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

DandelionPatrol

Marktheshark wrote: »

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.

Well, yes. As I said earlier, 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.

BeanKLR

Apologies my mistake the actual wording is:

1.3 Allocated Parking Accommodation
The parking space in the multi-storey car park numbered XXor such alternative space/garage as shall be notified to the Tenant by the Landlord acting reasonably.

BeanKLR

Can I use the following template to request a POPLA code outside of the 28 day window?

Dear Sir

Ref ****

I wish to challenge this notice and refer you to the consequences of Halsey v Milton Keynes General NHS Trust if you refuse to consider an application outside your normal deadline.

1 There are no signs in the car park stating that a motorcycle may not park in a normal bay

2 The amount you claim does not represent a genuine pre-estimate of any loss

If you do not accept this challenge, I require the validation code to refer the matter to POPLA
I will require you to produce the contract that you claim has resulted in a payment of £100 by you to the land-owner.

Yours faithfully

HO87

Let's stop and look at this again for a moment.

In essence, it appears that CPM's case will be that by parking in contravention of their signage the OP has breached the terms and conditions of the contract to park he had formed with them.

This is, of course, utter bolleaux. Aside from anything else in order for there to have been a contract agreed in the first place there must be a meeting of minds and, importantly, an intention to enter into legal relations. In these circumstances, however, there is absolutely no necessity - legal or practical - that the OP enters into a separate contract with CPM for the purposes of parking as he already has a lease that provides for it. He has no intention to contract with CPM or the Man in the Moon, come to that as there simply is no need.

On that basis, if there has been a breach of anything at all then the OP can only be in breach of the terms of his lease and that does not involve CPM in anyway, shape or form.

My approach here would be to invite CPM to FRO and not to enter onto his leasehold land in the future. I would follow this up with a suitably shirty letter to the LL/MA reminding them that he is entitled to quiet enjoyment and having to deal with CPM does away with that. Furthermore, seeing as there is clearly a master/servant or at least principal/agent relationship between the LL/MA and CPM then the LL/MA may themselves have breached the terms of the lease by failing to give sufficient notice of their intention of entering onto the leasehold and in any event for a purpose which was clearly not urgent.

In my view submitting to any process CPM might have in place is to acknowledge that they have any weight in this situation.

But then, that's me.

Guys_Dad

Can't fault your argument. However landowner management companies have surprising powers and leaseholders who think they own flats can face surprising difficulties.

In one particular development I am familiar with, the management company effected a repossession of a flat because the leaseholder had a dog they would not get rid of. Another leaseholder had floor tiles removed as they were not allowed. There have been other matters along similar lines as well.

What this is leading to is that the eventual adversary in parking tickets may not be the PPC but the management company who could get really heavy.

DandelionPatrol

HO87 wrote: »

Let's stop and look at this again for a moment.

In essence, it appears that CPM's case will be that by parking in contravention of their signage the OP has breached the terms and conditions of the contract to park he had formed with them.

This is, of course, utter bolleaux. Aside from anything else in order for there to have been a contract agreed in the first place there must be a meeting of minds and, importantly, an intention to enter into legal relations. In these circumstances, however, there is absolutely no necessity - legal or practical - that the OP enters into a separate contract with CPM for the purposes of parking as he already has a lease that provides for it. He has no intention to contract with CPM or the Man in the Moon, come to that as there simply is no need.

On that basis, if there has been a breach of anything at all then the OP can only be in breach of the terms of his lease and that does not involve CPM in anyway, shape or form.

My approach here would be to invite CPM to FRO and not to enter onto his leasehold land in the future. I would follow this up with a suitably shirty letter to the LL/MA reminding them that he is entitled to quiet enjoyment and having to deal with CPM does away with that. Furthermore, seeing as there is clearly a master/servant or at least principal/agent relationship between the LL/MA and CPM then the LL/MA may themselves have breached the terms of the lease by failing to give sufficient notice of their intention of entering onto the leasehold and in any event for a purpose which was clearly not urgent.

In my view submitting to any process CPM might have in place is to acknowledge that they have any weight in this situation.

But then, that's me.

Although my sympathies are entirely with this, a lot of what you have written is bluff and bluster and simply mistaken. If the matter goes to court, these arguments will be easily struck down.

Your core argument about 'No contract with CPM' is rather reminiscent of the 'Freeman of the Land' reasoning - you need to look at what OP tells us about the contract which does exist:

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 to [clarified by OP in a later post] 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.

The governing contract is the lease and the weasel clause is highlighted blue. CPM are acting as Agent of the Management Company. Of course you are correct that OP has no contract with CPM. But the situation, legally, is not the least bit different to the car park attendants being directly employed by the Management Company.

So the argument that OP has no contract with CPM would carry no weight in court. The only contract avenue to investigate as something of a long shot is whether the contract with CPM is compliant with the lease.

The avenues which might lead somewhere in court are

• Under the lease, is it a reasonable rule or regulation to require a parking permit to be displayed?
• Does the lease provide for a penalty to be charged to the leaseholder for failure to display a permit?

To me, it is clear that the lease does not provide for a penalty, even if it is a reasonable rule to require a permit to be displayed. All that could be charged would be a GPEOL and I think that given the lease element of the situation, Beavis does not apply one way or the other.

It is also clear that the lease makes this situation quite different from that of a parking infringement in a supermarket car park and that the path to dealing with this is different.

I would not be surprised if this response causes some outrage with one or two here. If you are feeling outraged, just remember that if this sort of case goes to court and is lost because the wrong arguments are made, it makes it harder for the next person to argue on the right line of reasoning, because the wrong precedents have been set in.

The_Deep

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


But parking without a permit in your own space in no way effects the common enjoyment of the management areas.

DandelionPatrol

The_Deep wrote: »

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


But parking without a permit in your own space in no way effects the common enjoyment of the management areas.

That is the kind of argument which is required.

Now, is the parking space part of the management area? If the space is demised to OP, then no. But I believe it is allocated, which is different, so possibly, yes?

HO87

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

Although my sympathies are entirely with this, a lot of what you have written is bluff and bluster and simply mistaken. If the matter goes to court, these arguments will be easily struck down.

Your core argument about 'No contract with CPM' is rather reminiscent of the 'Freeman of the Land' reasoning - you need to look at what OP tells us about the contract which does exist:

The governing contract is the lease and the weasel clause is highlighted blue. CPM are acting as Agent of the Management Company. Of course you are correct that OP has no contract with CPM. But the situation, legally, is not the least bit different to the car park attendants being directly employed by the Management Company.

So the argument that OP has no contract with CPM would carry no weight in court. The only contract avenue to investigate as something of a long shot is whether the contract with CPM is compliant with the lease.

The avenues which might lead somewhere in court are

• Under the lease, is it a reasonable rule or regulation to require a parking permit to be displayed?
• Does the lease provide for a penalty to be charged to the leaseholder for failure to display a permit?

To me, it is clear that the lease does not provide for a penalty, even if it is a reasonable rule to require a permit to be displayed. All that could be charged would be a GPEOL and I think that given the lease element of the situation, Beavis does not apply one way or the other.

It is also clear that the lease makes this situation quite different from that of a parking infringement in a supermarket car park and that the path to dealing with this is different.

I would not be surprised if this response causes some outrage with one or two here. If you are feeling outraged, just remember that if this sort of case goes to court and is lost because the wrong arguments are made, it makes it harder for the next person to argue on the right line of reasoning, because the wrong precedents have been set in.

I fail to understand how examining the elements required for a contract to be complete should move me into the FOTL bracket but, hey, we're entitled to our opinions. For the record I hold no torch for the Freeman brigade and never have done.

A coherent argument as far as it goes but this does not involve any part of the management areas as the parking space forms part of the OP's leasehold. The weasel words do not apply.

I would accept the argument, were it ever advanced, that in supplying the OP with a permit and the advice to display it one might reasonably infer that the MA was seeking, perhaps, to protect the OP's leasehold interests but there doesn't appear to have been any caveat attached to that advice - nothing connecting a failure to display the permit to the actions of the PPC, for example.

Beyond any inference the MA's silence would seem to be deafening. Furthermore, what is being done impacts on the OP's quiet enjoyment and has all the makings of a variation of lease. Has the MA notified the OP of such a variation? Has the OP allowed such a notification to go by unchallenged and thereby tacitly accepted?

I agree that the governing contract is the lease but there is simply nothing connecting it to the contract allegedly being extended by UK-CPM. I cannot see how in the absence of an explicit instruction from the MA that any such contract with CPM can trump the lease?

DandelionPatrol

HO87 wrote: »

I fail to understand how examining the elements required for a contract to be complete should move me into the FOTL bracket but, hey, we're entitled to our opinions. For the record I hold no torch for the Freeman brigade and never have done.

You are right, there is no contract between OP and CPM. It does not follow that OP is not governed by some contract - ie the lease

HO87 wrote: »

A coherent argument as far as it goes but this does not involve any part of the management areas as the parking space forms part of the OP's leasehold. The weasel words do not apply.

The lease might not demise the parking space to OP. My reading of OP's lease extract is that it may be allocated - ie it is not specified on OP's lease.

HO87 wrote: »

I would accept the argument, were it ever advanced, that in supplying the OP with a permit and the advice to display it one might reasonably infer that the MA was seeking, perhaps, to protect the OP's leasehold interests but there doesn't appear to have been any caveat attached to that advice - nothing connecting a failure to display the permit to the actions of the PPC, for example.

If the space is allocated, then it is not leased. The acid test is whether the space is defined on OP's Title plan. The only connection between failure to display and the actions of the parking outfit is the clause 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

HO87 wrote: »

Beyond any inference the MA's silence would seem to be deafening. Furthermore, what is being done impacts on the OP's quiet enjoyment and has all the makings of a variation of lease. Has the MA notified the OP of such a variation? Has the OP allowed such a notification to go by unchallenged and thereby tacitly accepted?

It might be allocated, rather than leased, which nullifies 'quiet enjoyment'

HO87 wrote: »

I agree that the governing contract is the lease but there is simply nothing connecting it to the contract allegedly being extended by UK-CPM. I cannot see how in the absence of an explicit instruction from the MA that any such contract with CPM can trump the lease?

You are right that the MA's contract with CPM cannot trump the lease. But this contract is irrelevant to the lease. CPM are merely an agent in the employ of the MA. Everything is governed by the lease and in particular the scope for such reasonable rules and regulations for the common enjoyment of the Management Areas as the Company may from time to time properly prescribe