New parking regulations at home...

Daniel_san

I just got in the office and thought that exact same thing! Thank you.

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

Daniel_san wrote: »

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!

Comments in red above.

Daniel_san

Fantastic, thank you so much! I will send you a pm, thank you again!

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

The PPC is undoubtedly trespassing on your space because it's exclusively yours under the lease


I'm enjoying myself now

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

so you weren't parked in your exclusive space?

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

safarmuk

Dan - can you PM me your lease please? I want to compare it to one I am looking at myself (happy to share two ways if that is good for you) and reference it to LOC123's points above.

LOC123 - would you be available to cast a cursory glance over the lease I mention above? I think it is potentially very similar to Dan's but I would like a second opinion. The situation with this lease I mention is coming to a head very quickly.