talks about a right of way, right to peaceful enjoyment. But not the full document.

And state again that regulations do not include the imposition of the private nuisance of a parking scheme and that this cannot be imposed on residents with no regard paid to their primacy of contract at the location.

Finish by reminding them that they have failed to answer the following point:

QUOTE
... clause 8.1 on page 15 of the Lease, which states that pursuant to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, the Lease does not confer a benefit on any person who is not a party to this lease. Accordingly, it appears that your clients have no right to enforce any sections under the Lease at all and therefore your client does not have any cause of action (unless you can prove otherwise).


And that:

QUOTE
With the SAR reply, I require UKPC to explain to me and clarify the reason for this untrue statement their company made recently, to the Managing Agent about my case:

''Unfortunately these charges have escalated to a stage whereby I cannot cancel them. The charges were issued from 6th April 2014 until 20th June 2014. The charges have gone to a stage where our Legal Team have started to take action to retrieve the monies owed for each of the parking charge notices.''

Posted by: boro12856 Tue, 20 Nov 2018 - 15:43
Post #1435641

QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Mon, 19 Nov 2018 - 19:26) *
Is that in reply to my suggested response?

I would show them some redacted info from your tenancy agreement that talks about a right of way, right to peaceful enjoyment. But not the full document.

And state again that regulations do not include the imposition of the private nuisance of a parking scheme and that this cannot be imposed on residents with no regard paid to their primacy of contract at the location.

Finish by reminding them that they have failed to answer the following point:

QUOTE
... clause 8.1 on page 15 of the Lease, which states that pursuant to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, the Lease does not confer a benefit on any person who is not a party to this lease. Accordingly, it appears that your clients have no right to enforce any sections under the Lease at all and therefore your client does not have any cause of action (unless you can prove otherwise).


And that:

QUOTE
With the SAR reply, I require UKPC to explain to me and clarify the reason for this untrue statement their company made recently, to the Managing Agent about my case:

''Unfortunately these charges have escalated to a stage whereby I cannot cancel them. The charges were issued from 6th April 2014 until 20th June 2014. The charges have gone to a stage where our Legal Team have started to take action to retrieve the monies owed for each of the parking charge notices.''



Would the fact the AST is between myself and the landlord and my partner whom the claim is against just lived with me but was not on the tenancy agreement...

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 21 Nov 2018 - 09:49
Post #1435857

So you athorised the defendants vehicle to be parked there
WItness statement to that effect and attendance at court.

Posted by: boro12856 Wed, 21 Nov 2018 - 10:50
Post #1435886

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 21 Nov 2018 - 09:49) *
So you athorised the defendants vehicle to be parked there
WItness statement to that effect and attendance at court.


Yeah she was living with me, thanks for the response.

Posted by: boro12856 Wed, 21 Nov 2018 - 21:52
Post #1436061

Ok so the SAR was delivered today, and all they have sent out is just every letter/email between my partner and SCS law, no other information was sent over...

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Wed, 21 Nov 2018 - 22:22
Post #1436073

Point out what is missing.

I assume this SAR was made to the parking firm, not SCS Law? Never SAR the solicitor.

Posted by: boro12856 Wed, 21 Nov 2018 - 22:52
Post #1436082

QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Wed, 21 Nov 2018 - 22:22) *
Point out what is missing.

I assume this SAR was made to the parking firm, not SCS Law? Never SAR the solicitor.


No it was to SCS law, as outlined in a reply from yourself which was a response to SCS law with the SAR request at the end. I was never under the understanding this was to be seperate and sent to UKPC

edit - reading back the response I sent it reads as I am informing SCS to tell UKPC that I request the SAR. But SCS have decided to just send out all correspondance between my partner and themselves, and not referred this to UKPC

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Thu, 22 Nov 2018 - 09:08
Post #1436138

You always send the SAR directly to the firm, anyone else can treat it as THEM being SAR'ed

What it does show is that there was no instruction from the operator showing they had performed ANY diligence...

Posted by: boro12856 Thu, 22 Nov 2018 - 18:06
Post #1436327

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 22 Nov 2018 - 09:08) *
What it does show is that there was no instruction from the operator showing they had performed ANY diligence...


I am confused by what you mean with regards to the above... sorry

I will send the SAR request directly to UKPC

QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Mon, 19 Nov 2018 - 19:26) *
Finish by reminding them that they have failed to answer the following point:

QUOTE
... clause 8.1 on page 15 of the Lease, which states that pursuant to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, the Lease does not confer a benefit on any person who is not a party to this lease. Accordingly, it appears that your clients have no right to enforce any sections under the Lease at all and therefore your client does not have any cause of action (unless you can prove otherwise).



They did respond saying the following

In respect of the other points raised in your email, our client is not included in the Lease nor the Title Register, as our client manages parking at the site pursuant to a contract with the managing agent of the site who acts on behalf of the landowner (this document was provided to you on 21 September 2018). I refer you to Schedule 4, clause 18.1 on page 28 of the Lease; the regulations imposed by the Lessor in regard to the management of the site include the implementation of a parking scheme. Therefore, our client has the right to issue and enforce parking charge notices, if the terms and conditions of parking have not been complied with.

Is that not in reply to the point made above? Sorry for all the questions and confusion.

Posted by: Churchmouse Thu, 22 Nov 2018 - 18:07
Post #1436328

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 22 Nov 2018 - 09:08) *
You always send the SAR directly to the firm, anyone else can treat it as THEM being SAR'ed

What it does show is that there was no instruction from the operator showing they had performed ANY diligence...

Have such instructions been provided by lawyers in other cases? There is a legal professional privilege exception to the DPA 2018, which means that personal data consisting of information in respect of which a claim to "legal professional privilege" could be maintained need not be disclosed in response to a SAR. Examples of such information include (a) confidential communications between a lawyer and his or her client for the purpose of giving or receiving legal advice and (b) confidential communications between a lawyer and his or her client, or between a client or his or her lawyer and a third party, for the dominant purpose of litigation that is in prospect or under way.

Similarly, the PPC client won't be providing its solicitor instructions, either, but they will have other information that will not be privileged.

--Churchmouse

Posted by: boro12856 Thu, 6 Dec 2018 - 20:55
Post #1440175

QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Mon, 19 Nov 2018 - 19:26) *
Is that in reply to my suggested response?

I would show them some redacted info from your tenancy agreement that talks about a right of way, right to peaceful enjoyment. But not the full document.

And state again that regulations do not include the imposition of the private nuisance of a parking scheme and that this cannot be imposed on residents with no regard paid to their primacy of contract at the location.

Finish by reminding them that they have failed to answer the following point:

QUOTE
... clause 8.1 on page 15 of the Lease, which states that pursuant to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, the Lease does not confer a benefit on any person who is not a party to this lease. Accordingly, it appears that your clients have no right to enforce any sections under the Lease at all and therefore your client does not have any cause of action (unless you can prove otherwise).


And that:

QUOTE
With the SAR reply, I require UKPC to explain to me and clarify the reason for this untrue statement their company made recently, to the Managing Agent about my case:

''Unfortunately these charges have escalated to a stage whereby I cannot cancel them. The charges were issued from 6th April 2014 until 20th June 2014. The charges have gone to a stage where our Legal Team have started to take action to retrieve the monies owed for each of the parking charge notices.''



Sent a reply through with the AST and asking further questions to which I have received the following replies:

QUOTE
Thank you for your email below.



Can you please confirm when you will be able to provide us with your tenancy agreement?



The lease is a contract between the lessee and the lessor (i.e. freeholder) and under the terms of the lease the freeholder is required to manage the property. The managing agent is simply an agent of the freeholder and therefore a management company would not be included in the lease nor the Title Register. There would be a separate contract (similar to the one with our client) that the management company would have with the freeholder.



By way of clarification, our client is not purporting to have any rights under the lease. The contract between our client and 'Premier Estates Limited' gives our client the authority to manage parking at the site and issue claims in their own right against drivers who do not comply with the terms and conditions of parking. I requested to see the leasehold agreement in order to establish whether you had an unfettered right to park your vehicle at the site and it has been established that you do not.



Accordingly, I will not be reiterating the position regarding our client's right to manage parking at the site, as it has already been explained to you in my emails dated 21 September 2018 and 29 November 2018.



Please note, your Subject Access Request has been passed to our client who will be in contact with you in due course.



Yours sincerely,


and

QUOTE
Thank you for your email below providing me with a copy of your tenancy agreement.



I note that there are no provisions in the tenancy agreement which grant you the right to park your vehicle at the site in question and therefore our client's position remains that you are liable for the parking charge notices issued for the total sum of £750.00.



Unless, you can refer us to a clause which you believe gave you an 'unfettered' right to park your vehicle in breach of the terms and conditions of parking, then our client will be proceeding forward against you for the recovery of the sums due.



I look forward to hearing from you.



Yours sincerely,


I am personally at a loss as to how to proceed now, I am a little worn out this evening. Appreciate anyones input on this and I will be back tomorrow.

Posted by: cabbyman Thu, 6 Dec 2018 - 21:21
Post #1440181

Clause 9.2 of your AST expressly grants you quiet enjoyment.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Fri, 7 Dec 2018 - 11:56
Post #1440281

POint out your right to quiet enjoyment at 9.2, and require them to explain how their clients interference with that is not a breach of the AST.

Posted by: boro12856 Fri, 7 Dec 2018 - 15:10
Post #1440348

QUOTE (cabbyman @ Thu, 6 Dec 2018 - 21:21) *
Clause 9.2 of your AST expressly grants you quiet enjoyment.



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Fri, 7 Dec 2018 - 11:56) *
POint out your right to quiet enjoyment at 9.2, and require them to explain how their clients interference with that is not a breach of the AST.


Thanks everyone, I had read that but as it mentions Landlord or any under him I wasnt too sure where this would stand. I will send that reply today. Thanks again.

Posted by: boro12856 Mon, 10 Dec 2018 - 23:02
Post #1441237

Evening all, the other half received the following reply from SCS this evening

QUOTE
Re: UK Parking Control Ltd



I write further to your email below.



Any breach of your tenancy is a matter between you and your landlord. We would note that as per our email below, your tenancy does not appear to grant any right to park at the site and no parking space is contained within the property definition, and as such, there has been no breach of the same.



As previously reiterated in our correspondence, our client is not in breach of any agreement as Schedule 4, clause 18.1 of the lease gives our client the right to issue and enforce parking charge notices, if the terms and conditions of parking have not been complied with.



Accordingly, our client's position remains that you are liable for the parking charge notices for the total sum of £750.00 and if no agreement can be reached between the parties, then I anticipate instructions to commence court proceedings against you.



I await to hear from you.


They keep reiterating point 18.1 which does say the following for anyone who has not read:

To comply with and observe the regulations which the Lessor may reasonably and consistently with provisions of this Lease make to govern the use of the Apartments the Reserved Property and the Development and for the good management the same

Am I (the other half as its her name) over a barrel here?

Posted by: bearclaw Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 00:03
Post #1441243

Not at all. You have a right to quiet enjoyment and the various other reasons that people have pointed out.

It might come to the point where you literally have to tell them youve stated the reasons why, you cannot make it any clearer and if they think there is a valid case then they can sue if they wish but I'd take advice from old and wiser heads on here as to how to word it so as not to appear unreasonable.

Posted by: Churchmouse Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 01:23
Post #1441248

QUOTE
By way of clarification, our client is not purporting to have any rights under the lease. The contract between our client and 'Premier Estates Limited' gives our client the authority to manage parking at the site and issue claims in their own right against drivers who do not comply with the terms and conditions of parking.

QUOTE
In respect of the other points raised in your email, our client is not included in the Lease nor the Title Register, as our client manages parking at the site pursuant to a contract with the managing agent of the site who acts on behalf of the landowner (this document was provided to you on 21 September 2018). I refer you to Schedule 4, clause 18.1 on page 28 of the Lease; the regulations imposed by the Lessor in regard to the management of the site include the implementation of a parking scheme. Therefore, our client has the right to issue and enforce parking charge notices, if the terms and conditions of parking have not been complied with.

They just don't get it, or they hope you will not get it, and simply pay up.

As SCS has admitted, by virtue of the 1999 Third Parties Act clause contained in the lease, as a non-party to the lease, the PPC cannot enforce any term of the lease. They duly note that their client has the "authority to manage parking at the site and issue claims in their own right against drivers who do not comply with the terms and conditions of parking", but fail to note that this is wholly unconnected to the lease. This claim refers only to the "terms and conditions of parking" (meaning the contractual terms displayed on the PPC's signs), not to any of the terms and conditions of the lease.

Despite this, SCS keeps referring to clause 18.1 of the lease--which, as we know, the PPC has no power to enforce. The landlord does have the power to enforce this clause, and its agent (the managing agent) can probably effect this on the landlord's behalf, but the PPC is not the landlord's agent, and even if it was it could not throw its own £100 charges on top of what's specified in the lease. If the lease says "comply with the parking rules", failure to do so means the lessee/tenant is in breach of the lease, not in breach of some third-party contract that offered nothing to the lessee/tenant who, therefore, had no reason to agree to its terms. (By the way, the usual remedy for breach of a term of a lease is some form of damages, which is paid to the landlord, not made-up parking charges going into the bottomless pockets of a rapacious PPC.)

The "missing premise" SCS doesn't want you to recognise (or, possibly, has failed to recognise itself) is that the fact that a lease has an "observe the rules and regulations" clause, together with the fact that a PPC has a parking operating agreement with a landlord, doesn't automatically result in the tenant being under an obligation to enter into a one-sided parking contract with a PPC each time a tenant would like to enjoy one of the benefits of his lease by parking on the estate.

--Churchmouse

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 08:50
Post #1441267

Indeed

You could set all that out, then invite them to close this within 14 days
Should they fail, you will consider your position as regards enjoining teir principal in any action they may care to contemplate, along with an injunciton for breach of your lease.

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 16:09
Post #1441464

QUOTE
They keep reiterating point 18.1 which does say the following for anyone who has not read:

To comply with and observe the regulations which the Lessor may reasonably and consistently with provisions of this Lease make to govern the use of the Apartments the Reserved Property and the Development and for the good management the same

Am I (the other half as its her name) over a barrel here?


No. This has already been covered in the previous replies, weeks back.

Posted by: boro12856 Fri, 28 Dec 2018 - 17:09
Post #1445879

Evening all, I did not end up sending a reply, I ended up forgetting and with it being Christmas and all this ended up at the back of my mind. Anyway just returned from visiting family to a letter dated 27/12/18 which states that UKPC has instructed SCS to issue county court proceedings. And I am to treat this letter as the notice to pursuant.

Would I still be able to reply to the previous email to try and reach an angreement or just ignore and wait for the court proceedings to be issued.

Not really what I want to be having to thinking of at this time of year but nice to see they are always considerate haha.

TIA

QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 01:23) *
QUOTE
By way of clarification, our client is not purporting to have any rights under the lease. The contract between our client and 'Premier Estates Limited' gives our client the authority to manage parking at the site and issue claims in their own right against drivers who do not comply with the terms and conditions of parking.

QUOTE
In respect of the other points raised in your email, our client is not included in the Lease nor the Title Register, as our client manages parking at the site pursuant to a contract with the managing agent of the site who acts on behalf of the landowner (this document was provided to you on 21 September 2018). I refer you to Schedule 4, clause 18.1 on page 28 of the Lease; the regulations imposed by the Lessor in regard to the management of the site include the implementation of a parking scheme. Therefore, our client has the right to issue and enforce parking charge notices, if the terms and conditions of parking have not been complied with.

They just don't get it, or they hope you will not get it, and simply pay up.

As SCS has admitted, by virtue of the 1999 Third Parties Act clause contained in the lease, as a non-party to the lease, the PPC cannot enforce any term of the lease. They duly note that their client has the "authority to manage parking at the site and issue claims in their own right against drivers who do not comply with the terms and conditions of parking", but fail to note that this is wholly unconnected to the lease. This claim refers only to the "terms and conditions of parking" (meaning the contractual terms displayed on the PPC's signs), not to any of the terms and conditions of the lease.

Despite this, SCS keeps referring to clause 18.1 of the lease--which, as we know, the PPC has no power to enforce. The landlord does have the power to enforce this clause, and its agent (the managing agent) can probably effect this on the landlord's behalf, but the PPC is not the landlord's agent, and even if it was it could not throw its own £100 charges on top of what's specified in the lease. If the lease says "comply with the parking rules", failure to do so means the lessee/tenant is in breach of the lease, not in breach of some third-party contract that offered nothing to the lessee/tenant who, therefore, had no reason to agree to its terms. (By the way, the usual remedy for breach of a term of a lease is some form of damages, which is paid to the landlord, not made-up parking charges going into the bottomless pockets of a rapacious PPC.)

The "missing premise" SCS doesn't want you to recognise (or, possibly, has failed to recognise itself) is that the fact that a lease has an "observe the rules and regulations" clause, together with the fact that a PPC has a parking operating agreement with a landlord, doesn't automatically result in the tenant being under an obligation to enter into a one-sided parking contract with a PPC each time a tenant would like to enjoy one of the benefits of his lease by parking on the estate.

--Churchmouse


I am going to have a proper read over what you wrote tomorrow to try and write a reply to send to SCS. Thanks

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Fri, 28 Dec 2018 - 21:29
Post #1445924

They were always going to issue a claim in 2019, so this is not unexpected and that will be where you have the best chance to win it.

Some 99% of people on this forum and MSE win, when they follow forum advice from the regulars and don't get steered off course by some wordy template & 'counter claim'.

Why not reply by email using version of the words I gave you weeks ago?

Posted by: boro12856 Sat, 29 Dec 2018 - 06:12
Post #1445997

QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Fri, 28 Dec 2018 - 21:29) *
They were always going to issue a claim in 2019, so this is not unexpected and that will be where you have the best chance to win it.

Some 99% of people on this forum and MSE win, when they follow forum advice from the regulars and don't get steered off course by some wordy template & 'counter claim'.

Why not reply by email using version of the words I gave you weeks ago?


Morning SRM, are you referring to your post on 9 Nov? I did send that to them and this is the response I received;

QUOTE (boro12856 @ Mon, 19 Nov 2018 - 18:03) *
Evening everyone, so I sent through the drafted response and received a reply from SCS today.

Re: UK Parking Control Ltd



I write further to your email below.



I would be grateful if you could please provide me with a copy of your tenancy agreement so that our client can consider whether you have any right to park your vehicle at the site in question, as you have suggested. We remind you that parties to litigation are expected to act reasonably with each other in order to understand each other's position.



In respect of the other points raised in your email, our client is not included in the Lease nor the Title Register, as our client manages parking at the site pursuant to a contract with the managing agent of the site who acts on behalf of the landowner (this document was provided to you on 21 September 2018). I refer you to Schedule 4, clause 18.1 on page 28 of the Lease; the regulations imposed by the Lessor in regard to the management of the site include the implementation of a parking scheme. Therefore, our client has the right to issue and enforce parking charge notices, if the terms and conditions of parking have not been complied with.



Please note, we will respond to you in due course in respect of your Subject Access request.



Yours sincerely,




Posted by: nosferatu1001 Sat, 29 Dec 2018 - 12:59
Post #1446062

Or post 124 which gave you lots to go by.

Posted by: boro12856 Wed, 2 Jan 2019 - 13:39
Post #1446845

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Sat, 29 Dec 2018 - 12:59) *
Or post 124 which gave you lots to go by.


Yeah I am going to construct an email tonight after work and send it over. I should of done this weeks ago I know, it just got put the back of my mind with work and the holiday period.

Posted by: boro12856 Wed, 2 Jan 2019 - 16:11
Post #1446880

QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Tue, 11 Dec 2018 - 01:23) *
QUOTE
By way of clarification, our client is not purporting to have any rights under the lease. The contract between our client and 'Premier Estates Limited' gives our client the authority to manage parking at the site and issue claims in their own right against drivers who do not comply with the terms and conditions of parking.

QUOTE
In respect of the other points raised in your email, our client is not included in the Lease nor the Title Register, as our client manages parking at the site pursuant to a contract with the managing agent of the site who acts on behalf of the landowner (this document was provided to you on 21 September 2018). I refer you to Schedule 4, clause 18.1 on page 28 of the Lease; the regulations imposed by the Lessor in regard to the management of the site include the implementation of a parking scheme. Therefore, our client has the right to issue and enforce parking charge notices, if the terms and conditions of parking have not been complied with.

They just don't get it, or they hope you will not get it, and simply pay up.

As SCS has admitted, by virtue of the 1999 Third Parties Act clause contained in the lease, as a non-party to the lease, the PPC cannot enforce any term of the lease. They duly note that their client has the "authority to manage parking at the site and issue claims in their own right against drivers who do not comply with the terms and conditions of parking", but fail to note that this is wholly unconnected to the lease. This claim refers only to the "terms and conditions of parking" (meaning the contractual terms displayed on the PPC's signs), not to any of the terms and conditions of the lease.

Despite this, SCS keeps referring to clause 18.1 of the lease--which, as we know, the PPC has no power to enforce. The landlord does have the power to enforce this clause, and its agent (the managing agent) can probably effect this on the landlord's behalf, but the PPC is not the landlord's agent, and even if it was it could not throw its own £100 charges on top of what's specified in the lease. If the lease says "comply with the parking rules", failure to do so means the lessee/tenant is in breach of the lease, not in breach of some third-party contract that offered nothing to the lessee/tenant who, therefore, had no reason to agree to its terms. (By the way, the usual remedy for breach of a term of a lease is some form of damages, which is paid to the landlord, not made-up parking charges going into the bottomless pockets of a rapacious PPC.)

The "missing premise" SCS doesn't want you to recognise (or, possibly, has failed to recognise itself) is that the fact that a lease has an "observe the rules and regulations" clause, together with the fact that a PPC has a parking operating agreement with a landlord, doesn't automatically result in the tenant being under an obligation to enter into a one-sided parking contract with a PPC each time a tenant would like to enjoy one of the benefits of his lease by parking on the estate.

--Churchmouse


Good afternoon Churchmouse, I appreciate you taking the time to assist with this matter, but some of the wording here has thrown me and potentially the situation, so please forgive my wording here but I have a couple of questions and appreciate some of them might be needed to be worded back in an ELI5 manner.

Firstly with the situation, I am unsure how the landlord and the management agent (Premier Estates) who run the complex are linked. We rented through a company based in the city who the landlord gave the rental property too. The company we dealt with who sorted our tenancy agreement are not the same company as the management agent.

So in what respect would the landlord and the management agent be linked? Would I need to contact someone to find if the landlord had agreed to allow them to enforce the clause 18.1? Sorry if I make no sense here but I get lost quite easily with this sort of stuff.

EDIT - just another couple of Q's for anyone who can assist. Obviously with what is happening with the court claim does this involve actually attending court? So will my partner need to go? Just I have taken over all this writing the correspondance to SCS etc and trying to dig out the information I have used such as lease etc. Just after having a lengthy discussion with her this afternoon so has informed me she would rather not have to do such a thing (so could I do this on her behalf) or if she has made the decision not to do so does she need to just pay up (she seems resigned to be happy to do so as they originally offered her some sort of payment plan I believe). I am struggling to talk her around here, but if I could act on her behalf then I will go forward.

I would still like to send an email to SCS law tomorrow to try and see if anything can be sorted this way, but as I have said I am confused myself with the situation and the wording. As the lease says 18.1 about mentioning the "good management" which is Premier Estates, but I am unsure how the landlord, the management company, the lease, the PPC are officially linked. I understand the PPC were given the contract by the management company, which I have a copy of, but does this in anyway shape or form link with the lease? As the lease takes overall control am I correct?

TIA

Posted by: Churchmouse Wed, 2 Jan 2019 - 22:10
Post #1446982

QUOTE (boro12856 @ Wed, 2 Jan 2019 - 16:11) *
So in what respect would the landlord and the management agent be linked? Would I need to contact someone to find if the landlord had agreed to allow them to enforce the clause 18.1? Sorry if I make no sense here but I get lost quite easily with this sort of stuff.

It doesn't matter. SCS has claimed that their client, UKPC, has a contract with the managing agent (who acts on behalf of the landowner). Supposedly, that was evident from their 21 September 2018 correspondence to you? Anyway, UKPC's contract is not to enforce the lease, it is to separately provide parking "services" to the managing agent. Their supposed "parking contract" with you is pursuant to that agreement, not the lease.

Nobody is enforcing the lease.

The lease is being referred to simply to make UKPC's predatory parking scam look reasonable.

--Churchmouse

Posted by: Albert Ross Thu, 3 Jan 2019 - 00:14
Post #1447013

QUOTE (boro12856 @ Wed, 2 Jan 2019 - 16:11) *
EDIT - just another couple of Q's for anyone who can assist. Obviously with what is happening with the court claim does this involve actually attending court? So will my partner need to go? Just I have taken over all this writing the correspondance to SCS etc and trying to dig out the information I have used such as lease etc. Just after having a lengthy discussion with her this afternoon so has informed me she would rather not have to do such a thing (so could I do this on her behalf) or if she has made the decision not to do so does she need to just pay up (she seems resigned to be happy to do so as they originally offered her some sort of payment plan I believe). I am struggling to talk her around here, but if I could act on her behalf then I will go forward.



TIA


The only way that you can represent your Partner will be for her to attend too; she does not need to speak and can allow you to do all of the talking, but only if she is present there.

Posted by: SchoolRunMum Thu, 3 Jan 2019 - 00:17
Post #1447014

QUOTE
this afternoon so has informed me she would rather not have to do such a thing (so could I do this on her behalf) or if she has made the decision not to do so does she need to just pay up (she seems resigned to be happy to do so as they originally offered her some sort of payment plan I believe).


No.

She can of course write to the local Judge a couple of weeks or so before the hearing and copy in the claimant, and ask for the case to then be decided on the papers, in her absence.

Not the recommended plan from this forum though and the outcome would be in the lap of the Gods and you;d be on your own with that decision, unsupported by posters here who will tell you & her, to turn up together, with you as her lay rep.

Posted by: boro12856 Thu, 3 Jan 2019 - 12:36
Post #1447097

QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Wed, 2 Jan 2019 - 22:10) *
QUOTE (boro12856 @ Wed, 2 Jan 2019 - 16:11) *
So in what respect would the landlord and the management agent be linked? Would I need to contact someone to find if the landlord had agreed to allow them to enforce the clause 18.1? Sorry if I make no sense here but I get lost quite easily with this sort of stuff.

It doesn't matter. SCS has claimed that their client, UKPC, has a contract with the managing agent (who acts on behalf of the landowner). Supposedly, that was evident from their 21 September 2018 correspondence to you? Anyway, UKPC's contract is not to enforce the lease, it is to separately provide parking "services" to the managing agent. Their supposed "parking contract" with you is pursuant to that agreement, not the lease.

Nobody is enforcing the lease.

The lease is being referred to simply to make UKPC's predatory parking scam look reasonable.

--Churchmouse


Yes that is correct, and they sent me through a redacted section of the contract between the management agent and the PPC, would posting that here help? It does note on the contract between that the period for services is 12 months beginning date 23/4/13. No other information sent to me says otherwise. My partners charges are on the following dates:

6/4/14
5/5/14
14/5/14
26/5/14
20/6/14

So unless they can prove otherwise with a renewal of contract (which I imagine they will) only one will stand.

Should I send a reply asking why they continue to refer to the lease 18.1 when they have already admitted their client is not pursuing my partner under any aspect of breach of the lease (do I have this right?)

Posted by: Churchmouse Thu, 3 Jan 2019 - 14:38
Post #1447149

QUOTE (boro12856 @ Thu, 3 Jan 2019 - 12:36) *
QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Wed, 2 Jan 2019 - 22:10) *
QUOTE (boro12856 @ Wed, 2 Jan 2019 - 16:11) *
So in what respect would the landlord and the management agent be linked? Would I need to contact someone to find if the landlord had agreed to allow them to enforce the clause 18.1? Sorry if I make no sense here but I get lost quite easily with this sort of stuff.

It doesn't matter. SCS has claimed that their client, UKPC, has a contract with the managing agent (who acts on behalf of the landowner). Supposedly, that was evident from their 21 September 2018 correspondence to you? Anyway, UKPC's contract is not to enforce the lease, it is to separately provide parking "services" to the managing agent. Their supposed "parking contract" with you is pursuant to that agreement, not the lease.

Nobody is enforcing the lease.

The lease is being referred to simply to make UKPC's predatory parking scam look reasonable.

--Churchmouse


Yes that is correct, and they sent me through a redacted section of the contract between the management agent and the PPC, would posting that here help? It does note on the contract between that the period for services is 12 months beginning date 23/4/13. No other information sent to me says otherwise. My partners charges are on the following dates:

6/4/14
5/5/14
14/5/14
26/5/14
20/6/14

So unless they can prove otherwise with a renewal of contract (which I imagine they will) only one will stand.

Should I send a reply asking why they continue to refer to the lease 18.1 when they have already admitted their client is not pursuing my partner under any aspect of breach of the lease (do I have this right?)

I don't see the point of continuing to argue over that issue with them, but others with more experience with the court process might differ. They (SCS/UKPC) have their theory, which is nonsense, but it's all they've got...

Feel free to post their redacted operating agreement. It might be useful. Unless there is a rollover clause, an expired service contract might be an issue for their claim, as their authority to operate (and issue parking charges) depends on their having a current operating contract with the landowner/managing agent. Or, as you have suggested, they might have executed an extension or renewal agreement, but if that's the case they should be compelled to produce it.

--Churchmouse

Posted by: bearclaw Thu, 3 Jan 2019 - 14:46
Post #1447154

Stop being nice to them. If you make it very prickly then they might think this is too painful to swallow.

These people work by pressure, and with frive tickets they will pile it on. If you fold - youa re an easy markl and they wont let go they will be coming back for more. So please don't give in - you will probably have to go to court and it is not at all a scarey environment. It's a room with a judge in a suit, you one side of a large table and the scum from the PPC on the other side of the table.

Dear SCS,

Take note, by virtue of the 1999 Third Parties Act clause contained in my lease as supplied (supply relevant part), as a non-party to the lease, UKPC cannot enforce any term of the lease.

The actions of your client UKPC over the preceding period of times, including trespass on <list all dates tickets were laid on the car> are in contravention of and are in fact tortuitous intereference in the quiet enjoyment that I benefit from in regards to the parking space in the lease. Take note that if your client is imprudent enough to continue with the vexatious threat to litigate on this matter, I will robustly defend and will consider suing in my own capacity for damages for such tortuitous interference.

Yours etc.



I'd await comments from others before sending it though. It might just make them realise you wont back down - at this point it might be a case of who blinks first.

Posted by: boro12856 Thu, 3 Jan 2019 - 15:03
Post #1447166

QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Thu, 3 Jan 2019 - 14:38) *
QUOTE (boro12856 @ Thu, 3 Jan 2019 - 12:36) *
QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Wed, 2 Jan 2019 - 22:10) *
QUOTE (boro12856 @ Wed, 2 Jan 2019 - 16:11) *
So in what respect would the landlord and the management agent be linked? Would I need to contact someone to find if the landlord had agreed to allow them to enforce the clause 18.1? Sorry if I make no sense here but I get lost quite easily with this sort of stuff.

It doesn't matter. SCS has claimed that their client, UKPC, has a contract with the managing agent (who acts on behalf of the landowner). Supposedly, that was evident from their 21 September 2018 correspondence to you? Anyway, UKPC's contract is not to enforce the lease, it is to separately provide parking "services" to the managing agent. Their supposed "parking contract" with you is pursuant to that agreement, not the lease.

Nobody is enforcing the lease.

The lease is being referred to simply to make UKPC's predatory parking scam look reasonable.

--Churchmouse


Yes that is correct, and they sent me through a redacted section of the contract between the management agent and the PPC, would posting that here help? It does note on the contract between that the period for services is 12 months beginning date 23/4/13. No other information sent to me says otherwise. My partners charges are on the following dates:

6/4/14
5/5/14
14/5/14
26/5/14
20/6/14

So unless they can prove otherwise with a renewal of contract (which I imagine they will) only one will stand.

Should I send a reply asking why they continue to refer to the lease 18.1 when they have already admitted their client is not pursuing my partner under any aspect of breach of the lease (do I have this right?)

I don't see the point of continuing to argue over that issue with them, but others with more experience with the court process might differ. They (SCS/UKPC) have their theory, which is nonsense, but it's all they've got...

Feel free to post their redacted operating agreement. It might be useful. Unless there is a rollover clause, an expired service contract might be an issue for their claim, as their authority to operate (and issue parking charges) depends on their having a current operating contract with the landowner/managing agent. Or, as you have suggested, they might have executed an extension or renewal agreement, but if that's the case they should be compelled to produce it.

--Churchmouse


http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=05808740702420510508

See above, should I ask if they can produce another contract? This contract was sent with the SAR to UKPC to provide all information they will reference to on the case, and I cannot see anywhere where it includes an extension.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Thu, 3 Jan 2019 - 15:41
Post #1447183

No
Their contract isn't relevant as it has no ability to override your lease.

Posted by: Ollyfrog Thu, 3 Jan 2019 - 15:51
Post #1447189

Interestingly (but as Nosferatu says, not relevant) is the bullet point where they can take court action against drivers (or owners). No mention of keepers/registered keepers. If the car was leased they'd be up the creek (although that would never stop them trying it on just the same.)

Posted by: boro12856 Fri, 4 Jan 2019 - 22:15
Post #1447685

QUOTE (bearclaw @ Thu, 3 Jan 2019 - 14:46) *
Stop being nice to them. If you make it very prickly then they might think this is too painful to swallow.

These people work by pressure, and with frive tickets they will pile it on. If you fold - youa re an easy markl and they wont let go they will be coming back for more. So please don't give in - you will probably have to go to court and it is not at all a scarey environment. It's a room with a judge in a suit, you one side of a large table and the scum from the PPC on the other side of the table.

Dear SCS,

Take note, by virtue of the 1999 Third Parties Act clause contained in my lease as supplied (supply relevant part), as a non-party to the lease, UKPC cannot enforce any term of the lease.

The actions of your client UKPC over the preceding period of times, including trespass on <list all dates tickets were laid on the car> are in contravention of and are in fact tortuitous intereference in the quiet enjoyment that I benefit from in regards to the parking space in the lease. Take note that if your client is imprudent enough to continue with the vexatious threat to litigate on this matter, I will robustly defend and will consider suing in my own capacity for damages for such tortuitous interference.

Yours etc.



I'd await comments from others before sending it though. It might just make them realise you wont back down - at this point it might be a case of who blinks first.


Only issue is that this is regarding a visitors space and not my parking space. I would like to send something of this ilk to them though as a final email before the court letter will arrive in a weeks time I think.

Posted by: boro12856 Fri, 4 Jan 2019 - 22:38
Post #1447693

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 3 Jan 2019 - 15:41) *
No
Their contract isn't relevant as it has no ability to override your lease.


But isnt in my case the lease not any help in the case of me winning? The lease does not have anything regarding the visitors parking etc just the one parking space which was used by my vehicle (I also received many PCN as I never displayed permit) But I sent one strong worded letter and they all got dropped, unfortunately this wasnt the case for my partner who was using the visitors spaces.

Posted by: boro12856 Sat, 5 Jan 2019 - 10:57
Post #1447757

Morning all, I have sent a reply to SCS to acknowledge receipt of their latest letter of the instruction to issue CC and also to UKPC this morning as going through the SAR I was sent by UKPC I was not fully satisfied that I have been sent all information and again I requested them to answer as to why they told the MA that they could not cancel the charges as pointed out by SRM back on post 98.

Does anyone believe it maybe worth my salt trying to contact the management agent again requesting the charges to be dropped again? Maybe mentioning the fact that the contract I was sent through the SAR shows it had expired? Just I read over on the MSE forum in the NEWBIE section that at this stage now (with the CC due to drop on our doorstep next week) it is worth complaining to them to get the charges cancelled.

TIA

Posted by: Churchmouse Sat, 5 Jan 2019 - 13:08
Post #1447798

QUOTE (boro12856 @ Thu, 3 Jan 2019 - 15:03) *
http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=05808740702420510508

See above, should I ask if they can produce another contract? This contract was sent with the SAR to UKPC to provide all information they will reference to on the case, and I cannot see anywhere where it includes an extension.

I would. I would also question the evidentiary value of a redacted contract which purposely omits a critical term: the name of the other party! They no doubt have dozens of parking service contracts with landowners and managing agents around the UK, so the fact that they apparently have one with [OMITTED] is simply irrelevant to the case at hand. The critical question is whether they have been authorised to provide parking services at your location--such an authorisation can only be valid if given by the landowner or managing agent at that location. Since you already know who the landowner and the managing agent are (or can find out), the redaction of the other party's name is inexplicable. The only rational reason I can think of for doing that would be if their service agreement is actually with a third party--which would call into question their "authorisation" to provide parking services at that location at all.

--Churchmouse

Posted by: boro12856 Sat, 5 Jan 2019 - 13:35
Post #1447807

QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Sat, 5 Jan 2019 - 13:08) *
QUOTE (boro12856 @ Thu, 3 Jan 2019 - 15:03) *
http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=05808740702420510508

See above, should I ask if they can produce another contract? This contract was sent with the SAR to UKPC to provide all information they will reference to on the case, and I cannot see anywhere where it includes an extension.

I would. I would also question the evidentiary value of a redacted contract which purposely omits a critical term: the name of the other party! They no doubt have dozens of parking service contracts with landowners and managing agents around the UK, so the fact that they apparently have one with [OMITTED] is simply irrelevant to the case at hand. The critical question is whether they have been authorised to provide parking services at your location--such an authorisation can only be valid if given by the landowner or managing agent at that location. Since you already know who the landowner and the managing agent are (or can find out), the redaction of the other party's name is inexplicable. The only rational reason I can think of for doing that would be if their service agreement is actually with a third party--which would call into question their "authorisation" to provide parking services at that location at all.

--Churchmouse


Sorry Churchmouse, that was myself who redacted the client and location information just incase it allowed sensitive information regarding the case to be posted on a public forum. Maybe just being too cautious? The info I was sent does show the location of services and the client details.

Posted by: Churchmouse Sun, 6 Jan 2019 - 15:10
Post #1448103

QUOTE (boro12856 @ Sat, 5 Jan 2019 - 13:35) *
QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Sat, 5 Jan 2019 - 13:08) *
QUOTE (boro12856 @ Thu, 3 Jan 2019 - 15:03) *
http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=05808740702420510508

See above, should I ask if they can produce another contract? This contract was sent with the SAR to UKPC to provide all information they will reference to on the case, and I cannot see anywhere where it includes an extension.

I would. I would also question the evidentiary value of a redacted contract which purposely omits a critical term: the name of the other party! They no doubt have dozens of parking service contracts with landowners and managing agents around the UK, so the fact that they apparently have one with [OMITTED] is simply irrelevant to the case at hand. The critical question is whether they have been authorised to provide parking services at your location--such an authorisation can only be valid if given by the landowner or managing agent at that location. Since you already know who the landowner and the managing agent are (or can find out), the redaction of the other party's name is inexplicable. The only rational reason I can think of for doing that would be if their service agreement is actually with a third party--which would call into question their "authorisation" to provide parking services at that location at all.

--Churchmouse


Sorry Churchmouse, that was myself who redacted the client and location information just incase it allowed sensitive information regarding the case to be posted on a public forum. Maybe just being too cautious? The info I was sent does show the location of services and the client details.

LOL, okay, then just ignore the above! As long as your copy shows the relevant details, it's fine.

--Churchmouse

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)