PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCM windscreen PCN - failed to show permit - in "right to park" Parking Space designated Parking Area
SaytoPeP
post Sun, 23 Sep 2018 - 12:59
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 23 Sep 2018
Member No.: 100,019



I have received 1 PCN from PCM stuck on my car (I wasn't the driver) for failing to display the permit that fell off the dashboard.

The car was parked in a parking space designated by management as designated parking area as part of London City Island development. According to the lease, I do not have a specific bay but have exclusive right to park one car in the designated parking area. When purchasing the apartment, the right to park came with a premium of £30k and we regularly have to pay service charge to maintain the parking area in addition to the apartment.

My exclusive right as per the lease:

If the expression "the Parking Space" is defined in clause 1 of this Lease (but only if it is so defined)
(a) the exclusive right to park one private motor car (or one private motor bike) in the Parking Space


and further stated in another schedule as excerpted below which to me should serve as a reminder of what we could agree as a regulation but not agreeing to an invoice from a third party not party to the lease.

To comply with all reasonable regulations which the Landlord may from time to time make and publish in respect of the use of car parking spaces within the Parking Area

My thinking, the request is coming from PCM who is not a party to the lease and no appointment of a third party to manage parking has been mentioned in the lease apart from Parking service charges so PCM should not have any power, I believe.

So I don't see how PCM can take me to court without Landlord's consent stating that I have not complied with the term of the lease i.e. park in the designated area.


What I have done so far:
i) I have appealed to PCM citing below cases but was rejected and I don't think I will appeal to the infamous IAS either.

Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] it was found that the parking company could not override the
tenant’s right to park by requiring a permit to park.

Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016] it was also found that the parking company could not
override the tenant’s right to park by requiring a permit to park.

The rejection has pointed to IAS and debt collector and I think the only way to go ahead with this is small claims court.

ii) I have asked the Managing Company to provide me with the contract they signed with PCM as it should be serving to protect residents' interests not harm them.


What I need help with
i) I need help to know what I should do in between. Happy to load all the docs including the lease and send any email out to the relevant parties.

ii) To point out what I have missed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Sun, 23 Sep 2018 - 12:59
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
The Rookie
post Sun, 23 Sep 2018 - 13:23
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



The whole lease would be good.

You could have used Jopson as wethey would still reject and the IAS is a waste of time.

You now sit back and see if they have othe gonads to raise a court claim, ignore but file any more letters.

Meanwhile a cease and desist letter to the management company (for harrasment) copies to PCM is a good idea, it would strengthen your position if you get a claim and you raise a counter claim.

An allocated space would have put you in a stronger position.

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Sun, 23 Sep 2018 - 13:24


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eljayjay
post Sun, 23 Sep 2018 - 16:27
Post #3


Member


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



In readiness for what may come, I need you to post your lease for your flat (after redacting any personal data) as a pdf file. Due to its size, you will almost certainly need to upload the file to another website and post links here.

I shall happily go through your lease and provide a write-up on it.

You may now ignore anything up to a letter of claim/letter before claim/letter before action - they are just different names for the same thing. You must very definitely respond to that - you will ask for lots of information and documents. The parking contractor will almost certainly not be able to provide the information and documents which will demonstrate that they have no right to charge you for parking.

I shall happily draft the response to the letter of claim for you.

What may happen after the letter of claim is that you will receive a formal claim through MCOL (Money Claim Online). The first thing to do in response to the formal claim is to acknowledge service of it within 14 days through MCOL (but do not enter anything as your defence at that stage). Acknowledging service gives you a little over a month from the date of claim to submit your defence and your counterclaim (see below).

I shall happily draft your defence and counterclaim for you.

You will receive a Directions Questionnaire from the Claimant. You will then need to complete your own Directions Questionnaire to give various information to the Court and the Claimant.

I shall happily provide some guidance on how to answer the DQ's questions.

Following completion of the DQs, your case will almost certainly be allocated to the Court of your choice (as stated on your DQ) or a nearby alternative. The Court will then write to you. Normally, the Court will give you a hearing date and tell you the date (normally two weeks prior to the hearing) by when you must provide your bundle, i.e. witness statement and exhibits (e.g. the head lease, your tenancy agreement, copies of relevant correspondence and so on). Between submitting your bundle and the hearing date, if you wish, you may submit a statement of legal arguments.

I shall happily draft your witness statement and statement of legal arguments for you.

What the Claimant may try to do very late in the day is discontinue their claim. That can leave matters hanging over your head. You can avoid being left in limbo by making a counterclaim. By doing so, regardless of what the Claimant does, the case must be heard.

Claims against leaseholders are usually very defendable. You have a very good chance of not only successfully defending claim but also winning the counterclaim.

But now let us go back to the beginning. You get the lease posted and I shall then get reading.

Based on what the lease says, I propose that you then send an email or letter to the Management Company and, perhaps, the parking contractor asking them some very difficult questions.

I shall gladly draft that letter for you.

What follows is a witness statement that I drafted recently for another poster. Some of it will not, of course, be appropriate in your own case, but the underlying principles will be the same. So, if you read it, it will help you to familiarise yourself with those principles.


Introduction

1. I, <your full name>, of <your address> am the Defendant in this case and I make this, my witness statement.

2. I acknowledge that vehicles registered in my name or otherwise associated with me by belonging to members of my family or our visitors were parked at Life Buildings on the dates mentioned in the Claimant’s particulars of claims.

3. I do, however, deny that I owe any amount to the Claimant in relation to the vehicles being parked there on those or any other occasions.

4. Although the Claimant asserts that its cause of action is a breach of contract, I have never entered into any contract with the Claimant.

5. This case relates to land on the Estate where my rights and obligations are governed by a long-term (250-year) lease (see exhibit XXX) running until the year 2246.

6. The Claimant has chosen blatantly to disregard both the existence of my lease and my rights under it.

7. In doing so, without making any attempt to seek or gain my consent, the Claimant has implemented a parking scheme on land which I own.

8. The Claimant’s invalid scheme demands that anyone (including me) parking on my land must display a parking permit. In the event of a driver not doing so, the Claimant affixes a parking charge notice to the vehicle declaring that the driver has become liable for a parking charge of £100.

9. The Claimant has affixed a number of tickets to vehicles parked in my demised parking space despite those vehicles having been parked in full compliance with my lease.


The Claimant’s abuse of the Court process

10. The Claimant has made no effort whatsoever to narrow the issues between us.

11. Even at this late stage, the Claimant has not disclosed the identity of its client, i.e. the person who consented to the Claimant operating its parking scheme on the Estate.

12. Although, in its Particulars of Claim, the Claimant makes bald statements about its “terms and conditions”, it has not provided me with a copy of the contract containing those terms and conditions and the Claimant has not specified the particular term(s) or condition(s) which it purports me to have breached.

13. The Claimant appears to use the Court process as part of its business model in the knowledge that, by relying on the ignorance of others, many of the victims of its predatory residential parking schemes will be so intimidated that they will pay amounts to which the Claimant is simply not due.

14. By bringing its claim, the Claimant is blatantly abusing the Court process.


The Defendant’s lease

15. Under my long-term lease, the “’Demised Premises’ means the apartment and parking space (if any) shown edged red on the Lease Plan being apartment number 30 on the third floor…”. My parking space is “shown edged red on the Lease Plan”.

16. I do, therefore, have exclusive use of the land on which I park, i.e. my parking space, for the foreseeable future.

17. When a vehicle is parked on the Estate by either myself, another member of my family or any visitor to the apartment, it is always parked in full compliance with my lease on my parking space.

18. My lease makes no provision allowing either any other party to it or any stranger to it, such as the Claimant, to impose regulations on my parking space or those parking on it.

19. Decisions as to whether and what such regulations might exist in relation to my parking space are matters entirely for my own discretion and prerogative.

20. I am known as the “Tenant” under my lease. There are, of course, other parties to it:-

a. the “Landlord”, i.e. the freeholder and lessor;

b. the “Developer”, i.e. the party responsible for building the estate which, although introduced as one of the parties, is barely mentioned in it thereafter; and

c. the “Company” which “was appointed by the Developer to carry out the management and maintenance of the Estate”.

21. Although my lease grants some limited powers to the Landlord and/or the Company to prescribe regulations in relation to certain other matters, those powers do not extend to regulations relating to my parking space.

22. My lease specifies the amounts which I am obliged to pay on an ongoing basis and these do not include parking charges.

23. In any event, the Claimant is unable to enforce the terms of my lease because my lease does not expressly provide that the Claimant may do so and because my lease contains no clause that "purports to confer a benefit" on the Claimant, which would allow the Claimant to enforce the lease terms pursuant to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. The rule of "privity of contract" under which a person can only enforce a contract if he is a party to it does, therefore, apply.

24. Furthermore, in the event of being in breach of my lease, which I deny, the Landlord’s and/or the Company’s remedy would be to seek damages from me and/or an injunction ordering me not to repeat the breach as opposed to an arbitrary parking charge.

25. I am, of course, further protected against the Claimant’s unauthorised and predatory parking scheme by:-

d. the legal principle of non-derogation from grant implied in all leases; and

e. the legal principle of the right to quiet enjoyment also implied in all leases.

26. My lease is the document of paramount importance in this matter. My lease trumps any arrangements into which the Claimant has entered due to my lease’s primacy of contract.


The Claimant’s negligence

27. Like all businesses, the Claimant should surely be aware of its obligations under 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”.

28. According to its website, the Claimant “was founded in 1990… we have experienced continual growth and now… operate on over 600 sites…”. The Claimant promotes itself to potential clients by stating that “Every operational environment is individual, with its own specific requirements”.

29. It is strange then that, with all its knowledge and experience and its recognition that “Every operational environment is individual, with its own specific requirements”, the Claimant entered into a contract relating to my land without heeding the terms of my lease and the requirements of legislation.

30. One would certainly expect a parking operator to be familiar with Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which is headed “Recovery of Unpaid Parking Charges”, and which contains the following definition:-

“’relevant contract’ means a contract (including a contract arising only when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land) between the driver and a person who is—

(a) the owner or occupier of the land; or

(b) authorised, under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land”

31. Given that my lease runs until the year 2246 and has demised my parking space to me, I am both the owner and the occupier of the land for the foreseeable future.

32. Both the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and my lease are, of course, documents of public record available from Legislation.gov.uk and the Land Registry respectively. A raison d'être of the Land Registry is to provide leases, etc. to persons needing to obtain information on pre-existing rights affecting land.

33. It is odd that, despite its boastful knowledge and experience and its recognition that “Every operational environment is individual, with its own specific requirements”, the Claimant commenced using my land for the purposes of its business without realising that its client had no right whatsoever to consent to such an arrangement.

34. I submit that the Claimant’s behaviour indicates that it has not carried out its so-called “car park management” service with any care or skill at all. It has, at best, been negligent.

35. The Claimant’s negligence has resulted in it applying for and obtaining my personal data from the DVLA without reasonable cause and, in doing so, has flagrantly disregarded data protection legislation and deceived the DVLA.

36. In addition, the Claimant’s negligence has resulted in it attempting to enforce a non-existent term of my lease and, by doing so, the Claimant has committed a tortious act: i.e. the act of interference with contractual relations which, in the common law of torts, occurs when one person intentionally damages someone else's contractual or business relationships with a third party causing economic harm.

37. Furthermore, by making use of my parking space for the purposes of its business, the Claimant has serially trespassed on my land.

38. The Claimant should not be allowed to hide behind its own negligence.

39. Perhaps, with all the Claimant’s self-proclaimed knowledge and experience and its recognition that “Every operational environment is individual, with its own specific requirements”, the Court might conclude that it is impossible to attribute the Claimant’s actions to mere negligence.

40. Instead, the Court might attribute the Claimant’s actions to intentional fraud worthy of investigation by the Police.


The Claimant’s lack of standing

41. There is nothing which compels me to enter into a contract with the Claimant for parking on my parking space.

42. I have not granted the Claimant the right to use my parking space for the purposes of its business.

43. As the parking space is part of the premises demised to me without any rights being reserved, no other person has the power to grant the right to the Claimant to use my parking space for the purposes of its business.

44. The Claimant does not, therefore, have any right to use my parking space for the purposes of its business.

45. It follows that the Claimant has no parking to offer there, i.e. for the purposes of the alleged contract, there can be no consideration for my alleged promise to abide by the Claimant's terms and conditions of parking. Consequently, this lack of consideration means that no enforceable contract could have been formed between the Claimant and myself.

46. In turn, it follows that the Claimant has no grounds for charging for parking in my parking space.

47. Insofar as my parking space is concerned, the Claimant is nothing better than a serial trespasser and a nuisance (and is possibly much worse) without any standing whatsoever.


The Landlord’s and the Company’s lack of standing

48. As stated previously, “although my lease grants some limited powers to the Landlord and/or the Company to prescribe regulations in relation to certain matters, those powers do not extend to regulations relating to my parking space”.

49. My lease (in paragraph 4.3 on page 4) states that “The Lessor or the Company may {acting reasonably) vary such regulations or make further regulations for the good management of the Building or the Estate and for the benefit of lessees of Dwellings on the Estate.”.

50. Any regulations made in accordance with paragraph 4.3 on page 4 must serve the dual purpose of being “for the good management of the Building or the Estate” AND “for the benefit of lessees of Dwellings on the Estate”.

51. I have never been made aware of any regulations having been made under paragraph 4.3 on page 4, e.g. I have never been given a copy of any such regulations.

52. Even if such regulations have been made, they are clearly not “for the benefit of lessees of Dwellings on the Estate”. I have little doubt that the Claimant would assert that I, as a lessee, derive some benefit from the Claimant managing parking on my parking space, but any such assertion would simply not be true.

53. If a trespasser were to park a vehicle on my parking space, the Claimant would not take any action to remove the trespassing vehicle.

54. The Claimant would simply affix a ticket to the vehicle and leave it there in the hope that it would be able to secure payment of a parking charge.

55. I, on the other hand, would be left by the Claimant to face the cost and inconvenience of finding somewhere else to park.

56. The Claimant would not offer part of any parking charge to me to compensate for the cost and inconvenience which I suffered. Instead, the Claimant would simply line its own pockets with the parking charge after, perhaps, paying an amount of commission to its client.

57. At its worst, the Claimant’s behaviour results in it seeking to extort hundreds of pounds of undue parking charges from me. It is preposterous to claim that any regulations encouraging such selfish behaviour is for the benefit of either this particular lessee or the lessees in general.

58. My lease (in paragraph 9 on page 15) contains a regulation requiring me:-

“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.”

59. I have never been made aware of any regulations having been made under paragraph 9 on page 15, e.g. I have never been given a copy of any such regulations.

60. In any event, the single sentence in paragraph 9 on page 15 concerns itself with “regulations made by the Company from time to time relating to the parking of such vehicles”, i.e. vehicles causing an obstruction in certain specified places. This has nothing whatsoever to do with a “motor car” parked in its “parking space”, both terms being very noticeable by their absence from the sentence.

61. There is nothing in the lease specifically allowing the Landlord or the Company to make regulations relating to parking on my parking space.

62. My parking space is mine until the year 2246. Until then, both the Landlord and the Company have ceded their rights to it to me.

63. Even if my lease were to permit the Landlord or the Company to make some regulations to accommodate the Claimant, those regulations could not run contrary to the legal principle of non-derogation from grant are implied in all leases.

64. 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…”.

65. Lord Denning’s words are particularly apt in many parking cases involving leaseholders with allocated parking spaces. If Lord Denning had been deciding this case, he may have changed his words to say:-

“if the Landlord and/or the Company agrees to confer the exclusive right to park in a demised parking space on a Lessee, the Landlord and/or the Company must not then enter into an arrangement allowing a parking contractor to rent out the space to any Tom, Dick or Harry at an exorbitant charge for the purposes of the parking contractor’s business because that would not just substantially deprive, it would entirely deprive the Lessee of the enjoyment of that benefit in two ways: the Lessee, 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 the Lessee would be treated no differently to Tom, Dick or Harry insofar as the parking contractor’s terms are concerned. That would be to take away with one hand what is given with the other…”.

66. In any event, as already mentioned, if I were to be in breach of my lease, which I deny, the Landlord’s and/or the Company’s remedy would be to seek damages from me and/or an injunction ordering me not to repeat the breach as opposed to an arbitrary parking charge.

67. Additionally, in paragraph 7.1 on page 10 of my lease, the Landlord covenants:-

“That the Lessee paying the rents hereby reserved and performing and observing the several covenants on his part and the conditions herein contained shall peaceably hold and enjoy the Demised Premises during the Term without any interruption by the Lessor or any person rightfully claiming under or in trust for it.”

68. The Landlord and the Company have no standing in relation to parking on my demised parking space.


The managing agents’ lack of standing

69. The lease makes provision for the Company to employ managing agents.

70. Where agents have rights under the lease, this is expressly stated.

71. The managing agents have no rights under the lease.

72. The managing agents are mentioned on only two occasions in the lease: the first time on page 11 involving circumstances where “written notice has previously been received by the Company or its solicitors or managing agents”; and the second time on page 16 where it mentions that “Total Expenditure” may include “reasonable fees of the Company for the management of the Estate and the cost of employing managing agents (if employed)”.

73. As the Company lacks standing in this matter and its managing agents have no standing in their own right, it follows that the managing agents have no standing at all in this matter.



Summary

74. By bringing its claim, the Claimant is blatantly abusing the Court process.

75. My lease is the document of paramount importance in this matter. My lease trumps any arrangements into which the Claimant has entered due my lease’s primacy of contract.

76. With all the Claimant’s self-proclaimed knowledge and experience and its recognition that “Every operational environment is individual, with its own specific requirements”, the Claimant has acted negligently as a minimum but has, perhaps, acted fraudulently.

77. Insofar as my parking space is concerned, the Claimant is nothing better than a serial trespasser and a nuisance (and is possibly much worse) without any standing whatsoever.

78. The Landlord and the Company have no standing in this matter.

79. The managing agents have no standing in this matter.

80. I submit that the Claimant’s claim should be dismissed.


Counterclaim

81. If, before the Claimant introduced its parking scheme, it had bothered to use skill, care and diligence to make enquiries through the Land Registry to find what pre-existing terms applied to the land, the Claimant would have realised that it needed to negotiate with and obtain agreement from myself the parking scheme to apply in the my demised parking space.

82. At the date of calculation in mid-August 2018, the Claimant has been using my demised parking space for its business purposes for a period of 1,047 days.

83. It follows that the Claimant has trespassed on the Defendant’s rented parking space for that number of days.

84. In local car parks available to the general public, the cost of one day’s use of a parking space can be obtained for £8.

85. My understanding is that, under Common Law, insofar as trespass is concerned, the Court is required to assume a hypothetical negotiation between a willing and reasonable person in the position of the trespasser, i.e. the Claimant, and a willing and reasonable person in my own position as the owner and occupier of the land.

86. I further understand that the appropriate measure of damages for trespass is the price which such persons would have negotiated as the reasonable price payable for the relevant right of user, or the sum of money which might reasonably have been demanded as a quid pro quo for permitting the trespass.

87. As the Claimant deems £100 to be a reasonable charge for the use of my demised parking space for one day, the Court could regard that as a reasonable amount on which to base my counterclaim.

88. Frankly, however, I believe £100 for one day’s use of a parking space to be an exorbitant amount, not a reasonable amount.

89. Instead, I regard the very much lower amount of £8, which is the cost of one day’s use of a parking space available elsewhere locally as being much more reasonable figure on which to base the counterclaim.

90. My counterclaim is, therefore, for the sum of £8,376, i.e. 1,047 days at £8 per day.

91. Although that amount is based on a counterclaim for trespass alone and I believe that it would be reasonable for the Court to award a further amount for tortious interference with my lease, I seek the sum of £8,376 in settlement of the whole of the counterclaim.

92. In addition to agreeing to the counterclaim, I would ask the Court to order the Claimant to cease and desist from its activities in relation to my parking space.

93. As the Claimant did not submit a defence to my counterclaim within the usual 14-day deadline, I request the Court to award me the sum, i.e. £8,376, sought in my counterclaim by default.

94. The Claimant’s particulars of claim, being so lacking in cause of action and based on contract law, offer no defence to the counterclaim which is based on property law.

95. I believe that, as a result of the Claimant’s failure to provide either a defence to the counterclaim or adequately detailed particulars of claim, a finding in favour of my counterclaim is justified.


I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SaytoPeP
post Sun, 23 Sep 2018 - 17:15
Post #4


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 23 Sep 2018
Member No.: 100,019



Thanks everyone.. PePiPoo is amazing...

Here are the lease doc redacted as needed.
Attached File(s)
Attached File  Only_Lease_Final_Signed_SMB_Y20170205_192815_Redacted.pdf ( 1.09MB ) Number of downloads: 61
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kommando
post Sun, 23 Sep 2018 - 18:30
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,167
Joined: 6 Oct 2012
Member No.: 57,558



Third Schedule, 8

So the Landlord has the right for to send workmen into the flat and parking space but these workmen have make good any damage/nuisance they cause to the tenant at their own cost.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eljayjay
post Sun, 23 Sep 2018 - 20:13
Post #6


Member


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



Crikey, SaytoPep, you are keen - that's good.

I love that bit found by commando - it may come in useful later.

For now, we need to resolve a difference of opinion between us...

You say “According to the lease, I do not have a specific bay but have exclusive right to park one car in the designated parking area”.

I disagree (but I am not infallible).

In clause 1(a) of your lease, "Parking Space" is defined as “the parking space within the Parking Area from time to time to be allocated by the Landlord to the Tenant for parking one private motor car or motor cycle”. The important point to note here is that the expression “the Parking Space” is defined in clause 1 of the lease.

In paragraph 7 of The Second Schedule, it states “If the expression ‘the Parking Space’ is defined in clause 1 of this Lease (but only if it is so defined)… the exclusive right to park one private motor car (or one private motor bike) in the Parking Space”.

So, taking those two extracts together, I believe that you have the exclusive right to park in an allocated parking space. That is a far more attractive proposition than the far more wishy-washy non-exclusive right to park somewhere within the parking area.

What makes you think that you only have the wishy-washy right?

This post has been edited by Eljayjay: Sun, 23 Sep 2018 - 20:14
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SaytoPeP
post Sun, 23 Sep 2018 - 22:16
Post #7


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 23 Sep 2018
Member No.: 100,019



QUOTE (Eljayjay @ Sun, 23 Sep 2018 - 21:13) *
Crikey, SaytoPep, you are keen - that's good.

I love that bit found by commando - it may come in useful later.

For now, we need to resolve a difference of opinion between us...

You say “According to the lease, I do not have a specific bay but have exclusive right to park one car in the designated parking area”.

I disagree (but I am not infallible).

In clause 1(a) of your lease, "Parking Space" is defined as “the parking space within the Parking Area from time to time to be allocated by the Landlord to the Tenant for parking one private motor car or motor cycle”. The important point to note here is that the expression “the Parking Space” is defined in clause 1 of the lease.

In paragraph 7 of The Second Schedule, it states “If the expression ‘the Parking Space’ is defined in clause 1 of this Lease (but only if it is so defined)… the exclusive right to park one private motor car (or one private motor bike) in the Parking Space”.

So, taking those two extracts together, I believe that you have the exclusive right to park in an allocated parking space. That is a far more attractive proposition than the far more wishy-washy non-exclusive right to park somewhere within the parking area.

What makes you think that you only have the wishy-washy right?


Thanks Eljajay, really value what you guys are doing here. Helping strangers out from being bullied by greedy corporations.

I am just disgusted with the way the managing company washes its hands by pushing a notorious parking company and saying there's nothing they can do and I'm not the only person in the development who had been hit with the PCN. I had asked them for a copy of the agreement they had made with PCM under the landlord's veil supposedly. There wasn't any consultation with the residents either.

That's good, so I do have a clear right to park and peaceful enjoyment. It would be interesting how they could issue notice of proceedings against me later. I wish Bowen's case was proven where his defense statement referred to the parking company that they have no right to enforce the contract and that would have been a good precedent for us all. Am I right in thinking that I should use this as my defense at later stage i.e. PCM has no right to enforce the contract on me as I have "unfettered" right to park under the lease?

Thanks commando - that'll be good for counterclaim later I suppose?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Sun, 23 Sep 2018 - 22:31
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Your right to park in your lease will be in your defence if they take you further. You may care to look for a recent residential case where VCS were involved and a counterclaim was made against VCS for over £1000 and it was awarded. Everybody is waiting for VCS to pay.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SaytoPeP
post Sun, 23 Sep 2018 - 22:34
Post #9


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 23 Sep 2018
Member No.: 100,019



Wow the witness statement is a true beast.. I got the gist of it.. have to read it a few more times.

One thing that caught my eye:
61. There is nothing in the lease specifically allowing the Landlord or the Company to make regulations relating to parking on my parking space. --> would that silly "reasonable regulations" invalidate this defence statement?


In your reply you also mentioned:
"Based on what the lease says, I propose that you then send an email or letter to the Management Company and, perhaps, the parking contractor asking them some very difficult questions."

I had asked the management company to provide me with a copy of the agreement between the 2 of them. I'd love to ask them re the consultation period that they should have had prior to appointing PCM.

What should I ask the parking contractor to provide? Should I be acknowledging their letter re referral to IAS and debt collection?

If we get the counterclaim, I'm more than happy to share this with 80 to you Eljajay since you're drafting the letter and coming up with the statements.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eljayjay
post Sun, 23 Sep 2018 - 22:37
Post #10


Member


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



Before we get ahead of ourselves with your defence, we need to establish the facts.

So, what makes you think that you do not have an allocated parking space?

Having said that, given a good defence and witness statement, it will almost certainly be impossible for the parking operator to succeed in any claim against you at Court.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SaytoPeP
post Sun, 23 Sep 2018 - 22:38
Post #11


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 23 Sep 2018
Member No.: 100,019



QUOTE (ostell @ Sun, 23 Sep 2018 - 23:31) *
Your right to park in your lease will be in your defence if they take you further. You may care to look for a recent residential case where VCS were involved and a counterclaim was made against VCS for over £1000 and it was awarded. Everybody is waiting for VCS to pay.


cheers ostell.. which case is this? Need to read up..
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Sun, 23 Sep 2018 - 22:59
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,088
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



This one did well £4681 due from VCS
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Mon, 24 Sep 2018 - 05:24
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Eljayjay @ Sun, 23 Sep 2018 - 21:13) *
You say “According to the lease, I do not have a specific bay but have exclusive right to park one car in the designated parking area”.

In clause 1(a) of your lease, "Parking Space" is defined as “the parking space within the Parking Area from time to time to be allocated by the Landlord to the Tenant for parking one private motor car or motor cycle”. The important point to note here is that the expression “the Parking Space” is defined in clause 1 of the lease.

In paragraph 7 of The Second Schedule, it states “If the expression ‘the Parking Space’ is defined in clause 1 of this Lease (but only if it is so defined)… the exclusive right to park one private motor car (or one private motor bike) in the Parking Space”.

I read that as being the landlord can decide to allocate ONE single (allocated) space (as opposed to the use of A single (not allocated) space) if they want to, if they don't decide to then the tenant has the use of A single space in the car park

That said their is a degree of ambiguity in how that could be read.

As I mentioned above this would make it less clear cut and the counterclaim for the commercial use of a ONE single space would not apply, though a claim for harassment would still have legs.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eljayjay
post Mon, 24 Sep 2018 - 09:03
Post #14


Member


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



The Rookie

I think we are singing from the same hymn sheet.

"Parking Space" is defined as “the parking space within the Parking Area from time to time to be allocated by the Landlord...".

Of course, "the parking space... allocated..." is not the same as "an unallocated parking space...".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Mon, 24 Sep 2018 - 10:00
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



'The Parking space' in my opinion can refer to ONE parking place or A parking place, however that would be at odds with the fact that the OP has paid for a space and as such no allocation need take place at the whim of the Landlord.

Perhaps the OP should now ask the MA for his allocation based on the above arguments (and the harassment he's being subjected to), their written response would be useful.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eljayjay
post Mon, 24 Sep 2018 - 14:08
Post #16


Member


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



Yes, we need more information from SaytoPeP.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SaytoPeP
post Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 00:05
Post #17


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 23 Sep 2018
Member No.: 100,019



QUOTE (ostell @ Sun, 23 Sep 2018 - 23:59) *
This one did well £4681 due from VCS


Hoorah.. that's a real winner.. what a smackdown..

QUOTE (Eljayjay @ Mon, 24 Sep 2018 - 15:08) *
Yes, we need more information from SaytoPeP.


Sorry for the delay, and if I understand this correctly OP (Offending party? Me?) should write to MA to understand for the allocation of space?

We dont really have an allocated space, we are given key fobs to enter the gated residential car park area, by foot or vehicle. If you forget yours, there's a guard outside the building who'll open the gate if he sees a glimpse of the permit and let the car in.

The MA also has a list of car reg vs permit and this is not transferable / leased to another party, unless approved by MA. Sounds like I have to hit MA hard to deal with this predicament or just wait to counterclaim?

Apologies if I did not answer the question fully due my limited understanding of what's being asked.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eljayjay
post Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 01:41
Post #18


Member


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



What you need to say is...

According to my lease, I should have been allocated a parking space in the car park. Which parking space is my allocated parking space please?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ford poplar
post Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 02:28
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,816
Joined: 20 Dec 2008
Member No.: 24,962



OP = original poster.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SaytoPeP
post Thu, 4 Oct 2018 - 22:36
Post #20


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 23 Sep 2018
Member No.: 100,019



QUOTE (Eljayjay @ Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 02:41) *
What you need to say is...

According to my lease, I should have been allocated a parking space in the car park. Which parking space is my allocated parking space please?


Hello guys, sorry been away on holiday.

Hmm.. just thinking about this question - the lease didnt actually say that though, it just says right to park so sounds kind of a bit silly to ask. sorry, just IMO. Should I still ask?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
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: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 01:47
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