Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Daniel san
    • By Daniel san 13th Jul 14, 4:27 PM
    • 187Posts
    • 192Thanks
    Daniel san
    New parking regulations at home...
    • #1
    • 13th Jul 14, 4:27 PM
    New parking regulations at home... 13th Jul 14 at 4:27 PM
    Hi all, I've been reading through threads for a few days now, including the "newbies" and guides - all great info and very much appreciated.

    I'm always very careful to check notices when out and about and parking up, so have avoided any charges so far, but something happened a few weeks ago which has annoyed me, although I must stress it only comes into force next week, I'm looking for a bit of specific guidance if you would be so kind please

    From posts I've read, I gather the following info will help you to help me.
    I am in England
    I am over 18
    The vehicle is not a lease car

    I live in an apartment block, with a leasehold purchase, and have done so since it was newly built in 2007. I am allocated a single parking bay as part of my lease. Until these notices were put in place recently, there has been no parking enforcement in place in any way, just a gate to the car park, opened by a remote fob. This new parking situation has been initiated by the managing agents for the apartments, but not something I've been asked to agree to.

    A few weeks ago, I came home to find the following notice on display in various locations around the car park (edit: oh, I can't post an image as I'm a new member )


    I've read on here that I should ignore any screen ticket, wait 28 days, I should get a NTK within 56 days.

    My question really is, given the above information on my specific scenario, does any of the advice I have read on here change, should I happen get a ticket on my windscreen please?

    I really don't want this round sticker on my windscreen....I'm happy the tax disc is finally going bye bye in October, but now I'll have to have this NCS Parking sticker/advert on my car instead anyway!

    I thank you for your time and help in advance.

    Regards
    Dan
Page 15
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 2nd Oct 17, 12:18 AM
    • 50,691 Posts
    • 64,104 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes to all of the above.

    Edited to add a copy of Johnersh's words, who put it better than I could, in another thread just now:

    I suggest you write back and say that since proceedings have not been issued, if they intend to pursue the matter further they are on notice that since 01 October 2017 that a new protocol is applicable. Their previous correspondence lacked specificity and therefore this letter should be treated as a formal request for all of the documents / information that the protocol now requires them to provide. Further, you trust that no proceedings will be issued without complying with that protocol. You will reserve the right to draw any failure of the Claimant to comply with the protocol to the attention of the court when costs come to be considered.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 02-10-2017 at 9:19 AM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Daniel san
    • By Daniel san 2nd Oct 17, 1:28 AM
    • 187 Posts
    • 192 Thanks
    Daniel san
    Thanks CM, I note your edit after my initial "thank you" click.

    First, quick draft before chill and sleep!

    Dear Sirs,

    I am in receipt of your Letter Before Claim of 26th September 2017.
    Your letter contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client places reliance upon.

    As proceedings have not been issued, if your client intends to pursue the matter further they are on notice that since 01 October 2017 a protocol is applicable. Your letter lacks specificity and therefore this letter should be treated as a formal request for all of the documents / information that the protocol now requires your client to provide. Further, I trust that no proceedings will be issued without complying with that protocol. I reserve the right to draw any failure of the Claimant to comply with the protocol to the attention of the court when costs come to be considered.


    This action on the part of your client is a clear breach of its pre-action obligations set out in the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct, with which as solicitors you must surely be familiar (and with which your client, a serial litigator of small claims, must also be familiar). As you (and your client) must know, the Practice Direction binds all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time. Quite frankly, I find it astounding that a firm of Solicitors are sending a consumer a vague and unevidenced 'Letter before Claim' just days before the pre-action Protocol changes.


    Nobody, including your client, is immune from the requirements and obligations of the Practice Direction.

    I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:

    1. an explanation of the cause of action
    2. whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
    3. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
    4. what the details of the claim are; where it is claimed the vehicle was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated
    5. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, provide a copy of that contract bearing my signature. Or is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
    6. a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the IPC code of practice section B, clause 1.1
    7. a plan showing where any signs were displayed
    8. details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)
    9. Details of the additions to the original charge, what that represents and how it has been calculated.


    I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).

    If your client does not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) – Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13 ,15(b) and (c) and 16. I will draw to the court the fact that I have expressly requested this information since as early as [date or month/year of first request] yet your client has refused to provide it, saying that it will not do so until this matter reaches the court.


    Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.

    Yours faithfully
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 2nd Oct 17, 8:59 AM
    • 515 Posts
    • 929 Thanks
    Johnersh
    One typo - it should say "a new protocol is applicable" I have amended my wording.

    Your additions may well be fine (I'm not in the business of second-guessing well researched matters) but personally I'd go for shorter letters where possible - much more effective when asking a DJ to read them in court mid hearing.

    The defendant knows full well what the protocol says and what documents they ought to provide.
    • Castle
    • By Castle 2nd Oct 17, 9:29 AM
    • 1,282 Posts
    • 1,671 Thanks
    Castle

    The defendant knows full well what the protocol says and what documents they ought to provide.
    Originally posted by Johnersh
    Don't you mean "claimant".
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 2nd Oct 17, 9:35 AM
    • 515 Posts
    • 929 Thanks
    Johnersh
    Sorry, yes! Who was it that said men shouldn't try and multi-task?
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 2nd Oct 17, 11:22 AM
    • 1,262 Posts
    • 2,153 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    Dear Sirs,

    I am in receipt of your Letter Before Claim of 26th September 2017.
    Your letter contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client places reliance upon.

    As proceedings have not been issued, if your client intends to pursue the matter further they are on notice Your client must know that since on 01 October 2017 a new protocol is applicable to debt claims. Since proceedings have not yet been issued, the new protocol clearly applies and must be complied with.


    Your letter lacks specificity and breaches both the requirements of the previously applicable Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)) and the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2. Please treat [s]and therefore[/s[ this letter should be treated as a formal request for all of the documents / information that the protocol now requires your client to provide. Your client must not issue Further, I trust that no proceedings will be issued without complying with that protocol. I reserve the right to draw any failure of the Claimant to comply with the protocol to the attention of the court and to ask the court to stay the claim and order your client to comply with its pre-action obligations, and when costs come to be considered.


    This action on the part of your client is a clear breach of its pre-action obligations set out in the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct, with which As solicitors you must surely be familiar with the requirements of both the Practice Direction applicable pre-1 October and the Protocol which applies thereafter (and with which your client, as a serial litigator of small claims, should likewise be aware of them must also be familiar). As you (and your client) must know, the Practice Direction and Protocol binds all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time. Quite frankly, I find It is astounding that a firm of Solicitors are sending a consumer a vague and unevidenced 'Letter before Claim' just days in complete ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the new before the pre-action Protocol changes.


    Nobody, including your client, is immune from the requirements and obligations of the Practice Direction and now the Protocol.

    I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:

    1. an explanation of the cause of action
    2. whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
    3. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
    4. what the details of the claim are; where it is claimed the vehicle was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated
    5. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, provide a copy of that contract bearing my signature. Or is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
    6. a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the IPC code of practice section B, clause 1.1
    7. a plan showing where any signs were displayed
    8. details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)
    9. Details of the additions to the original charge, what that represents and how it has been calculated.


    I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).

    If your client does not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) – Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13 ,15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol. I will draw to the court the fact that I have expressly requested this information since as early as [date or month/year of first request] yet your client has refused to provide it, saying that it will not do so until this matter reaches the court. [has it? this is taken from a precedent, check that all of it applies to you]


    Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.

    Yours faithfully
    Originally posted by Daniel san
    I've played around with it to adapt it now that the new Protocol is in force.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 2nd Oct 17, 11:24 AM
    • 1,262 Posts
    • 2,153 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    Your letter lacks specificity and breaches both the requirements of the previously applicable Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)) and the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2). Please treat and therefore this letter should be treated as a formal request for all of the documents / information that the protocol now requires your client to provide. Your client must not issue Further, I trust that no proceedings will be issued without complying with that protocol. I reserve the right to draw any failure of the Claimant to comply with the protocol to the attention of the court and to ask the court to stay the claim and order your client to comply with its pre-action obligations, and when costs come to be considered.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 2nd Oct 17, 11:28 AM
    • 1,262 Posts
    • 2,153 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    your items 1-9 need to be adapted so that they include anything required by para 3.1 of the new protocol. You can find them in this link:
    https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/protocols/pre-action-protocol-for-debt-claims.pdf
    • Daniel san
    • By Daniel san 2nd Oct 17, 12:47 PM
    • 187 Posts
    • 192 Thanks
    Daniel san
    Legend! Thank you LOC. I'm stuck in the office all day but will make the amendments and double check 1-9 & 3.1 when I'm home this evening.
    • Daniel san
    • By Daniel san 3rd Oct 17, 12:15 AM
    • 187 Posts
    • 192 Thanks
    Daniel san
    Gladstones Solicitors
    The Terrace
    High Leigh Park Golf Club
    Warrington
    Cheshire
    WA16 6AA

    3rd October 2017

    Your Ref:xxxxxxxxxxx

    Dear Sirs,

    I am in receipt of your Letter Before Claim of 26th September 2017.
    Your letter contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client places reliance upon.

    Your client must know that on 01 October 2017 a new protocol is applicable to debt claims. Since proceedings have not yet been issued, the new protocol clearly applies and must be complied with.

    Your letter lacks specificity and breaches both the requirements of the previously applicable Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)) and the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2. Please treat this letter as a formal request for all of the documents / information that the protocol now requires your client to provide. Your client must not issue proceedings without complying with that protocol. I reserve the right to draw any failure of the Claimant to comply with the protocol to the attention of the court and to ask the court to stay the claim and order your client to comply with its pre-action obligations, and when costs come to be considered.

    As solicitors you must surely be familiar with the requirements of both the Practice Direction applicable pre-1 October and the Protocol which applies thereafter (and your client, as a serial litigator of small claims, should likewise be aware of them). As you (and your client) must know, the Practice Direction and Protocol bind all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time. It is astounding that a firm of Solicitors are sending a consumer a vague and unevidenced 'Letter before Claim' in complete ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the new Protocol.

    Nobody, including your client, is immune from the requirements and obligations of the Practice Direction and now the Protocol.

    I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:

    1. an explanation of the cause of action
    2. whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
    3. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
    4. what the details of the claim are; where it is claimed the vehicle was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated
    5. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and provide to me a copy of that contract.
    6. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
    7. Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the IPC code of practice section B, clause 1.1 “establishing yourself as the creditor”
    8. a plan showing where any signs were displayed
    9. details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)
    10. Provide details of the original charge, and detail any interest and administrative or other charges added
    11. Provide a copy of the Information Sheet and the Reply Form


    If your client does not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) – Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13 ,15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.

    Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.


    Yours faithfully


    Also......I would appreciate any advice on the following:

    Can I add the below? Now? If so, where should I insert it please? Or save for later?

    1: Additionally, I refer to further PCN’s listed below:
    PMxxxxxx – for a vehicle parked in my allocated parking space, which is outlined on my property plans and forms part of my demised premises. Your client provides photographic evidence which could clearly only be obtained from within the bounds of my property, and is therefore an act of trespass.
    PMxxxxxxx & PMxxxxxxxxx – both pertaining to a vehicle parked in my allocated space, for which your client has affixed a parking charge notice to the windscreen on both occasions, which again could only be possible from within the bounds of my property. These, combined with the above, amount to three torts of trespass, and I reserve the right to pursue this matter in court, either as a separate claim, or as a counterclaim to any action your client brings.

    2:I also have in my mind the whole no contract with landowner, no authority to operate, no authority to pursue charges, breach of KADOE, breach of DPA (as this all means no reasonable cause request for RKD) – but I’m thinking this isn’t the time for this?

    3:Lastly, should I send a copy of the LBC and the reply I send, to the MA, just so they are informed? If so, should I do it via an email with a simple note of the situation, or should I go the full monty letter to them using LOC’s “To the MC Harold Wood Management Limited” template, which I have had saved for some time now and just need to adapt it to suit?

    As always, I am extremely grateful for everyone's assistance, thank you!
    Last edited by Daniel san; 03-10-2017 at 9:55 AM.
    • DoaM
    • By DoaM 3rd Oct 17, 9:10 AM
    • 3,333 Posts
    • 3,375 Thanks
    DoaM
    I can't comment as yet on your addendum, but I'd suggest removing the PCN references. (Unless you don't mind risking your forum identity being linked to your real identity, or those are made-up numbers ... parking company stooges do trawl this forum).
    Diary of a madman
    Walk the line again today
    Entries of confusion
    Dear diary, I'm here to stay
    • Daniel san
    • By Daniel san 3rd Oct 17, 9:56 AM
    • 187 Posts
    • 192 Thanks
    Daniel san
    I just got in the office and thought that exact same thing! Thank you.
    • Daniel san
    • By Daniel san 4th Oct 17, 10:07 AM
    • 187 Posts
    • 192 Thanks
    Daniel san
    Morning bump....sorry....I'm keen to get any feedback, make any changes, and get this printed and off....today if possible, as I'm out of office the rest of the week and don't have a printer at home.

    Thank you kindly
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 4th Oct 17, 11:21 AM
    • 1,262 Posts
    • 2,153 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    Also......I would appreciate any advice on the following:

    Can I add the below? Now? If so, where should I insert it please? Or save for later?

    1: Additionally, I refer to further PCN’s listed below:
    PMxxxxxx – for a vehicle parked in my allocated parking space, which is outlined on my property plans and forms part of my demised premises. Your client provides photographic evidence which could clearly only be obtained from within the bounds of my property, and is therefore an act of trespass.
    PMxxxxxxx & PMxxxxxxxxx – both pertaining to a vehicle parked in my allocated space, for which your client has affixed a parking charge notice to the windscreen on both occasions, which again could only be possible from within the bounds of my property. These, combined with the above, amount to three torts of trespass, and I reserve the right to pursue this matter in court, either as a separate claim, or as a counterclaim to any action your client brings.
    Write this as a proper separate Letter Before Claim. If you shove it onto the end of your letter about the PD/Protocol it'll get "lost".

    2:I also have in my mind the whole no contract with landowner, no authority to operate, no authority to pursue charges, breach of KADOE, breach of DPA (as this all means no reasonable cause request for RKD) – but I’m thinking this isn’t the time for this? Breach of DPA can go into your LBC.
    The no contract etc are defence points. The PD requires a D, once the C has complied, to raise these at the pre-action phase, once the C has made out its case - you'd respond to say what your defence is and any documents you rely on (haven't looked at the Protocol this morning but there are bound to be obligations in there, either specific new ones or it will refer back to the obligations in the PD).
    If they won't answer your letter, you write once more pointing out their failure/refusal, pointing out that it makes it impossible for you to comply with your own obligations and they are making a mockery of the obligation/opportunity to "take stock", consider each other's position and to consider settling or at least narrowing the issues. Basically setting the scene for an unreasonable behaviour costs order , and a preliminary stay of the proceedings.

    3:Lastly, should I send a copy of the LBC and the reply I send, to the MA, just so they are informed? If so, should I do it via an email with a simple note of the situation, or should I go the full monty letter to them using LOC’s “To the MC Harold Wood Management Limited” template, which I have had saved for some time now and just need to adapt it to suit? Nothing but the full monty whas any chance of working I'm afraid. The point is that the landowner/MA just automatically fobs you off, saying it's between you and the PPC. Only a proper detailed LBC has any chance of making them sit up and take notice. hairray had written to them a few times and they'd done nothing, but within days of the LBC his PCN had been magically cancelled. If you want me to look at your lease, pm me.

    As always, I am extremely grateful for everyone's assistance, thank you!
    Originally posted by Daniel san

    Comments in red above.
    • Daniel san
    • By Daniel san 4th Oct 17, 11:44 AM
    • 187 Posts
    • 192 Thanks
    Daniel san
    Fantastic, thank you so much! I will send you a pm, thank you again!
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 4th Oct 17, 2:51 PM
    • 1,262 Posts
    • 2,153 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    I haven't spent hours reading it, but unless I am missing something, this lease:


    1. Gives you exclusive rights to park in a specific space (but this space is not part of the "demised property" - so in other words you don't own the leasehold title to it, but have exclusive rights to it).


    2. I think 1. means that the express peaceful enjoyment covenant doesn't apply to the space so you can't claim that they've interfered with your right to PE. On the other hand, I think there must be a common law right to PE in respect of land that you have been granted exclusive rights to occupy. I posted about this common law right on someone else's thread recently (possibly alexreid1234).


    3. It does NOT provide for any new "regulations" to be introduced. The existing regulations are irrelevant because they don't require any permits to be displayed.


    3 above makes your case a little different from others, in which the lease expressly provides for new regulations to be introduced, but doesn't define what these might relate to (in those cases you have to argue that such new "regulations" don't include parking and that is down to the legal construction of the relevant clauses and more tricky to argue in small claims, and you also argue that even if the new regs include parking permits, there's nothing in the lease that allows the freeholder/its MA/MC to make you a party to a contract with a third party pursuant to which charges separate to the ground rent/service charge can be levied.


    So the absence of the power to introduce new (possibly undefined) regulations is very good for you.


    You can argue that your right to park is unfettered by any regulation to display a permit (the only relevant regulations say things like that you must only park a private vehicle on it under 3 tonnes etc etc) and the lease gives nobody any right to change that.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 4th Oct 17, 2:53 PM
    • 1,262 Posts
    • 2,153 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    The PPC is undoubtedly trespassing on your space because it's exclusively yours under the lease


    I'm enjoying myself now
    • Daniel san
    • By Daniel san 4th Oct 17, 3:00 PM
    • 187 Posts
    • 192 Thanks
    Daniel san
    Thank you, and without wishing to be a pain and take up too much of your time....

    With regards to the 4 PCN's they are claiming at this time, which are for me parking a vehicle in a communal part of the residents car park, in a non marked space, which is under the building, accessed by a remote "fob" (FYI)?

    I think this would fall under a tort of trespass at "worst" and as per BEAVIS, would be something only the land owner could do anything about. Would you agree?

    Thank you again.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 4th Oct 17, 3:11 PM
    • 1,262 Posts
    • 2,153 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    so you weren't parked in your exclusive space?
    • Daniel san
    • By Daniel san 4th Oct 17, 3:23 PM
    • 187 Posts
    • 192 Thanks
    Daniel san
    Not for these four they are claiming.
    I was for two additional they are chasing me for.....but I'm at Debt collector stage, which then leads to Gladstone letter 1, then letter 2, then Gladstone LBC.
    and for 1 more that they sent me a NTK for but haven't as yet followed that one up.

    Please don't think I parked there because I have a "I can do what I like" attitude. I parked there for over 7 years without anyone complaining to me or anyone else, inc the MA, that I am aware of. No windscreen notes, nothing. Other vehicles parked in communal areas also, as there are places that are not marked as spaces at all, but were used without causing harm to anyone. There are zero visitor spaces, so it just gave a little flexibility to residents, and we took advantage of that. I then left it there in the hope the (eventual) 25+ POPLA rulings with the previous PPC, would be sufficient to convince the MA that they couldn't continue this scheme. The MA wasn't interested in POPLA though, they thought they had the right to introduce the PPC's, and the solicitor they consulted with thought they were right also...

    My lease, Third Schedule: 21 Not to Obstruct (page 19) I believe states nobody should park in the communal area, so to park there "may" be trespassing on the land owners land. I believe "9 Third Parties" on Page 13 means that the PPC has no rights to enforce any term within the contract?

    Thank you
    Last edited by Daniel san; 04-10-2017 at 3:25 PM.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

135Posts Today

1,242Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @LordsEconCom: On Tuesday Martin Lewis, Hannah Morrish & Shakira Martin gave evidence to the Cttee. Read the full transcript here: https?

  • Ta ta for now. Half term's starting, so I'm exchanging my MoneySavingExpert hat for one that says Daddy in big letters. See you in a week.

  • RT @thismorning: Can @MartinSLewis' deals save YOU cash? ???? https://t.co/igbHCwzeiN

  • Follow Martin