New parking regulations at home...

KeithP

Small Claims Court limit was raised from £5,000 to £10,000 on 1 April 2013.

Guys_Dad

Daniel_san wrote: »

Without doubt
Maths on the sum simply by quoted cases such as davey v ukpc - trespass £150 x 3 counts = £450 and DPA breaches ranging up to £750 x 7 counts = £5250, but knowing it needs to stay under small claims limit of £5000. I should have made it clearer the amount stated was more a place holder looking for feedback than an intended amount at this stage, although it would be nice, right

Thank you, all good wishes gratefully accepted!

It's copy/pasted tbh, but I believe landholder (me, owns the lease) and land owner as a combination, is correct. I await correction though if need be. Thank you.

If it was me, I would go for something I could stand a chance of winning.
Have you read the Parking Prankster's latest blog and the one before?

The_Deep

I agree, given that Dr Bird was denied unreasonable behaviour costs, I would go for considerably less.

Daniel_san

Thanks all, I will wait and see if there is further input from those CM named above.

Regarding the amount, a single count of each (£150 trespass / £750 DPA) would be more realistic I am sure. This is now the only option open to me, as all attempts to persuade the MA and RTM Co that their actions are unreasonable etc etc are falling on deaf ears. Even the solicitor's advice they sought was poor.

Umkomaas

Regarding the amount, a single count of each (£150 trespass / £750 DPA) would be more realistic I am sure.

Most successful private parking DPA cases (very few to date) have been awarded £250. My understanding (IANAL) is that trespass awards are nominal and are for actual damage caused.

Coupon-mad

And some have failed. Not all publicised.

Umkomaas

Coupon-mad wrote: »

And some have failed. Not all publicised.

Just altered my post to indicate 'successful' cases.

safarmuk

You have failed in that duty, as the landowner is Theowal Limited of 302 Regents Park Road, London N3 2JX, and not in any way Warwick Estates whom you have contracted with; or [SITE NAME] RTM Co Limited.

Well this is very interesting ...

This address is used by a huge number of LTD companies and all of them (that I scanned over the weekend) are property companies with the same directors ... for example:
THEOWAL LTD
FAIRHOLD PROPERTIES NO. <various numbers and variations>
ADENSOUTH LIMITED
... <the list goes on, runs through a few other companies I know and even links to a Property Management Company>

They all seem to have the same Secretary and Directors, whom I have come across before.

Dan - what company do you pay your Ground Rent to (not service charge or maintenance)? You must pay ground rent as you are not freehold (indicated by the fact you mention the landowner).

Daniel_san

Same address for Estates and Management, who collect my ground rent charges twice yearly.

safarmuk

Same address for Estates and Management, who collect my ground rent charges twice yearly.

Ah yes, good old Estates & Management ...

They are the company that appear to collect Ground Rent for all the companies (some mentioned above) that actually own the land that each of those companies individually hold. Notice the three common directors/secretaries on all those companies and then the common secretary between those companies and E&M.

I would say make a complaint to them, however in your case by going RTM I suspect you have severed their (Theowal LTD or E&M) responsibility for appointing a Management Agent. Who was the Management Agent before you went RTM? (I have a sneaking suspicion I will know the answer - was it perchance Peverel ...)

However the good news for you ... I doubt this group of companies would have any interest at all in the policing of the parking on this land, all they want is the ground rent paid on time. It is extremely unlikely they have even heard of or know of the PPC on this site or have a contract with them. So the trail from the landowner appears to be clearly broken ... unless as part of the RTM, in your case, Theowal LTD, ceded any authority to the land to the RTM company (in this case the Company for which you are not a Director, not Warwick Estates who are just agents of that Company).

However, I suspect, despite going RTM, your lease is still with the real landowner and if what your RTM Company have done breaches that lease ... well it will be interesting to see who you can now rope into this dispute, however it could get quite messy ...

Be interested to hear other legal views on this (maybe Jonersh or LOC123's).

Do you have a share in your RTM Company even though you are not a Director and is it a Limited Company?