Devere Parking notice - residential space

red889900

Hi everyone,

After looking through the newbie thread it recommended starting a new thread for Devere's particular brand of parking charge nonsense so he it goes.

I live in flat, which I am a share of freehold owner, which has an allocated space. My lease includes both my flat and parking space, this is confirmed by land registry.

I was given a ticket for not displaying my badge, the bloody thing was in my central console rather than on my dashboard...so you could still see it. Regardless the charge as far as I am aware is groundless.

I have looked through my lease several times and can find nothing specifically about showing a permit. Not surprising, as the lease outdates the private parking enforcement. The only thing I can see is a mention of complying with all statutes and authority relating to the property? Would that cover parking notices stuck up after the lease was created?

I sent the following letter before I came here so apologies If it doesn't match up what you would recommend as a first step.

Ticket number:xxxx
Vehicle registration number:xxxxx

You issued me with a parking ticket on 28/08/2016 but I believe it was unfairly issued. I will not be paying your demand for payment for the following reason:

No requirement for a permit in my lease/no right to manage my property

As the leaseholder of the premises shown as my home address and ********** I have a right to exclusive, peaceful enjoyment of my parking space. My lease (************) does not state anywhere that a parking permit must either be owned or displayed to park in my space.

I have entered into no agreement with Devere Parking Services Ltd regarding either access to my parking space or the right to operate within it. Therefore the ticket warden has trespassed on my property.

I have contacted Napier management regarding this incident to voice my concerns. This letter is sent out of courtesy but I consider this matter closed and the ticket to be cancelled.


They have no replied saying, basically, appeal to IAS or pay up. Napier were also useless saying they cant do anything as Devere are an independent company.

So what do you recommend is my next step?

Many Thanks.

Coupon-mad

Well you have given away who parked the car which is a shame. Basically, do not try IAS. Do not contact Devere. Come back if they start a court claim.

Is this the same place?

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?439558-Devere-Parking-Services-Claim-form-issued

The OP of that thread says: ''the managing agents of the block of flats are Napier Management Services in Westbourne. It is stated in my mortgage deeds that the boundary which I own includes the parking space – this is clearly outlined. I have the agreement between Napier and Devere.''

Unfortunately, that thread ended with no outcome shown but do your title deeds (as you say you are the leaseholder, which is a person in possession, not a tenant) include the parking space? If so, then Roger Davy v UKPC springs to mind:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?377246-UKPC-liable-for-trespass-**SUCCESS**

...or, are you in fact a tenant? Or are you a leaseholder of a flat but not including 'ownership' of the space?

What does your leasehold title (or tenancy agreement if you are not a leaseholder) say about 'peaceful enjoyment' of the property/parking/permits?

red889900

Thanks for the reply,

That isn't the same place but they manage several blocks around where I am. . I am the home owner, share of freehold with a 999 lease..

The title deeds clearly include the parking space. "The leashold land shown edged in red on the plan of the above titled.....note 2: As to the part tinted yellow on the title plan only the basement parking space in included in the title."

I was hoping I could contest on the grounds on trespass, it's outrageous they have come round at 9am on a Sunday whilst I slept and slapped a £100 invoice on my car.

Coupon-mad

I was hoping I could contest on the grounds on trespass,

Yes that would be one defence point, if they try a small claim.

But IAS is NOT worth losing at first - and you WOULD lose!! A county court hearing would be fairer.

I would reply to Devere, pointing out that you are in possession as the leaseholder and send them an extract of your title deeds. Expressly forbid them to set foot in your bay/on your land or they will be liable for your costs, in seeking an injunction (refer to Roger Davy v UKPC). Copy in Napier and I would say, opt OUT of the permit scheme.

red889900

Ok great I'll do that. I'll post up response here before I send it. This is a stupid question, but when you say copy in Napier do you mean send them both the same letter?

Umkomaas

Napier and Devere in bed together? The adage 'As thick as thieves' keeps resonating. I've no idea why!

red889900

first draft, hows this look?

Dear Sir or Madam,



Ticket number: *****
Vehicle registration number:*******

I have received your response dated 31st August 2016 and would like to make my position clear.

I will not be making an appeal to IAS, I do not trust this system and have no obligation to use it.

I am the legal leaseholder of ***************. The title deeds clearly demonstrate the areas for which my lease applies. My lease is share of freehold and is dated xxxx for 999 years. I have included a copy of the title deeds for your reference.

Nowhere in the lease does it state a parking permit is required. Furthermore any agreement made between Napier and Devere regarding parking enforcement does not supersede my lease.

From immediate effect Devere Parking Services are not to enter my space, or a claim for cost in seeking an injunction will be made. Please refer to the case of Roger Davy v UKPC as support of my position. Further, in June 2016, in the case of Laura Jopson v Home Guard Services (T/A 14 Services) it was decided on appeal in the Oxford County Court, that an onerous parking regime relating to residents already-owned spaces was 'incompatible with the terms of the lease' which pre-dated the permit scheme. Ms Jopson claimed £2000 in costs.

I will be contacting Napier Management to instruct them that I opt out of the permit scheme as is my right. I will bring a claim against both Napier and Devere for harassment if further demands for payment are made.



Yours sincerely,

Many Thanks.

Redx

are you sure that date is correct ? (its in the future , surely it should be in the past ?)

and surely you would not include title deeds , just copies of ?

red889900

Oops yeah ignore that, its*****. Changed it now. Added copy of deeds too. Thanks.

Coupon-mad

red889900 wrote: »

Ok great I'll do that. I'll post up response here before I send it. This is a stupid question, but when you say copy in Napier do you mean send them both the same letter?

Yes - but with parking firms only use post if there is NO other option given. Email is better, if offered for 'appeal' (not that they will be likely to just cancel).

You could add to this bit (and put right the typo - it is 'effect':

From immediate effect Devere Parking Services are not to enter my space, or a claim for cost in seeking an injunction will be made. Please refer to the case of Roger Davy v UKPC as support of my position. Further, in June 2016, in the case of Laura Jopson v Home Guard Services (T/A 14 Services) it was decided in the Oxford County Court, that an onerous parking regime relating to residents already-owned spaces was 'incompatible with the terms of the lease' which pre-dated the permit scheme and rendered the newer parking restrictions imposed by a private firm, as unenforceable. Ms Jopson claimed £2000 in costs and this case is persuasive upon the lower courts, being an appeal decision.

See this case as mentioned above, from this year:

http://www.miltonkeynes.co.uk/news/milton-keynes-woman-secures-landmark-victory-for-flat-tenants-in-parking-dispute-1-7459066

The parking scheme which came after the date of purchase of the flat, was 'incompatible with the terms of the lease'.

HTH

Redx

as above ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I was just thinking about that recent case that was won on appeal , then saw CM had written about it

also glad to see you have amended most of the typos too