Parking spaces allocated by leaes Options

[bobthesod]

Perhaps i am a bit thick, but reading alfxion thread, where the main point is. put simply

'My lease says i can park there and you cannot charge me for it, irrespective of any later 'arrangements' you may have made with the agents etc of the building' as my lease over-rides such actions'

Why is the PPC still pursuing this, as if this statement is 100% watertight, they will get a bloody good hiding in court?

Still learning the little nuances that crop up on here!

[Advertisement]

[The Rookie]

Because they work on threats and intimidation, many people just give up under the barrage of letters using various debt collectors and solicitors identities, or when they get a court claim. And if the defence to that is poor they may chance their arm in court as well.

[bobthesod]

Rookie

I understand the heavy mob type threat, but surely a solicitor ( even the crap ones they use) would, on seeing the lease tell, them it is a no go

IF as has been said many times on here that the lease over rides anything that the land agents/owners/management in fact anybody has arrangened without prior consultation and agreement with the leaseholder , then if i were in that position i would send them a letter telling them to Foxtrot Oscar,as they cannot amend my lease without my agreement...or am i really missing something?

Is it a case of getting the High Court, or whoever, to give a definite judgement, so that any future claims like this from PPC can jut be ignored quoting X v Y in 20xx

[The Rookie]

Why would the solicitor tell them that? Besides many of the PPC use Gladstone’s who see no details of the case before issuing the claim, so wouldn’t know it was residential.

[DancingDad]

Rookie

I understand the heavy mob type threat, but surely a solicitor ( even the crap ones they use) would, on seeing the lease tell, them it is a no go...…...

The solicitors they use are not necessarily crap, bottom feeders who make a good income from people folding and paying up once legal letters arrive, yes.

Remember that they also have many opportunities to perfect their technique, they know what phrases will scare many into paying and how to spin the truth so it seems that not only does their target seem to have no chance but will also incur massive costs and CCJs.
We may know that it is not true and the experts on the private side correct people's fears when needed but to many, it is simply too scary and too intimidating.
They pay, the legal firm take a cut and move onto the next. Just business to them, win or lose.

[notmeatloaf]

+1

Plus remember this forum attracts the bloody minded. PPCs set their charges at a level where a reasonable number of people will pay it just to avoid the hassle.

As for solicitors in the past - I'm not sure if still now - solicitors have sold their letterheaded paper and PPCs just print the details on. In a regulated sector almost all people should be professional but there will always be a few total bastards as well.

[Jlc]

The odd spanking in court still makes it very profitable...

[DancingDad]

The odd spanking in court still makes it very profitable...

Just from my recent (and only) experience with a PPC in court, even if they lose, I doubt they lose much.
The PPC solicitor was a young guy from Elm Legal.
He obviously knew all the common cases that PPCs use, seemed bright, clued up and knew what he was trying to get, in my case me to admit I was the driver.
Not bright enough to realise that this would likely make no difference but no idiot.
When the judge dismissed the case, he made a quite articulate and passionate plea for costs, advocate costs only which if I understand correctly was costs for him attending court.
Told no without hesitation by the judge.
But I got the impression that this was not so much a plea to get something for his client but to get something for himself.
Which makes me wonder if the solicitor in court was on a no win no fee agreement or similar incentive scheme...for him to win.
Dunno, idle thought but consider, if the PPC/paper factory law firm simply go in the hole for court fees if they lose, not paying the attending solicitor anything or a pittance, they aren't hurting if they lose 9 out of 10 in court.

[cp8759]

The odd spanking in court still makes it very profitable...

Just from my recent (and only) experience with a PPC in court, even if they lose, I doubt they lose much.
The PPC solicitor was a young guy from Elm Legal.
He obviously knew all the common cases that PPCs use, seemed bright, clued up and knew what he was trying to get, in my case me to admit I was the driver.
Not bright enough to realise that this would likely make no difference but no idiot.
When the judge dismissed the case, he made a quite articulate and passionate plea for costs, advocate costs only which if I understand correctly was costs for him attending court.
Told no without hesitation by the judge.

If the case was dismissed and he tried arguing for costs, unless you ambushed him or there's something very unusual about the case, he needs to go back to law school.

[southpaw82]

he needs to go back to law school.

Maybe he’s never been...

I’m glad CFAs are unlawful where I am.

[DancingDad]

.........If the case was dismissed and he tried arguing for costs, unless you ambushed him or there's something very unusual about the case, he needs to go back to law school.

No ambush unless you count the judge picking on one point to focus on that led directly to the dismissal.
And nowt unusual, fairly standard PPC case
It was the nature of the plea, it was from the heart that makes me think it was personal, not business.
I admit I was sitting there with my mouth open thinking WTF is he on and how do I rebut if the judge.... oh, no need

[cp8759]

.........If the case was dismissed and he tried arguing for costs, unless you ambushed him or there's something very unusual about the case, he needs to go back to law school.

No ambush unless you count the judge picking on one point to focus on that led directly to the dismissal.
And nowt unusual, fairly standard PPC case
It was the nature of the plea, it was from the heart that makes me think it was personal, not business.
I admit I was sitting there with my mouth open thinking WTF is he on and how do I rebut if the judge.... oh, no need

Whole series of books could be written on the topic of costs, but the *general* rule in civil proceedings is (subject to many exceptions such as qualified one-way cost shifting) that the looser pays the winner, not the other way round. Assuming it was small claims most of the Civil Procedure Rules do not apply, but CPR 44.2(2)(a) encapsulates the general principle in a very straightforward maner: "the general rule is that the unsuccessful party will be ordered to pay the costs of the successful party"

[DancingDad]

.........If the case was dismissed and he tried arguing for costs, unless you ambushed him or there's something very unusual about the case, he needs to go back to law school.

No ambush unless you count the judge picking on one point to focus on that led directly to the dismissal.
And nowt unusual, fairly standard PPC case
It was the nature of the plea, it was from the heart that makes me think it was personal, not business.
I admit I was sitting there with my mouth open thinking WTF is he on and how do I rebut if the judge.... oh, no need

Whole series of books could be written on the topic of costs, but the *general* rule in civil proceedings is (subject to many exceptions such as qualified one-way cost shifting) that the looser pays the winner, not the other way round. Assuming it was small claims most of the Civil Procedure Rules do not apply, but CPR 44.2(2)(a) encapsulates the general principle in a very straightforward maner: "the general rule is that the unsuccessful party will be ordered to pay the costs of the successful party"

Yup.
Not arguing the merits or the legal aspect, just saying what happened and why it led to my belief that the opposition solicitor was not getting any pay for his time at court etc.
Could be a totally wrong impression and indeed could just be another standard PPC case ploy based on don't ask, don't get.
The judge probably summed up all you are saying in his 3 word reply "you lost, no"
Was rather emphatic.

[bobthesod]

Gents


Thanks for putting the village idiot straight!


I would have thought in my innocence, thattby now one of the well known papers would have picked this up, or even that bastion of trurh Watchdog or even Dom and his cronies to point out this scam

Still as they say 'caveat emptor'

Thanks again

[DancingDad]

.I would have thought in my innocence, thattby now one of the well known papers would have picked this up, or even that bastion of trurh Watchdog or even Dom and his cronies to point out this scam
…..

The powers that be and indeed the media start with basic premises that have some merit.
Parking needs to be controlled. True, without some control, carmagedon will arise and has.
Landowners have a right to offer parking, to charge for it and to control that parking via reasonable contract terms... again, has some merit.
That parking companies will act fairly in enforcing.......do what ??

It is the last that the system fails on.
Money is involved, it is big business that can generate a lot of income.
Once that happens, morals and fairness go out the window, it simply becomes a money making machine with the people caught up in it financing the whole system.

This post has been edited by DancingDad: Sun, 5 Aug 2018 - 08:37

[Redivi]

The well-known papers and television programmes have covered private parking many times and inevitably badly

One one occasion I provided the researcher with a dossier on a company that was guilty of hundreds of fraudulent claims
She was also informed about another whose faked photographs were public knowledge

When the programme was broadcast, the only example of bad behaviour was trivial
The presenter refused to cover more serious examples because he wouldn't have enough screen time

Only last week another programme described the success of a campaigner who specialises in supporting court cases
She was described as finding loopholes

The programme cut short the interview with the successful Defendant in the residential no-permit case
The audience would have otherwise learnt that the Claimant's own evidence included a photo of the permit taped to his dashboard

[notmeatloaf]

Anything on TV is dumbed down to a ridiculous degree because lots of people watching are stupid and know nothing about the law, and yet still need to understand the story first time.

I never know why people play along, even PPC level law is nuanced and Adrian Chiles or whatever halfwit they have presenting will be striving to give "balance".

(No, I don't have a TV.)

This post has been edited by notmeatloaf: Sun, 5 Aug 2018 - 20:55

[southpaw82]

lots of people watching are stupid and know nothing about the law

Describes why my job exists.

[Fredd]

Anything on TV is dumbed down to a ridiculous degree because lots of people watching are stupid and know nothing about the law

I suspect that most of the time it's because the TV companies' lawyers are all over it, and due to the fact that these are really entertainment programmes the producers go for minimum risk and cut out anything remotely contentious.

[Redivi]

Good point

I haven't taken television seriously since a programme on my specialist subject

Reached the belated conclusion that, if programmes were completely unreliable about a subject I knew about, they were equally unreliable about everything else