Ukpc - Use of own space for guests - POPLA code given

bazster

Marktheshark wrote: »

Amazed why you are jumping these hoops if you have land registry title.
Let them go begger off along with popla.

The only letter I would write is to say you decide who parks on your land that they will be hearing from your solicitor for illegally running a profit making business on your land without a contract.

^^^^^^ This ^^^^^

Far too much jumping through the PPC hoops here. Plus I can't believe people are questioning the meaning of a leasehold.

A 99-year lease is pretty much the standard on leasehold property, and if the OP has got 90+ years running on his leasehold then it sounds like he's the leasehold owner, no question, with his title registered at the Land Registry. To all intents and purposes he is the landowner.

Of course, it is possible that his lease contains terms relating to parking permits, but I doubt it. He should check. Subject to that:

There's too much hoo-ha here over a PoPLA appeal. In the circumstances the only possible reason for appealing to PoPLA is to cost UKPC £27+VAT. A single-issue, one-line appeal is all that is required:

"The driver had the landowner's permission to park, and the operator did not have the landowner's authority to operate on his property; I enclose a letter from the landowner confirming these matters plus a copy of his title to the property".

More importantly, letters to both UKPC and the management company:

I refer to the Parking Charge Notice <details> issued on my property. I hereby require UKPC, <management company> and their agents to cease and desist trespassing on my property, and for the avoidance of doubt any implied or express right of access UKPC, <management company> or their agents may believe existed is hereby revoked.

Should such trespass be repeated I will hold the trespasser, UKPC and <management company> jointly and severally liable for damages and may apply for a court injunction.

I refer you to the case of Davey vs. UKPC where UKPC were obliged to pay Mr. Davey a total of £1,430.26 in costs and damages after persistently ticketing his vehicle on his private property despite his warnings.


And stop displaying permits.

bazster

Guys_Dad wrote: »

You can not be a 99 year leaseholder and write the following in your appeal "As the freehold landowner, I have given no such landowner authority. I have Land Registry documents in my name for this land, the areas outlined in the TP1 Land Registry transfer of title. "

No, but he can write "As the landowner...".

Delete "freehold" and it's correct: he is the landowner.

I'm afraid it's you, GD, who does not seem to understand leasehold ownership. It's not just a long tenancy!

Dad_to_4_little_monkeys

The_Deep wrote: »

An excellent suggestion by GD. A single point appeal puts them on the spot, if they reject it and PoPLA upholds it you could, if you were that bloody minded, pursue them for you time and trouble.

It is unlikely that you would get much, or indeed anything, (although Roger Davey did), but think of the nuisance you could cause them. It is about time they stop hassling us flat owners.

Concern on stage update. PPC has rejected and this is the proposed POPLA appeal reply.

Does this change your view? Thanks ....

Guys_Dad

bazster wrote: »

No, but he can write "As the landowner...".

Delete "freehold" and it's correct: he is the landowner.

I'm afraid it's you, GD, who does not seem to understand leasehold ownership. It's not just a long tenancy!

Not so! I understand that saying you are the freeehold landowner when you are not is unlikely to help your case and no matter how many years are on the lease, the land belongs to the freeholder.

You can have freehold flats /maisonettes in Scotland, but in England, the landowner of the actual land in leasehold multi-tenanted estates or buildings controls and owns the land. Leaseholders normally have to pay service charges and are governed by the lease t&c.

I worked for over 25 years for one of the top 10 largest landowners in the country, so I know a little bit about the subject.

bazster

Well in that case, GD, you should know that a leasehold owner is exactly that: the owner, for the duration of the lease. If you want permission to enter leasehold land it is the leaseholder's permission you need, and if you ain't got that then you are a trespasser. This is subject, of course, to any rights of access retained by the freeholder under the terms of the lease (which will normally be for a specific purpose e.g. essential maintenance), which is why I said the OP should check that. But the freeholder does not have any right of access or possession of the land purely by virtue of being the freeholder.

For the purposes of trespass the injured party is the party who has exclusive possession of the property, and if the property is leased (or even rented) then that is the leaseholder or the tenant, not the freeholder.

The_Deep

Leaseholders normally have to pay service charges ...

but these will be for services, they also pay ground rent to the landowner.

I think that you are being a tad pernickety here GD, this is a PPC were are dealing with here, they are hardly likely to know the various degrees of tenure which exist. What matters is that the OP has rights far in excess of UKPC, and the PPC needs to be slapped hard.

Dad_to_4_little_monkeys

Massive update - just off phone from solicitor, who has retrieved all archived documents.

We are FREEHOLDERS, so original phrase still stands. (but we still pay service charges 2x year for common parts).

Mangers Land (maintained by Management Company) are the roads as you'd expect, but the parking spaces in question are shared access only.

Shall I simply go in with the land ownership point - or leave in all of the additional points?

bazster

You have a 90-year lease and you are the freeholder? Impossible, those two statements are 100% contradictory.

What does "the parking spaces in question are shared access only" mean? Do you own the parking spaces or not?

Sounds to me like your solicitor wasn't really listening and has confused the situation even more.

I for one cannot contribute anything further to this thread until the tenure is clear.

Guys_Dad

Dad_to_4_little_monkeys wrote: »

Massive update - just off phone from solicitor, who has retrieved all archived documents.

We are FREEHOLDERS, so original phrase still stands. (but we still pay service charges 2x year for common parts).

Mangers Land (maintained by Management Company) are the roads as you'd expect, but the parking spaces in question are shared access only.

Shall I simply go in with the land ownership point - or leave in all of the additional points?

If you are a freeholder, then go with the 1 point - "It's not your land - it's mine" as per my original post #38 but I would want to see proof of title (copy) and attach it to my appeal. I would remove my edit but it would make the following leasehold/freehold posts out of context. But I do tend to agree with BAZSTER about the confusion.

I am happy to argue leasehold/freehold at another time with the regulars and not divert your thread. Please promise to come back after the appeal and let us know how it went and be sure to serve a notice on the PPC now telling them to cease and desist or you will take them to court.

If any regular can point OP to the case that was won by someone in a similar position and the amount won, then that should be in your desist letter.

The_Deep

Does it really matter what the tenure is? The fact remains, OP's guest parked on land within his control, what this has to do with UKPC I do not know.