CPM - over 28 days since windscreen ticket in my own residental space - appeal to PPC

The_Slithy_Tove

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Come back there to the forum tomorrow afternoon, to see if anything useful comes out of the Beavis v ParkingEye case decision in the Supreme Court.

Whatever the outcome of Beavis, and particularly if PE win or partially win, I don't believe it would have any effect on Permit-Only parking, such as residential parking. It's a whole different model. That's just my opinion, though. We shall see...

Jim_AFCB

It probably won't, but it depends on what is in the judgment, not just whether PE win or lose.

Marktheshark

Its not even "permit only"
He owns the lease, it is his to do so as he wishes unless any express term written in to the lease states otherwise.

The parking firm have no legal claim to damages or justifiable loss, they have no interests in his leasehold.
They might as well fine him for sitting on the wrong side of his sofa, its no more valid.
I certainly would not be jumping any of their hoops or giving them any legitimate stance, I would make the position clearly known from the start, just in case they do try legal action, any judge is going to want to know why they think they can rock up and set up business on the leaseholders land.
Just by doing so they owe the leaseholder liquidated damages.
I would send them their tacky permit back as well with a stern letter warning them or their agents not to trespass or cause nuisance by making demands for money.
.

Guys_Dad

Marktheshark wrote: »

Its not even "permit only"
He owns the lease, it is his to do so as he wishes unless any express term written in to the lease states otherwise.

The parking firm have no legal claim to damages or justifiable loss, they have no interests in his leasehold.
They might as well fine him for sitting on the wrong side of his sofa, its no more valid.
I certainly would not be jumping any of their hoops or giving them any legitimate stance, I would make the position clearly known from the start, just in case they do try legal action, any judge is going to want to know why they think they can rock up and set up business on the leaseholders land.
Just by doing so they owe the leaseholder liquidated damages.
I would send them their tacky permit back as well with a stern letter warning them or their agents not to trespass or cause nuisance by making demands for money.
.

Their argument will be based upon the wording of the lease shown in the OP's previous post

1.3 Allocated Parking Accommodation:
The parking space in the multi-storey car park numbered XX or such alternative space/garage as shall be notified by the tenant

Subject to observance by the Tenant with such reasonable rules and regulations for the common enjoyment of the Management Areas as the Company may from time to time properly prescribe

3. Parking:
The exclusive right to park (a) a private motor vehicle (such term in this Lease shall be deemed to exclude a commercial vehicle) on any Allocated Parking Accommodation.

No mention of permits..

Although permits were not specifically mentioned, the wording in bold appears to give the management company the right to introduce them. The wording is quite clear and the only argument is whether or not the rule re permits is reasonable.

Don't think I am in agreement with the introduction or with you getting a ticket, but you don't want to be arguing on what is clearly shaky grounds.

DandelionPatrol

BeanKLR wrote: »

Here is the lease wording:

1.3 Allocated Parking Accommodation:
The parking space in the multi-storey car park numbered XX or such alternative space/garage as shall be notified by the tenant

Subject to observance by the Tenant with such reasonable rules and regulations for the common enjoyment of the Management Areas as the Company may from time to time properly prescribe

3. Parking:
The exclusive right to park (a) a private motor vehicle (such term in this Lease shall be deemed to exclude a commercial vehicle) on any Allocated Parking Accommodation.

No mention of permits..

Is that 'by' in 1.3 actually 'to'? Because it reads like you can choose your own spot!

Marktheshark wrote: »

Its not even "permit only"
He owns the lease, it is his to do so as he wishes unless any express term written in to the lease states otherwise.

The parking firm have no legal claim to damages or justifiable loss, they have no interests in his leasehold.
They might as well fine him for sitting on the wrong side of his sofa, its no more valid.
I certainly would not be jumping any of their hoops or giving them any legitimate stance, I would make the position clearly known from the start, just in case they do try legal action, any judge is going to want to know why they think they can rock up and set up business on the leaseholders land.
Just by doing so they owe the leaseholder liquidated damages.
I would send them their tacky permit back as well with a stern letter warning them or their agents not to trespass or cause nuisance by making demands for money.

Mostly, I agree, but there remains a question as to whether display of a permit comes under 'Reasonable Rules and Regulations'. I would like to see that question refuted in a reasonable argument without bluff and bluster.

I think I would try taking a few photos with the permit not showing from a similar angle, and some more showing that it was visible from a better angle. Not that I concede that the permit is required, but more as an exercise in raising questions over the credibility of the enforcement.

As for compliance with permitting, if it is your own parking place, the Parking outfit would be hard pressed to make a GPEOL to themselves, the Landowner, the Management Company or indeed the leaseholder arising from failure to display.

The_Deep

Although permits were not specifically mentioned, the wording in bold appears to give the management company the right to introduce them. The wording is quite clear and the only argument is whether or not the rule re permits is reasonable.

Even if it is deemed reasonable to display a permit, it is unreasonable to try to charge someone £100 for not displaying one.

Guys_Dad

The_Deep wrote: »

Even if it is deemed reasonable to display a permit, it is unreasonable to try to charge someone £100 for not displaying one.

That applies to virtually ALL the cases we help on here. What I was highlighting was the possible weakness of "it not being in the lease" argument as an appeal point.

Marktheshark

Terms in leases have to be "expressly convened" reasonable rules dont really exist, its either a core term or not.

DandelionPatrol

Marktheshark wrote: »

Terms in leases have to be "expressly convened" reasonable rules dont really exist, its either a core term or not.

My guess is that a court would uphold permitting. A lower court might even uphold 'fines' for not displaying, but I believe that given that the 'fine' would stand in contradiction to property rights, I think that this would be struck down - possibly even on Human Rights grounds by a higher court.

I think that the only sanction which a court would uphold at the end of the day might be a court order to display a permit.

Marktheshark

My gut feeling is the district judge would want to know why they are operating a business on his leasehold land.

Which is exactly what happened in the case that did go to court where the parking firm had to pay damages.