Parking Eye - Court Claim

Coupon-mad

Tandon wrote: »

Intersting point but surely the leaseholder would be regarded as the landowner in these circumstances?

It's arguable - and you are arguing for the other side if you think like that! You should throw everything at this.

Tandon

Coupon-mad wrote: »

It's arguable - and you are arguing for the other side if you think like that! You should throw everything at this.

I don't disagree that everything needs to be thrown at it but what is the legal position? One needs to be prepared if the judge says that the leasee has the power to make a contract with PE.

Coupon-mad

Not saying they don't but I think the BPA CoP says 'landowner'.

nigelbb

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Not saying they don't but I think the BPA CoP says 'landowner'.

From the BPA Ltd CoP:-

7 Written authorisation of the landowner
7.1 If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent) before you can start operating on the land in question.The authorisation must give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of the management and enforcement of the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner requires you to keep to the Code of Practice, and that you have
the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges, through the courts if necessary.

http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/AOS_CoP_June_2013_update.pdf

However to some extent whether the PPC abides by the CoP or not is irrelevant for the courts. What is important is that the PPC claim damages for a breach of contract & it is incumbent on the PPC to prove they have the right to sue the motorist. Unless the PPC actually owns or leases the car park they almost certainly have no right to sue as they are only the agent of the actual leaseholder or landowner & that is who the motorist contracted with.

4consumerrights

Although the BPA do state that the landowner's permission is required or the managing agents (so not the landowner then?) it may be more complicated.

Don't forget Britannic Industries who have a long lease from Cornwall council (freeholder) with regards to Fistral beach - has anybody actually seen the contract for this?

With regards to the rights of a leaseholder - they do hold a proprietary interest in the land but it would depend on the terms and conditions of their lease if they can allow any third party to carry out another business on it. Then there's the tax and business rates to consider by this third party assignment for car parking "management". IMO the majority to freeholders (landowners) would not permit another commercial entitity operating on their land without paying them rent!

With regards to the OPs case - Citygrove stated that this was a 14 acre site and would need a infra structure. IMO this was part of Watford councils regeneration programme (there are hundereds of documents about this) and I believe that the original site has now been split and the leasehold separated into Century Park (Savills state Royal London Asset Management are owners) and Watford Arches (the smaller of the two sites) - which could be owned by B&Q (as per MW post)

Savills don't appear to manage Watford Arches according to searching their website - here's a brochure for Century Park:

http://completelyretail.co.uk/media/scheme/3465/CR_RW_3465_Century_Retail_Park_Watford_brochure_2.pdf

******************************

B&Q are wholly owned by the Kingfisher Group - so you could enquire there to try and get parking charge cancelled:

http://www.kingfisher.com

or as Watford council are the freeholders - why not complain to Trading Standards?

4consumerrights

I have already yaken photos of the entrance and signs. However, since I parked, they have increased the max stay from 2 hours to 3 and mounted the signs slightly lower but still out of a drivers line of sight. According to PE I was 39 minutes over the 2 hours.

Tandon - I hope you have photographs of both before and after the times changed. This is one of the most relevant points yet - and a clear indication that the 2 hour parking contravened planning regulations.

This is vital evidence should it go to court as you would not have been issued a parking charge had it been the 3 hours when you parked!

******************************

mysterywoman10

I think there is some confusion here on what a lease means in the context of B&Q (Kingfisher) spending £35 million to buy it. They own the right to do what they like with the land and buildings for the specified period, subject as 4CRs rightly points out to planning regulations etc.

It is not to be confused with a tenancy lease. It explains it quite well here

http://www.thepropertyspeculator.co.uk/tag/lease/

In this instance I don't think the technicality of the Council owning the freehold is relevant. I suspect if you looked into a lot of these parks the investors named as the owners may not actually be the freeholders.

4consumerrights

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

I think there is some confusion here on what a lease means in the context of B&Q (Kingfisher) spending £35 million to buy it. They own the right to do what they like with the land and buildings for the specified period, subject as 4CRs rightly points out to planning regulations etc.

It is not to be confused with a tenancy lease. It explains it quite well here

http://www.thepropertyspeculator.co.uk/tag/lease/

In this instance I don't think the technicality of the Council owning the freehold is relevant. I suspect if you looked into a lot of these parks the investors named as the owners may not actually be the freeholders.

We do not even know if B&Q have bought the lease as the property link you supplied earlier: (http://www.propertyweek.com/news/bq-to-buy-watford-park/2003609.article) is certainly very sparse in its details.

Tandon found out the council own the freehold - i.e. they are the landowners and for purposes of the BPA it is relevant as stated in Nigel's post above.

They own the right to do what they like with the land and buildings for the specified period

Not necessarily - it would depend very much on the precise terms and conditions of the lease which none of us have seen. £35m for the lease the size of the B&Q store is not excessive and would equate to the total amount for the duration of the leasing term (xno of years). This amount may even be able to be divided and paid on a yearly basis if the contract permits.. Retail outlets sell their businesses; by the remainder of the lease being purchased by a new buyer.

I suspect if you looked into a lot of these parks the investors named as the owners may not actually be the freeholders.

That's a very sweeping and unqualified statement as you will actually find many of the large insurance groups and PLC's do actually own freehold property.

*************************



THIS THREAD IS NOW GOING OFF THE MAIN OBJECTIVE RAISED BY THE OP TO DEAL PARKING EYE AND THE COURT PAPERS.

TANDON - PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF MY POST # 67 REGARDING PARKING EYE'S NEW CHANGE IN THE FREE PARKING PERIODS ALLOWED.

TRY STILL TO LEVY PRESSURE ON B&Q OR THE OTHER RETAILER ON THE SAME SITE TO CANCEL THIS CHARGE AND THIS PAGE GIVES B&Q's HEAD OFFICE AND CEO DETAILS:

http://www.diy.com/diy/jsp/corporate/content/about/index.jsp

mysterywoman10

Sorry but I am confused over the "landowner" aspect of it and so was Tandom.

Cases have been won at court by parking companies which is why I don't understand Nigel's paragraph below

"Unless the PPC actually owns or leases the car park they almost certainly have no right to sue as they are only the agent of the actual leaseholder or landowner & that is who the motorist contracted with."

So to clarify IF the PPC does not lease or own the car park under no circumstances can they sue is what is being said?

Therefore if Tandom has asked for the "contract" previously and has not received it from the PPC surely the case would be thrown out on these grounds? a) no contract produced means they cannot demonstrate anything or b) if it is produced then unless they own or lease the land from what is being said they cannot sue ?

So therefore as previously suggested Tandom should ask for more time and specifically say that she has requested information (I'm assuming here she has already requested the contract from PE) state what she has requested and why without this proof of the right to sue in the first place she doesn't see how the case can proceed.

Surely for the case not to proceed at all is the best option and why she needed to speak to B&Q/Kingfisher. Or the Council. Regardless of the defence of whether the signs have changed before and after?

So I don't think that was going off topic or it certainly was not meant to be.
As for sweeping statements - my apologies

nigelbb

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

Sorry but I am confused over the "landowner" aspect of it and so was Tandom.

Cases have been won at court by parking companies which is why I don't understand Nigel's paragraph below

"Unless the PPC actually owns or leases the car park they almost certainly have no right to sue as they are only the agent of the actual leaseholder or landowner & that is who the motorist contracted with."

So to clarify IF the PPC does not lease or own the car park under no circumstances can they sue is what is being said?

No but in most circumstances the right of the PPC to bring an action against the motorist in their own right is never challenged. The PPCs present a blizzard of crap to flummox the court & the defendant but in the vast majority of cases it's just bullish!t as they have no standing to bring the case.

To take an analogy consider renting a flat. The owner (freeholder) can certainly rent it to you. The leaseholder can probably rent it to you if their lease permits them to sub-let. An estate agent could rent it to you but your contract is never with that agent (note that word) but is always with the landlord. The gardener engaged by the estate agent can never rent it to you

In the above paragraph just substitute parking a car for renting a flat. The PPC is usually in the position of the gardener.

Unless there is a clear chain of contracts permitting the PPC to enter into a contract on their own behalf then the PPC cannot sue. It's quite clear that an agent cannot sue on a contract to which they are not party.

The whole PPC industry is built on this Big Lie.

The reason that the retailers & managing agents engage PPCs is because they don't want to dirty their hands with suing their customers. It would be PR poison for ALDI or Tesco to be directly taking their customers to court. Just as the CIA hire mercenaries for their black ops the retailers hire PPCs so they have plausible deniability & can pretend that customers being sued for minor parking infringements is nothing to do with them.