PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Private Land, PCNs from VCS that was recruited by the Management Company, Ignored all PCNs and corresponcence
karenep
post Tue, 7 Aug 2018 - 14:08
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 7 Aug 2018
Member No.: 99,279



We own the property and have an allocated space within the lease - no details of a Parking Scheme in Lease!! Management Company chose to bring in VCS and require you to display a permit to park, failure to show this, you get a PCN placed on the Car - which I ignored as I thought it was just a scam to get money out of me, never thought it would go to Court. I ignored all PCNs, all correspondence and now we have Court papers, three in fact. I contacted the Management Company requiring them to remove me from the Scheme or get the fines cancelled. As it is a group scheme, they cannot remove me - nor can they get the fines cancelled. The fines have come through in my name, however, I was not the one driving the vehicle on these particular days. I have contacted the local MP in Manchester and await her input. I’m wondering what chance I have of fighting this now - would it be better to recruit someone to do this for me? I have spoken to with the Landlords "Mainstay" who basically push me back to Premier Estates, the Management Company who took out the parking contract.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
6 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
Advertisement
post Tue, 7 Aug 2018 - 14:08
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 16 Aug 2018 - 09:58
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



The time to file a counterclaim was when the defence was filed, is the main issue.
Without an application fee to amend the defence (£100) the court should reject it. They might be lucky however.

Im just concerned all this effort has been spent when it might not achieve anythihng.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eljayjay
post Thu, 16 Aug 2018 - 11:59
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 901
Joined: 1 Apr 2017
Member No.: 91,235



nosferatu1001

Believe me when I say that I do understand your concerns, but let's hope that justice prevails and that we can snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

Something had to be done.

Pearlofwisdom's case has been referred to Chambers. So, it is receiving serious consideration.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eljayjay
post Thu, 16 Aug 2018 - 16:21
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 901
Joined: 1 Apr 2017
Member No.: 91,235



karenep

As I think we should ask Linda some more questions, I am drafting an email from her to you.

In her email to you, the one in which she referred you to Schedule 3, clause 9 of your lease, did she quote the clause to read:-

“Not to cause any obstruction in or on the said shared driveway drives or access roads and footpaths adjacent or leading to the building by leaving or parking or permitting to be left or parked any motorcycle bicycle perambulator or other vehicle belonging to or used by any of his friends servants or visitors and to observe all regulations made by the company from time to time relating to the parking of such vehicles”

or did she quote the clause to read:-

“Not to cause any obstruction in or on the main entrances stairways or passages in the Building nor in or on the drives or access roads and footpaths adjacent or leading to the Building by leaving or parking or permitting to be left or parked any motorcycle bicycle perambulator or other vehicle belonging to or used by the Lessee or occupier of the Demised Premises or by any of his friends servants or visitors and to observe all regulations made by the Company from time to time relating to the parking of such vehicles”

Put another way, did she misquote the lease or did you accidentally misquote her?

I imagine that you simply cut and pasted the contents of her email into your post and that this was not a typo on your part; however, for accuracy's sake, I need to be sure.



This post has been edited by Eljayjay: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 - 16:32
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
karenep
post Tue, 21 Aug 2018 - 22:49
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 7 Aug 2018
Member No.: 99,279



I have sent in the Defence and Counterclaim and await to hear from the courts.

Some time back, I wrote to the local MP in the area, detailed below is her response together with feedback from Premier Estates. Would be interested to hear thoughts on this.


Dear J and K

Please see below the response Lucy has now received from Linda Dolan, Esate Manager of your building. In her response, Linda outlines that they will not be able to remove the parking tickets as they do believe they have been issued according to their policy.

Justifying this is the fact that whilst your lease states that you own parking bay number 11, your lease also outlines that the Freeholders, or the Managing Agents, acting on behalf of the Freeholders, can implement or instruct works that they believe to be necessary for the smooth running of the development. She has also outlined that the parking scheme was in place prior to your purchasing of the property and has made reference to an email your received regarding the scheme in 2015.

In light of this, it may be difficult for you to contest the tickets with Premier Estates any further. However, as you have defended the case in court, there is a chance the court could still rule in your favour. I understand that this response will come as a disappointment to you, and hope that the duplicate parking permits you are being issued will go someway to prevent this from happening again.

Please do not hesitate to get back in touch if you have any further concerns, or believe Lucy may be able to help in another way.

Best wishes,

Hannah

Lucy Powell MP

Member of Parliament for Manchester Central

Tel: 0161 232 0872

contact@lucypowell.org.uk

www.lucypowell.org.uk

Twitter @LucyMPowell

________________________________________
From: Linda Dolan
Sent: 20 August 2018 17:14
To: contact@lucypowell.org.uk
Cc: Jess Horton
Subject: FW: LP26439 (Case Ref: LP26439) Life 3 Apt 30 Bay 11

Good Afternoon Lucy

Re: Ms ******* and Mr *******, Flat **, 1 Boston Street, Life Building, Hulme M15 5AY


Following your email I have reviewed the correspondence relating to this issue and would like to respond as below:

Please note I shall only respond with regards to the parking tickets and shall not be including any other issues within this email.

The parking permit scheme at Life 3 has been in place for a number of years now, since 2014/2015, and all residents are fully aware of how the system works. The system was already in place when Mr ******* purchased his property.

Mr ******* states, correctly, that according to his lease he has an allocated bay, number 11. However, if you would please see below there are sections within the lease that allow the Freeholders, or the Managing Agents, acting on behalf of the Freeholders, to implement and/or instruct any works or services as they deem necessary for the smooth running of the development:


[cid:image003.jpg@01D43623.4D39B5D0]
Below is the notification to residents that the parking scheme was being implemented and the reasons why. This was distributed in August 2014.

Parking Permits
Arrangements are currently underway with regards to parking permits being issued on the vehicles that park in the allocated parking bays. This should prevent the public from parking their vehicles on our development and nipping to the local shops. All vehicles will be issue with parking permits, should any parking permits not be displayed in the window of your vehicle then you will be issued with a valid parking ticket which will incur a fine.

Once the parking permits have been received by our office, further letters will be issued to all owners asking where they would like their permits to be posted.

We have no record of any correspondence from Apt ** regarding parking issues apart from the below, which is a section from an email from the estates manager to Mr *******, dated 6/7/2015:

Hello J,

Thank you for your email with regards to the Life Buildings 3. I have looked into the issues you have raised and would comment as follows:


* In respect of the car parking, the parking bay for apartment ** is bay number 11 – please could you kindly confirm you have a valid parking permit displayed in your vehicle, failing to display will result in you being issued with a parking ticket.


* A replacement vehicle fob can be obtained from ourselves at a cost of £40.00 + vat, should you wish to purchase a new one, please contact our credit control department on 01625 507139.


* The codes for the car park gates leading into the building is C0203 and the mezzanine gate is 0104.

Mr ******* seems to be under the impression that he is having to pay to park in his allocated space, this is not the case, he is not being charged any money for the use of his parking space. However, as he has on occasion parked without displaying a valid permit – something which all residents are asked to do to avoid receiving tickets, and something which he has been reminded of as per the email above, then he has received parking tickets, which have been correctly issued.

Unfortunately, as the tickets were correctly issued then we are unable to revoke them, however, in this instance and as a gesture of goodwill we will arrange for duplicate parking permits to be issued to Mr ******* and his family for the space. Each family vehicle will then have it’s own permit which removes the danger of leaving the permit in the wrong car. We do have to remind Mr ******* that should the vehicles park in another bay they will of course receive a ticket.

If Mr ******* could advise us of how many duplicate permits he will require, up to a maximum of 5, then we will arrange for them to be sent to the property address as soon as possible.

Kind Regards


Linda Dolan
Estates Manager
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eljayjay
post Wed, 22 Aug 2018 - 00:28
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 901
Joined: 1 Apr 2017
Member No.: 91,235



You could ask your MP to send a letter to Linda along the lines of the letter which I drafted for boro12856 recently.

Alternatively, you could send your letter to Linda and copy it to your MP saying that , if Linda can provide the information and documents requested, you will reconsider your position.

If you would like to do that, let me know and I shall amend it to fit your circumstances.

In case you are doubting the strength of your case, focus on this...

When it comes to the karenep-MP-Linda correspondence, Linda is saying we can authorise a parking company to use your parking space for the purposes of its business and treat you as a customer of the business in the same way as any Tom, Dick or Harry who becomes a customer of the business by parking in your space.

Does that sound right to you? If it does, I can assure you that it ain't.

Sometimes "isn't" just will not do!

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
karenep
post Wed, 22 Aug 2018 - 09:15
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 7 Aug 2018
Member No.: 99,279



If you could draft it Eljayjay, I would be very grateful. The whole matter seems ludicrous and Im amazed that Premier are digging their heels in so, surely they should acknowledge that its wrong to try to charge us for using our own space - she keeps harping on about shoppers using the car park, its a key fob entry - I don't think many shoppers have them either !!

I am eagerly awaiting the correspondence back from the Courts and very much focused on proving PREMIER / VCS wrong.

Thanks again Eljayjay.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
karenep
post Wed, 22 Aug 2018 - 22:18
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 7 Aug 2018
Member No.: 99,279



QUOTE (Eljayjay @ Thu, 16 Aug 2018 - 17:21) *
karenep

As I think we should ask Linda some more questions, I am drafting an email from her to you.

In her email to you, the one in which she referred you to Schedule 3, clause 9 of your lease, did she quote the clause to read:-

“Not to cause any obstruction in or on the said shared driveway drives or access roads and footpaths adjacent or leading to the building by leaving or parking or permitting to be left or parked any motorcycle bicycle perambulator or other vehicle belonging to or used by any of his friends servants or visitors and to observe all regulations made by the company from time to time relating to the parking of such vehicles”

or did she quote the clause to read:-

“Not to cause any obstruction in or on the main entrances stairways or passages in the Building nor in or on the drives or access roads and footpaths adjacent or leading to the Building by leaving or parking or permitting to be left or parked any motorcycle bicycle perambulator or other vehicle belonging to or used by the Lessee or occupier of the Demised Premises or by any of his friends servants or visitors and to observe all regulations made by the Company from time to time relating to the parking of such vehicles”

Put another way, did she misquote the lease or did you accidentally misquote her?

I imagine that you simply cut and pasted the contents of her email into your post and that this was not a typo on your part; however, for accuracy's sake, I need to be sure.




I have cut and paste exactly what she said.

I have checked the previous correspondence regarding this and VCS have already advised that at the time of issue you made no attempt to either appeal or offer mitigating circumstances in order to have the tickets revoked, which resulted in them proceeding to the next stage – court.

With reference to your advising that the parking space belongs to your property I would refer you back to your lease, specifically Schedule 3, clause 9:


“Not to cause any obstruction in or on the said shared driveway drives or access roads and footpaths adjacent or leading to the building by leaving or parking or permitting to be left or parked any motorcycle bicycle perambulator or other vehicle belonging to or used by any of his friends servants or visitors and to observe all regulations made by the company from time to time relating to the parking of such vehicles”

This includes the implementation of a parking management scheme.

I appreciate that this is not the answer you were hoping for however there is nothing more we can do to assist you in this matter.




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 08:13
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



When it comes to the karenep-MP-Linda correspondence, Linda is saying we can authorise a parking company to use your parking space for the purposes of its business and treat you as a customer of the business in the same way as any Tom, Dick or Harry who becomes a customer of the business by parking in your space.

Does that sound right to you? If it does, I can assure you that it ain't.

Sometimes "isn't" just will not do!


Nice argument

I'm dealing with another VCS residential case where the reply to the defence is a long-winded argument that the signs have primacy over the lease
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ManxRed
post Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 10:41
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,985
Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,992



QUOTE (karenep @ Wed, 22 Aug 2018 - 23:18) *
“Not to cause any obstruction in or on the said shared driveway drives or access roads and footpaths adjacent or leading to the building by leaving or parking or permitting to be left or parked any motorcycle bicycle perambulator or other vehicle belonging to or used by any of his friends servants or visitors and to observe all regulations made by the company from time to time relating to the parking of such vehicles”

This includes the implementation of a parking management scheme.


Its a shame she does not have a sufficient grasp of English to understand that the first paragraph above DOESN'T include your parking space and therefore the entire argument is completely and utterly irrelevant.

This post has been edited by ManxRed: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 10:42


--------------------
Sometimes I use big words I don't understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 10:44
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Or that she misquoted the lease

I would point both those facts out to the MP, and state that when you cannot trust the freeholder to not lie, how can the PPCs be trusted?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eljayjay
post Wed, 29 Aug 2018 - 22:37
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 901
Joined: 1 Apr 2017
Member No.: 91,235



karenep

I am sorry to have taken so long to draft this email message to Linda.

I have presumed that you are your apartment's leaseholder throughout my posts on your thread. [I mention this because I seem to recall reading something indicating that you are not the leaseholder, but I may be dreaming.] If you are not the leaseholder, you will need to change the wording so that it refers to the leaseholder rather than to you.

I would suggest that, if you want to send a copy to your MP, you add a final sentence saying "Out of courtesy, I would mention that I am sending a copy of this email to my MP.", but that, instead of simply copying it to your MP, after sending it to Linda forward it to your MP with a separate message to her saying something along the lines...

Dear <MP>,

Please find below my latest email to Linda.

As you might guess, I have sought some advice about what to say to her.

Essentially, what I seek is a peaceful end to this dispute, but Linda is clearly not reciprocating.

That being so, my latest email is an attempt to get Linda to provide a fully detailed explanation as to how her company believes it is right to permit a parking operator to use for the purposes of its business a parking space allocated to me for my exclusive use.

I do not believe that Linda's company will volunteer such a detailed explanation and, in an attempt to force their hand, I am implying that I shall start the ball rolling on taking legal action against them.

By requesting the detailed explanation, what I actually seek is a narrowing of the issues between us so that we can both reconsider our positions in the light of some facts.

Yours



Here is the draft email to Linda. Please do (1) check it to make sure you are comfortable with what it says and (2) include the explanation about non-derogation from grant.


Dear Linda,

Further to our recent email exchange, I have sought advice on the parking situation at <location>.

I am of the opinion that your company is in breach of my lease by permitting a parking operator to use my allocated parking space for the purposes of its business. The parking space, having been demised to me by a long-term lease, is not yours. The parking operator trespasses every time it enters my parking space.

If we were not talking about my parking space but my apartment, would your company deem it appropriate to permit a property letting agency to use that for the purposes of its business? No, of course, your company would not – or, at least, I certainly hope so!. Why, then, do you believe different principles apply to my parking space.

In these circumstances, I am writing to tell you that your company must instruct the parking operator to cease using my parking space for the purposes of its business.

That will, of course, only cover the future, not the past.

For the past, your company and I will need to enter into negotiations. We shall need to discuss the amount which your company owes me for allowing your agent, the parking operator, to use my parking space for its business purposes up to the present. Based on the number of days that the parking operator has been using my parking space for the purposes of its business and the daily cost of using other parking spaces elsewhere locally, I believe a sum of £8,500 to be appropriate.

Given your adamance to date that your company has the right to permit a parking operator to use my allocated parking space for the purposes of its business, I imagine that your company may wish to challenge the sum that I now seek. That being so, I am willing to give your company an opportunity to narrow the issues between us by supplying me with information and documents which could, if supplied, perhaps persuade me to reconsider my position.

I do, therefore, require your company to provide me within the next 30 days all of the following:-

<tab> a full explanation from your company as to how it believes that it has the right to permit a parking operator to use my allocated parking space, land which has been demised to me, for the purposes of its business and to charge me for using the land;

<tab> the parking agreement between your company and the parking operator;

<tab> the site plan provided by the parking operator to its accredited trade association;

<tab> the accredited trade association’s code of practice to which the parking operator 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 is present in my allocated parking space which is, of course, my land subject to my individual lease which distinguishes it from the other parking spaces in the car park;

<tab> as a lease exists, if your company believes that the lease contains express provision to allow the parking operator to operate a parking scheme on my land, a note of the specific clauses in the lease applicable to this situation;

<tab> as a lease exists, if your company believes that any rules or regulations have been made in accordance with its provisions to allow the parking operator to operate a parking scheme on my 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> as a lease exists and it granted individual rights to park on my land to me as the lessee, a copy of the instrument which either transferred those individual rights from me to the parking operator or transferred a share of those individual rights from me to the parking operator;

<tab> as a lease exists, if your company believes that its terms permit third parties, e.g. the parking operator, to enforce the lease’s terms in accordance with the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, a note of the specific clause(s) in the lease applicable to this situation;

<tab> as a lease exists, if your company does not believe that its terms permit third parties, e.g. the parking operator, to enforce the lease’s terms in accordance with the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, a note explaining how your company has concluded that it has acquired such a right;

<tab> as a lease exists, if the parking operator’s parking scheme has not been introduced in accordance with the lease’s provisions, a note explaining how your company has concluded that its alleged parking contract with the parking operator and the parking contracts alleged parking contract(s) with driver(s) parking on my land has acquired primacy of contract over the lease;

<tab> notes giving details of the due diligence process undertaken by your company and the parking contractor to ensure that not only the contract between yourselves but also the purported contract()s between the parking contractor and driver(s) parking on my land met the “Implied term about care and skill” requirement contained in the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982;

<tab> a note giving your 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 (see below);

<tab> a note giving your 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 land accords with the legal principle of quiet enjoyment implied in all leases; and

<tab> any other information and documents on which your company would rely in court in support of your assertion that the current parking regime is valid.

In that event that your company provides the above required information and documents within the next 30 days, I shall gladly reconsider my position on receipt of them.

Alternatively, if your company does not enter into negotiations with me about the money which, I believe, it owes to me and if your company fails either to provide the information and documents or to provide a satisfactory explanation as to why it cannot provide the information and documents, I suggest that your company prepares itself to receive a letter of claim from me.

I look forward to receiving your reply within the next 30 days.

Yours sincerely,

<your name>


Explanation about the legal principle of non-derogation from grant

The principle of non-derogation from grant was summarised by Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls (i.e. the Head of Civil Justice), in Molton Builders Ltd v City of Westminster (1975) (30 P&CR 182, at p 186). The broad principle expounded by Lord Denning was that “…if one man agrees to confer a particular benefit on another, he must not do anything which substantially deprives the other of the enjoyment of that benefit: because that would be to take away with one hand what is given with the other…”.

Lord Denning’s words are particularly apt in many parking cases involving leaseholders with allocated parking spaces. If Lord Denning had been deciding such a case, he may have changed his words to say “if a freeholder agrees to confer the exclusive right to park in an allocated parking space on a leaseholder, the freeholder must not then enter into an arrangement allowing a parking operator to rent out the space to any Tom, Dick or Harry at an exorbitant charge for the purposes of the parking operator’s business because that would not just substantially deprive, it would entirely deprive the leaseholder of the enjoyment of that benefit in two ways: the leaseholder, who would have paid a higher purchase price for a property with a parking space, would have been deprived of the exclusive use of that space and he would be treated no differently to Tom, Dick or Harry insofar as the parking company’s terms are concerned”.

It is, of course, perverse that a private car park intended for the exclusive use of a defined group should be turned into a public car park where, according to the parking operator’s parking scheme, Tom, Dick and Harry can now park on terms no different from those available to that defined group.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
karenep
post Wed, 29 Aug 2018 - 23:28
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 36
Joined: 7 Aug 2018
Member No.: 99,279



Eljayjay, I will action this straight away (still heard nothing back off the Courts yet, we have however had another VCS Notice before Court for my Sons Vehicle that had been parked there some time ago - again our space).

Thank you, I am so very grateful for immense time and effort here. Most appreciated.

Will keep you posted!

Thank you!!!!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ManxRed
post Thu, 30 Aug 2018 - 08:14
Post #53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,985
Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,992



Eljayjay, she's just going to reply with this again:

QUOTE
“Not to cause any obstruction in or on the said shared driveway drives or access roads and footpaths adjacent or leading to the building by leaving or parking or permitting to be left or parked any motorcycle bicycle perambulator or other vehicle belonging to or used by any of his friends servants or visitors and to observe all regulations made by the company from time to time relating to the parking of such vehicles”

This includes the implementation of a parking management scheme.


The letter to her needs to make it clear that 'shared driveway drives or access roads and footpaths adjacent or leading to the building' does not include the demised parking space. Or even better if she's misquoted the lease.

If you don't point these things out to her then everyone's just going to keep going round in circles.


--------------------
Sometimes I use big words I don't understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 30 Aug 2018 - 08:24
Post #54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Indeed, I would point out that
1) she has misquoted the lease, the actual lease states - and give both quotes so it is obvious which is which
2) That the shared driveway... part does not and cannot include your priate parking space.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eljayjay
post Thu, 30 Aug 2018 - 12:42
Post #55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 901
Joined: 1 Apr 2017
Member No.: 91,235



I hear what you (ManxRed and nosferatu1001) are saying but...

Dear Linda has a lot of points to which she should reply.

My tactic would be to let her reply how she wants and then correct her rather than tackle things piecemeal.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 30 Aug 2018 - 12:51
Post #56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



I think it is still better to get the lease misquote out there now.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ManxRed
post Thu, 30 Aug 2018 - 13:18
Post #57


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,985
Joined: 20 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,992



Otherwise she's just going to come back again and say the tickets were correctly issued as the scheme is valid as per that quote from the lease, and you'll be no further down the road than before. She needs to understand that what she thinks the lease allows her to do, it actually doesn't.


--------------------
Sometimes I use big words I don't understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 30 Aug 2018 - 13:21
Post #58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



And that what she quoted as the lease, isnt in fact whats in the lease.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eljayjay
post Thu, 30 Aug 2018 - 13:55
Post #59


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 901
Joined: 1 Apr 2017
Member No.: 91,235



Please do not let us keep going around in circles here.

I am interested in seeing Dear Linda's reply to the whole thing.

If she comes back with just that one point, we can then go back to her and say "You are wrong. This is why you are wrong. Now, please respond in full to all of our points.".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Thu, 30 Aug 2018 - 14:00
Post #60


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



And we're saying

Go with the point that was wrong, and misquoted to both the OP and to their MP.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

6 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 13:26
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here