PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Parking & Propert Management (PPM) - Court Case, Parking on own leasehold land - missing permit
captain_sizzle_8...
post Tue, 6 Mar 2018 - 15:51
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 42
Joined: 6 Mar 2018
Member No.: 96,886



Country Court date is 10th May

Afternoon All,

*First post*

I'll try and keep this as short as possible, as I know that you are all busy. The main points are as follows:

1. PPM issued fines on leasehold underground car park for a block of flats that I live in, this came into force in April 2017 and I have been living there since December 2015. As parking in the gated car park previously relied on a code of entrance, this was abused by residents and subsequently members of the public.

2. Directorate of the building voted on behalf of everyone that this should be regulated by a Private Parking company - this vote was conducted by 4 individuals of a 20 apartment block, no options were given by the residents to vote against this or not, the meeting was held during the afternoon when most residents work.

3. letters issued by leasehold managers saying that permits would now need to be displayed to park at the flats.

4. Lease agreement has no mention of this within the contract signed and doesn't seem to explicitly mention that the Leasehold managers can vary this agreement, in either circumstance no new leasehold agreement was offered to relate to the changes above, it does however mention an unfettered right to a parking space within the apartment block.

5. After many emails and letters both to Leasehold managers, PPM and Gladstones this has resulted this in going to court.

6. I have digital copies of both the leasehold agreement and the WS from Gladstones (sensitive information removed) but these exceed the upload limit. Shall I do a box download link and remove the HTTP?


I have read most of the forums around this type of fine issued on residents own land but wanted clarification around a couple of points, most notably around these arguments made by Gladstones;


The Defence
The Defendant’s right to park
4. Without concession, the Defendant has not provided any evidence to support their alleged right to park. My Company has been instructed to manage the Relevant Land and without concession the Defendant has failed to prove otherwise. - I have asked them to respond on points raised in the lease agreement that i have sent to them on numerous occassions.



5. It is my understanding that the majority of leases contain a provision allowing the Landowner and/or managing agent to bring in regulations it sees from time to time to better the estate. Exhibited to this Witness Statement is a copy if the Judgment laid down in the County Court decision in the case of Link v Blaney (Claim Number C9GF03Q9 May 2017). I refer namely to paragraph 22 whereby it was held that the landowner’s rights were subject to regulations brought in from time to time and therefore “any agreement ... must be subject to it as well”. In light of this, any right the Defendant alleges he may have to park (which is not accepted) would have always encumbered as the Defendant’s Landlord could not have given a right which was not his/hers to give. - I own the property so I have the right to this space


6. Further, by receiving / accepting a permit from my Company, the Defendant bound himself to the parking scheme which was in part for their benefit. In taking this benefit (i.e. in having the parking bay managed), the Defendant must accept his part to play, which was to simply display a permit. At no time after the scheme was introduced and prior to the first parking charge being issued was my Company made aware that there was any objections to the scheme. Without concession, if the [/b]Defendant did have a right over the space (which isn’t accepted at present), I submit he ought to have notified my Company, rather than accepting the permit (and as such the benefit of the scheme). Any rights he did have were therefore abandoned. - This I feel is their strongest point


No authority to enforce charges

7. As the contract is between my Company and the Defendant, my Company does have the authority to enforce parking charges. However, both VCS v HM Revenue & Customs (2013) and Parking Eye v Beavis (CA 2015) made it clear that a contracting party need not show they have a right to do what they have promised in the performance of a contract, nor is (in the case of a parking operator) the agreement between Operator and Landowner of any relevance. In any event, and without concession, the Agreement exhibited to this Witness Statement evidences my Company’s authorisation to operate / manage the Relevant Land on behalf of the Landowner.

8. Lord Justice Lewison commented in VCS v HM Revenue & Customs [2013] EWCA Civ 186;
(1) “The Upper Tribunal’s reasoning on this part of the case was that since VCS did not have the right under its contract with the car park owner to grant a licence to park, it could not have contracted with the motorist to grant such a right. In my judgment there is a serious flaw in this reasoning.
(2) The flaw in the reasoning is that it confuses the making of a contract with the power to perform it. There is no legal impediment to my contracting to sell you Buckingham Palace. If (inevitably) I fail to honour my contract then I can be sued for damages. On the stock market it is commonplace for traders to sell short; in other words to sell shares that they do not own in the hope of buying them later at a lower price. In order to perform the
2
contract the trader will have to acquire the required number of shares after the contract of sale is made. Moreover, in some cases a contracting party may not only be able to contract to confer rights over property that he does not own, but may also be able to perform the contract without acquiring any such right. Thus in Bruton v London and Quadrant Housing Trust [2000] 1 AC 406 a housing trust with no interest in land was held to have validly granted a tenancy of the land to a residential occupier. The tenancy would not have been binding on the landowner, but bound the two contracting parties in precisely the same way as it would have done if the grantor had had an interest in the land.
(3) Thus in my judgment the Upper Tribunal were wrong to reverse the decision of the FTT on the question whether VCS had the power to enter into a contract. Having the power to enter into a contract does not, of course, mean that VCS necessarily did enter into a contract with the motorist to permit parking”

Charge is excessive/ no loss suffered

9. The decision of the Supreme Court made it clear that the charges are not penal, nor do they have to be reflective of the parking operator’s loss. Further, the charges can be set at a level that provides a deterrent effect.
The Current Debt

10. In view of the Defendant not paying the charge within the 28 days allowed they are in breach of the contract. Breach of contract entitles the innocent party to damages as of right in addition to the parking charge incurred.

11. In view of the Defendant not paying the charge the matter was passed to my Company’s legal representatives, Gladstones Solicitors Ltd. The debt has, as a result of this referral risen as my Company’s staff have spent time and material in facilitating the recovery of this debt. This time could have been better spent on other elements of my Company’s business. My Company believes the costs associated with such time spent were incurred naturally as a direct result of the Defendant’s breach and as such asks that this element of the claim be awarded as a damage. The costs claimed are a pre-determined and nominal contribution to the actual losses. Alternatively, my Company does have a right to costs pursuant to the sign (i.e. the contract).



Thanks in advance for all your help

This post has been edited by captain_sizzle_87: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 - 15:52
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
5 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Tue, 6 Mar 2018 - 15:51
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
whjohnson
post Tue, 6 Mar 2018 - 16:17
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 442
Joined: 14 Feb 2015
Member No.: 75,738



Lots of bluster and rubbish coming from them.
The PPC are strangers to your lease arrangement. Some suggest that you should have sent them notice that informs them that any implied rights to your space have been withdrawn, and that any subsequent entry to your space would be regarded as trespass.


CODE
6. Further, by receiving / accepting a permit from my Company, the Defendant bound himself to the parking scheme which was in part for their benefit


Utter nonsense! No permit required. Permit was only displayed as a courtesy to their operator and in no way can be taken as acceptance of their scam.


You do not state whether or not you have actually been ticketed, but I guess that a court claim mans that you have?


[q]My Company believes the costs associated with such time spent were incurred naturally as a direct result of the Defendant’s breach and as such asks that this element of the claim be awarded as a damage. The costs claimed are a pre-determined and nominal contribution to the actual losses...."[/q]

No loss - they cannot claim costs associated with the normal course of running their business.6. Further, by receiving / accepting a permit from my Company, the Defendant bound himself to the parking scheme which was in part for their benefit

This post has been edited by whjohnson: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 - 16:23
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eljayjay
post Tue, 6 Mar 2018 - 18:28
Post #3


Member


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



Residential parking cases are usually very winnable (by the resident).

You do, however, need to do some homework (and it is good to see that you have already made a start).

If you are the leasehold owner of the flat, you need to thoroughly search your head lease for anything and everything relating to parking. You also need to search your head lease for anything and everything about any ways in which the terms of the lease can be amended or any ways in which anyone can make rules or regulations to change add anything to the existing terms.

If you are a sub-tenant (i.e. you rent the flat from the leasehold owner), you will need to ask your landlord for a copy of the head lease and search thoroughly for the same extracts. In addition, however, you will also need to search your tenancy agreement to find what it says about parking and how that can be changed.

If the changes (which introduced the ticketing and charging regime) were not made properly and in accordance with the lease, you should be OK.

I was taken to Court by Parking and Property Management Limited in similar circumstances in November (where they were represented by a Barrister). The circumstances were very similar to yours. What I found out was that, although the parking agreement was signed by someone purporting to be a director of the freeholder's company, a quick check of the Companies House website - use the gov.uk website only - revealed that the person concerned was not and never had been a director of that company. He was, in fact, a mere director of the managing agents. The Judge agreed with me that he had no right to purport himself to be a director of the freeholding company and that the parking scheme was invalid.

Do not hesitate to post some questions about the contents of the head lease and/or the tenancy agreement if the need arises.

Good luck!

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Tue, 6 Mar 2018 - 19:51
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,506
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (captain_sizzle_87 @ Tue, 6 Mar 2018 - 15:51) *
6. Further, by receiving / accepting a permit from my Company, the Defendant bound himself to the parking scheme which was in part for their benefit. In taking this benefit (i.e. in having the parking bay managed), the Defendant must accept his part to play, which was to simply display a permit. At no time after the scheme was introduced and prior to the first parking charge being issued was my Company made aware that there was any objections to the scheme. Without concession, if the [/b]Defendant did have a right over the space (which isn’t accepted at present), I submit he ought to have notified my Company, rather than accepting the permit (and as such the benefit of the scheme). Any rights he did have were therefore abandoned.

How was it 'received' or 'accepted'? There was some bunch of jokers that videoed the permit being posted through the letterbox and tried to claim this was 'acceptance'!

The lease would need to be correctly varied - it seems unlikely here? (Unless the terms covered this arrangement somehow)

It amazes how much effort they put into some cases.

As a last resort one could claim GPEOL - here. It's hard to argue a sound commerical reason for a gated residential car park - presumably where only the residents have access. (i.e. Beavis doesn't apply)

This post has been edited by Jlc: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 - 19:54


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 7 Mar 2018 - 08:15
Post #5


Member


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



4) IF you have supplied them with copies / excerpt of your lease proir to the date of this WS, then you MUST as part of your SKELETON ARGUMENT rebut this strongly

State that, on the contrary to the C WS of X date, on Y, Z, A,.... dates prior too the date of their WS you had asked for them to do... and no response was received. This is exhibited at a, b, c. I assume YOU have sent in a Witness Statement already? If not you MUST DO SO NOW. TODAY.

Dont use the upload space, either create a dropbox (no need to drop http, this isnt MSE) OR use something like tinypic. Tinypic is best as you can have this show up here, without anyone having to download from another site which may be blocked from them.

5) "It is my understanding" - this means they have not seen a copy of your lease, and you have to ask yourself - how is this therefore a fact? This is guesswork on their part. This Is NOT something in their knowledge, and as such should NOT be in the WS - of course, theyre trying it on! So again you must strongly rebut - firstly that this is the C simply GUESSING about your lease, which they could have bought themselves from the land registry for naff all money, or requested from you, or simply read what you gave them on X, Y, Z dates, and therefore it doesnt belong here - it is not a fact in their knowledge or reasonably known to them. Secondly, are they a property lawyer who has seen a majorityof leases in the UK? If not, then how can it be "their understanding" that a "majority" of leases contain this? Lastly, they have incorrectly asserted you have a landlord - you dont, YOU are the leaseholder. This is clearly just a template JUNK bit of WS theyve inserted, with NO KNOWLEDGE of the case. On X, Y, dates you told them you are the leaseholder. It shows their unreasonable behaviour - they have not only failed to perform any diligence on this case before using the courts time, theyve ignored correspondence from you as well. This is unreasonable behaviour on their part.

6) This is where they are trying to claim that you are somehow bound to create a contract with them by the simple act of receiving a permit from them. This is, of course, nonsense. While contracts CAN be created through action - such as parking in a pay and display car park - they cannot be created by INaction. You were a passive recipient of a piece of paper through your door. This can no more bind you to a contract with a third party, a third party which cannot offer you ANYTHING you dont already have - the right to park - than someone sticking a sign up on your driveway can. The permit was only ever displayed as courtesy, and in no way meant you agreed to waive your leaseholder rights which can only be properly varied through a formally executed lease variation. You state this is a complete nonsense, and a sign of how they are clutching at straws, to suggest otherwise.

7) YOU are the landowner, as you have a lease on that space. YOU have not agreed to them trespassing on your space, YOU have not permitted them to be there. Only the freeholder can alter this, and this has not been done as this would have to again be through a variation in lease
I HOPE you have used Jopson vs Homeguard here? Court of appeal

9) On the contrary, Beavis made it clear that the penalty rule could be lifted, but only in the specific circumstances of that case. Here, there is no commercial justiifcaiton for the scheme, and there is no benefit to the landowner - YOU - of this occurring. Beavis not only does not assist the C here, it actively hinders them by confirming this amount IS a penalty, and thus not recoverable under civil contract law.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
captain_sizzle_8...
post Wed, 7 Mar 2018 - 09:50
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 42
Joined: 6 Mar 2018
Member No.: 96,886



QUOTE
State that, on the contrary to the C WS of X date, on Y, Z, A,.... dates prior too the date of their WS you had asked for them to do... and no response was received. This is exhibited at a, b, c. I assume YOU have sent in a Witness Statement already? If not you MUST DO SO NOW. TODAY.



The court date is the 10th May - therefore a WS isn't due until 14 days before?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kommando
post Wed, 7 Mar 2018 - 10:03
Post #7


Member


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



QUOTE
The court date is the 10th May - therefore a WS isn't due until 14 days before?


Normally it is 14 days, there are cases where court direction has asked for them a lot earlier and you need to read all the court directions and meet the deadlines.

This post has been edited by kommando: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 - 10:03
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
thevaliant
post Wed, 7 Mar 2018 - 10:18
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 364
Joined: 30 Apr 2013
Member No.: 61,506



Nosferatu has already covered everything.

Gladstone's letter is a complete farce.

I am assuming you have a long leasehold, with a designated (red border) parking space (yes?) and have paid a huge sum of money for this? It's between you and the freeholder yes?

If you search my posts, you'll already see the same points made over and over.

In 19XX (or whenever), Freeholder and Captain Sizzle 87 agreed a lease, whereby Freeholder would grant the long lease of a flat AND parking space for XX(X?) years at a cost of shed loads. There WILL be restrictions in the lease on parking but *usually* this will be to prevent you parking trucks in the space, or perhaps dumping old bangers there. There will NEVER be a requirement to display a permit, and even if there was, there won't be a sanction put in because these leases are too long to name a third party company you have to pay if you breach the lease (which you haven't done anyway).

Your defence (and I would like to suggest you keep it simple) is:
Your land, your lease, your property. No requirement to display a permit in lease. End of. Don't get into 'No Keeper liability' - I think it muddies the waters. Your 'defence' lies in LAND Law (and it's farcical to see them spending most of their time on contract law).

Specific points:
4 - is a farce. You've provided your lease and land registry docs (have you?) proving you have leased that land between Freeholder and you since 19XX. An unknown third party has trespassed on your land, caused criminal damage (erecting signs) and then is demanding money from people.

5 - As noted, Gladstones have not noticed you are the long leaseholder, so anything they assert here is template. Even if your lease DOES contain a clause about 'reasonable regulations' (and I admit mine does, but yours may not) then you simply argue that the introduction of this parking regulation is clearly not reasonable:
The freeholder now wants you to display a permit, and failure to do so incurs a cost of £100 per day payable to an unknown and potentially variable party every year. If you still have (say) 980 years to run on your lease, that is a potential liability of £35.8m (undiscounted). This is clearly beyond all realms of reasonableness. Additionally, even if the permit scheme was deemed reasonable (it's not), then the freeholders sanction is forfeiture and NOT payment of monies to a third party.

*THERE* is an argument I see over on Landlordzone forums (long leasehold section), that if you are breach of your lease but the freeholder then takes and accepts ground rent (have they - 1st January perhaps? £1 perhaps?) then a breach of the lease is then sanctioned by the freeholder. Might be worth throwing in, it'll confuse the hell out of Gladstones.

6 - is their weakest point. The Company, an unknown third party, sent through the post a permit and asked you to stick it in your car. Not being a complete idiot you decided that some random clown on the street couldn't compel you to do this so you ignored them. End of. If you had to respond to every ******** who sent junk through the post you'd spend all day writing letters to that nice Mr PCWorld telling them that there offer of Windows 10 for a mere £300 was lovely but thank you, you wouldn't be taking it up. The permit is junk mail. Nothing more.

7 - 11 is all junk. The company alledges they have a contract between you and them. Deny one exists and ask them for their signed copy (by both party) if they believe otherwise.

The whole lot by Gladstones is junk. They have no points at all, and your believe they have a 'strongest' point is nothing of the sort.

This, of course, assumes you do have lease direct over the parking space.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 7 Mar 2018 - 10:48
Post #9


Member


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



QUOTE (captain_sizzle_87 @ Wed, 7 Mar 2018 - 09:50) *
QUOTE
State that, on the contrary to the C WS of X date, on Y, Z, A,.... dates prior too the date of their WS you had asked for them to do... and no response was received. This is exhibited at a, b, c. I assume YOU have sent in a Witness Statement already? If not you MUST DO SO NOW. TODAY.



The court date is the 10th May - therefore a WS isn't due until 14 days before?

Why are you assuming this? given GS are usually AWFUL at getting WS out on time, the FACT you have one from them may mean there is an earlier deadline youve missed

Check your ALLOCATION hearing letter, telling you the date of the hearing. Look for the date documents must be exchanged by.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
captain_sizzle_8...
post Wed, 7 Mar 2018 - 10:58
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 42
Joined: 6 Mar 2018
Member No.: 96,886



QUOTE
6 - is their weakest point. The Company, an unknown third party, sent through the post a permit and asked you to stick it in your car. Not being a complete idiot you decided that some random clown on the street couldn't compel you to do this so you ignored them. End of. If you had to respond to every ******** who sent junk through the post you'd spend all day writing letters to that nice Mr PCWorld telling them that there offer of Windows 10 for a mere £300 was lovely but thank you, you wouldn't be taking it up. The permit is junk mail. Nothing more.


This letter was posted by the Leasehold agents and not PPM

Also the freeholders (ground rent) is payable to another company who are the owners of the freehold. Are we saying that unless this has been signed by the freehold owners then the leasehold agents - even though acting on behalf of the directorate at the residence weren't able to sign this?



This post has been edited by captain_sizzle_87: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 - 13:04
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
thevaliant
post Wed, 7 Mar 2018 - 12:15
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 364
Joined: 30 Apr 2013
Member No.: 61,506



The Gladstones WS is still rubbish.

The 'agreement' contained is highly suspect. Get your lease out.
Who are the named parties in this? There will be at least two, and possibly as many as three.

It's going to be between yourself and the Freeholder (the person/company you pay ground rent to).
FIRST IMPORTANT QUESTION: Are Bluestone One Wycombe Management Company Limited named in the lease, AND if they are, what is the company number put next to it? Do they match?

If not - then another avenue of attack is that your lease doesn't even name this party.
Also, I notice that agreement DOESN'T have a company number on it. I'm afraid to say, companies change names all the time. Without a company number (usually put in the lease) what's to stop Tesco Plc changing it's name to Bluestone One Wycome.. (etc) and suddenly deciding it's a party to your lease? So that's strike one.

More fun - signed by Phil Bacon. Ho ho! Who is Mr. Bacon - well, he's not a director of the company (and never has been):
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/05223925/officers

So let's get this straight.

Some random johnny has posted a permit through your door, with a letter saying you need to stick it in your car.
It's claimed to have come from some company, but the person signing it isn't a director, it's another random johnny.
These random johnnys claim another random johnny called PPM are owed sacks of cash by you.

Well, that's so watertight I'd better get my cheque book out now, I clearly owe them thousands.

I'd consider taking down the attachments, though their argument is so poor as to be worthless.

Your reg plate is visible on the last attachment, and your email address can be gleaned from the boxes (hover over it reveals it).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
captain_sizzle_8...
post Wed, 7 Mar 2018 - 13:06
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 42
Joined: 6 Mar 2018
Member No.: 96,886



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 7 Mar 2018 - 10:48) *
QUOTE (captain_sizzle_87 @ Wed, 7 Mar 2018 - 09:50) *
QUOTE
State that, on the contrary to the C WS of X date, on Y, Z, A,.... dates prior too the date of their WS you had asked for them to do... and no response was received. This is exhibited at a, b, c. I assume YOU have sent in a Witness Statement already? If not you MUST DO SO NOW. TODAY.



The court date is the 10th May - therefore a WS isn't due until 14 days before?

Why are you assuming this? given GS are usually AWFUL at getting WS out on time, the FACT you have one from them may mean there is an earlier deadline youve missed

Check your ALLOCATION hearing letter, telling you the date of the hearing. Look for the date documents must be exchanged by.


Just checked this, the date is set for the 10th of May with the C having to pay the court fee by the 12th April. No mention of submitting documents
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Wed, 7 Mar 2018 - 13:11
Post #13


Member


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



Almost certainly there is, probably on the back / page 2. Otherwise hw do you know when the deadline is? It HAS to be part of the order.

Who is the Order from? Local court or CCBC? A pic would help - use tinypic.

This post has been edited by nosferatu1001: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 - 13:12
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
captain_sizzle_8...
post Thu, 8 Mar 2018 - 15:55
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 42
Joined: 6 Mar 2018
Member No.: 96,886



@Nosferatu I'll get back to you on that point later, but I have triple checked the letter and there is no deadline to submit WS by. Maybe they will instruct a date after the C has paid the court fee perhaps? (12th April). Otherwise there would be no reason to send WS unless the C has paid the appropriate court fee? Just thinking logically here.... smile.gif


All - please see attached leasehold agreement for the property. Hopefully no sensitive information within, please advise if there is an I will redact.

https://app.box.com/s/3vglo80dpudjxqbcupqle34iy2ovz360

This post has been edited by captain_sizzle_87: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 - 15:55
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Thu, 8 Mar 2018 - 17:13
Post #15


Member


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



A quick glance at that lease ans it seems to give you the right to park without hindrance in your parking space.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redivi
post Thu, 8 Mar 2018 - 18:26
Post #16


Member


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



Unless the court orders the parties to provide the evidence packs earlier, assume two weeks before the hearing and no later than one week

It's a balancing act because the ideal is to wait until you have Gladstones' witness statement
You can then address its errors at the end of your witness statement
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Fri, 9 Mar 2018 - 09:21
Post #17


Member


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



Redivi - we HAVE their WS, which is why Im confused. GS are usually late - not this early!

PLease post a copy of the order, it would really help.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eljayjay
post Sat, 10 Mar 2018 - 14:01
Post #18


Member


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



This summarises what your lease says…

…about parking


Pages 5 and 6 under The Tenant’s Covenants

The Tenant covenants with the Landlord:

not to keep park or store any unlicensed or unroadworthy vehicle or any caravan or moveable dwelling on the Open Areas

not to park any vehicles in the designated parking areas other than private motor cars where such a right is granted in the Second Schedule


Page 19 under The Rights Granted

The exclusive right to park a private motor vehicle only on the parking space shown numbered 16 on Plan No 2


…about Rules and Regulations


Page 3 under Definitions and Interpretation

'the Rules and Regulations' means any rules and regulations imposed by the Landlord and/or the Management Company relating to the use of the Estate by the tenants of the Building (if any)


Pages 5 and 8 under The Tenant’s Covenants

The Tenant covenants with the Landlord:

to observe the Rules and Regulations together with any further rules and regulations that the Management Company may from time to time in its reasonable discretion impose


…about enjoyment of the property


Page 12 under The Landlord’s Convenants

The Landlord covenants with the Tenant:

to permit the Tenant peaceably and quietly to hold and enjoy the Premises without any interruption or disturbance from or by the Landlord or any person claiming under or in trust for the Landlord or by title paramount


So, on the one hand, you very definitely have an “exclusive right to park” in the described parking space.

However, on the other hand, you have agreed to observe further rules and regulations that the Management Company may from time to time in its reasonable discretion impose.

Given this, on the assumption that the parking regime is the subject of an agreement between the parking contractor and the Management Company, I think what I would include in a statement of legal arguments would include something along the following lines…

I have not entered into a parking contract with the Claimant because I have no need to do so. My lease gives me “the exclusive right to park” in my allocated parking space.

My lease also dictates the full extent of the ongoing charges which I must pay relating to my flat and my allocated parking space. There are no separate additional charges due from me for parking.

It is I (not the Management Company and not its agent, the Claimant) to whom the exclusive right to park has been ceded within the lease. That being so, the amount claimed by the Claimant cannot be a parking charge. Instead, it is an arbitrary penalty for failure to display a parking permit dressed up as a parking charge.

Neither the Management Company nor its agent, the Claimant, has any right to operate a business using my allocated parking space as one of its assets. The Claimant does, therefore, have no consideration to offer in return for a parking charge.

Although there is a term in my lease which requires me “to observe the Rules and Regulations together with any further rules and regulations that the Management Company may from time to time in its reasonable discretion impose”, if I fail to observe any requirement contained in my lease or any rule or regulation made in accordance with that term in my lease, the Management Company’s remedy would not be to levy a parking charge. Instead, it would be to make a claim against me for damages which I have caused.

The monitoring of parking in my allocated parking space is not a matter in which the Management Company has any interest. It has any reason impose rules and regulations in this respect. That being so, the imposition of any such rules and regulations does not result from any exercise of its reasonable discretion.

It is irrelevant to the Management Company who parks in my parking space. That is a matter which affects me alone. It does not affect the Management Company at all. If a trespasser parks in my parking space, I do not benefit from any service provided by the parking contractor. It is the parking contractor and, possibly, the Management Company, not I, who benefit from the parking charges. They would not offer me any financial compensation for my loss of the parking amenity caused by the trespasser. The parking regime is, therefore, merely a predatory arrangement designed for their benefit, not mine.

I have not sought and I do not seek the Management Company’s assistance in monitoring parking in my parking space and I have certainly not entered into a contract for the supply of a parking monitoring service with either the Management Company or its agent, the Claimant.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Sat, 10 Mar 2018 - 15:10
Post #19


Member


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



On the matter of the management company may reasonably impose etc it may not derogate from the original grant.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
captain_sizzle_8...
post Mon, 12 Mar 2018 - 10:17
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 42
Joined: 6 Mar 2018
Member No.: 96,886



@nosferatu - see the attachments with regards to court date. Hope this clears it up for you?

@ELjayjay - thanks for your points. PPM argue that if I didn't want to partake in the parking scheme then I should've made them aware of this at the time of implementation? Also with regards to your bit on the analysis of the Leasehold agreement. Surely a variation to such an extent like this would require a new agreement and not just a vote by the Directorate to allow this change to go through?


@thevaliant - the company number is the same on the leasehold agreement but the company name and where it is registered isn't. Does this carry any weight at all? I can see that the main point here is that Phil Bacon isn't allowed to be signing contracts on behalf of the company as he is not a director. Therefore rendering the contract null and void?

Attached Image



Attached Image



Thanks


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
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 - 17:36
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