Private Space - Lease Terms Interpretation

currentlylurking

Hi All,

I recently had a "ticket" issued by PCM, and I'm not sure how best to proceed.

The ticket was issued for a space which is dedicated to my flat, however the landlord has told me the terms for the space are as follows:

"the right to exclusive use of the Parking space for the purpose of parking a private motor vehicle not exceeding 3 tonnes"

However, there is also a clause that states that we are bound by "Estate Regulations" which are "any reasonable regulations made by the Lessor for the proper management and use of the Development".

PCM terms are displayed within the car park.

I've searched the forums for similar situations, but can only find examples where the lease doesn't refer to any specific terms (for example: the thread in on this site: "PCM notices at block of flats" posted on 21/11/2012 - can't link as my account is new). Any advice on how to proceed with the reference to "regulations" as above?

Once clear, I'll proceed according to the highly useful sticky thread...

Thanks in advance.

Stroma

There are no estate regulations unless it comes from an authority like a council, they cannot enforce these if it's termed as regulations. But that won't stop the scammers, just use the appeal wording in the sticky thread for this. Just get a free proof of postage from the post office if you post it.

I think this parking company are one that routinely loses appeals and go straight to debt collectors, so you may want to appeal as the registered keeper now. Though the standard advice is to wait for the notice to keeper to arrive.

The_Deep

Ah, that word "reasonable" again, what does it mean?

My understanding is that it is something which a reasonable man, i.e. the man on the Clapham omnibus would be likely to be happy to comply with.

So, would TMOTCO be content to pay £100 to a company engaged to protect his interests if a permit on his car windscreen comes unstuck? I think not. Would he be content to be threatened with court, bailiffs, a black markm on his credit reference if he does not pay this unreasonable invoice?
Again, I think that he would not.

Therefore, the PPC actions appear to be unreasonable, and therefore, in accordance with Unfair Terms and Conditions in Consumer Contracts Regulations, may be ignored.

My advice would be to try to get this in front of a judge, appeal to Popla that you are very sorry but had a toothache at the time. Do not display a permit and gather as many invoices as you can, then do a "Davey" on them

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?377246-UKPC-liable-for-trespass-**SUCCESS**

Others will give you the soft option.

HO87

To ensure that the matter goes away I would use one of the standard soft appeals (from the Newbies thread) to PCM who will reject it but provide a POPLA code enabling the OP to make a fuller appeal and ditch this nonsense.

There are two intersecting sets of relationships here.

Firstly, the OP has a relationship with the landlord. As a result of a lease that exists between them, the OP is entitled to the quiet enjoyment of the property he leases. It would seem that this includes the parking space over which he has exclusive rights.

Secondly, the landlord has contracted PCM to manage the car park on their behalf. Although the OP has not explained the terms of PCM's signs it is almost certain that they either purport to offer a contract to park or seek to ban non-permit holders from the car park it being implicit that those who do are therefore trespassers.

In the first instance PCM are in no position to offer an entirely unilateral contract to the OP for something he already enjoys and for which there is a pre-existing negotiated and formalised relationship.

If, in the alternative, PCM are endeavouring to pursue the OP in trespass then firstly, only nominal damages would be due and then only to the landlord. If they are confusing the issue by, on the one hand, banning non-permit holders and seeking then to oblige them to pay for the privilege if they do is a nonsense.

The issue of a failure to display a valid permit is, potentially, a breach of the terms of the lease but that is for the landlord to pursue with his tenant. That is aside from the fact that seeking to impose a charge for the non-display of a permit is hardly a "reasonable term".

In short, appeal to PCM, get the POPLA code and win at POPLA. Write separately to PCM - formally - and advise them that as you have exclusive rights to your parking space that any further intrusion into it for whatever purpose will be regarded as trespass which you will pursue vigorously. Send a copy of that letter to your landlord and request that they ensure that their contractor adheres to your directive.

The_Deep

I have been doing a bit of googling on such cases.

Most seem to have been won at Popla on contract and losses, although a couple were lost at in the early days, probably because Popla thought that the "my own space" defence was mitigation. Many have just fizzled out when OPs have ignored them.

As far as I am aware, Popla have shied away from ruling on "quiet enjoyment", and PPCs are wary of taking cases to court.

They have however been themselves taken to Court for trespass, and if OPs are to be believed there are a few more cases in the pipeline.

What we needed is a public spirited landlord with a stroppy tenant, who are both prepared to stand their ground, and provoke PPC into court, but I doubt if any PPC would take the bait.

currentlylurking

Thanks all for these extremely quick responses.

One thing I'm confused about - I understand the agreement is between PCM and the estate management, not with my landlord directly. In this context, I assume that Lessor refers to the lease holder?
"...regulations made by the Lessor for the proper management and use of the Development".

As HO87 states:

The issue of a failure to display a valid permit is, potentially, a breach of the terms of the lease but that is for the landlord to pursue with his tenant. That is aside from the fact that seeking to impose a charge for the non-display of a permit is hardly a "reasonable term".

Which isn't the case - the landlord certainly isn't looking to pursue me for not displaying a permit.

Unfortunately I have discovered the appeal process thread a little late (having followed some "just ignore it" advice) so I will have to start this a little late and attempt to get this back to POPLA state.

AoD

So have you received the Notice to Keeper or just the windscreen "ticket"?

currentlylurking

Notice to keeper.

Hot_Bring

Then I suggest you follow the standard practice of appealing and getting a POPLA code.

From a personal perspective and as a property owner I'm adamant that a lease ALWAYS trumps made up rules from a PPC. If the lease ( not the rental agreement if you're renting ) doesn't mention the need for permits then the need for permits is unenforceable.

Managing Agents / landowner hire the PPCs but don't want the expense of changing the leases so they just hope that most people are stupid enough to pay up.

The_Deep

The Landlord/Landowner/Headlease holder is the person/entity to whom you pay ground rent, and to whom the land reverts at the end of the lease. They nearly always leave the day to day management to a Management Company, although some HAs manage in house.

It may well be that your landlord is entirely unaware of the arrangement between the MC and the PPC, and it is your MA whom you should tackle WRT unacceptable harassment of occupiers by this PPC.

If you want an easy fix, appeal to Popla, if you want to stand up for the rights of all those targeted by these companies, and perhaps drive them out of business, ignore them.

Hot_Bring

The_Deep wrote: »

If you want an easy fix, appeal to Popla, if you want to stand up for the rights of all those targeted by these companies, and perhaps drive them out of business, ignore them.

But beat the landowner and MA around the head continuously until they sack the PPC !