Letter before claim

Kind_Of_Irritated

Just spent 20 minutes uploading the 7 pages of the Tenancy Agreement here. Then as I clicked "post" my computer disconnected and the post is no more!

I have now uploaded all of it to an album, here -

http://s1347.photobucket.com/user/Zinqua1/library/Redacted%20Tenancy%20Agreement%207%20pages

The middle pages have the main body of the agreement, I think. Though sharp eyes on here may notice other failings. Thanks for looking.

Kind_Of_Irritated

Agreed. It's no wonder so many people give up at stage 1.

Coupon-mad

Kind_Of_Irritated wrote: »

Just spent 20 minutes uploading the 7 pages of the Tenancy Agreement here. Then as I clicked "post" my computer disconnected and the post is no more!

I have now uploaded all of it to an album, here -

http://s1347.photobucket.com/user/Zinqua1/library/Redacted%20Tenancy%20Agreement%207%20pages

The middle pages have the main body of the agreement, I think. Though sharp eyes on here may notice other failings. Thanks for looking.

Sorry, been at the football...''we are top of the league!''

Will try to comment tomorrow but a Coupon-mad-child's birthday fast approaches and Sunday is pressie-buying day. Then back at work having been promoted, so I am even more busy in the week now!

Kind_Of_Irritated

Well done on the promotion. Have a good prezzie-buying day.

My WS needs to be in by Monday. Will be working on it all day tomorrow. No time to post it here.

Thanks for all your help.

Loadsofchildren123

Kind_Of_Irritated wrote: »

I have emailed my son to check on those points, but I know the answer to many of them. For instance, the parking arrangements came in 3 years after his tenancy started.

Great. In his WS concentrate on what the arrangements for parking were (for himself and visitors) in those 3 years and how anything changed when Ppc came in.

Parking rights were either an express part of the original agreement with l/Lord or an implied term, or a collateral agreement.
Be careful not to show he accepted any new terms as a variation.

Can he ask the landlord what his lease says about parking rights? It's quite important. If he won't cooperate I'd get this from Land Registry.
Exhibit tenant to son's WS.

Loadsofchildren123

And Defendant's needs to say she's visited regularly since start of tenancy, has always parked without interference, what happened on that day (feat I parked in same visitor spot as always). Is she accepting she was the driver? If not, It needs to say the driver was not her (and why she can confidently say that) or that it could have been either of you (and why - eg you regularly swap cars, you both regularly drop in on son together and separately, you often share a car and either of you could have been driving etc). Add anything memorable about that day to give it credence (eg it was his birthday/he'd just passed his exams/had a promotion... so we both visited together).
And deal with signage not making an offer but being forbidding (do you accept the sign they've produced is the right one? In the case I'm involved in the sign is clearly the wrong one)

The statements set the scene for your Jopson legal argument.

Kind_Of_Irritated

Yes, I have emailed him about this. No reply yet. Some of us work on Sundays. Thanks for this very useful reply, Loadsofchildren. I have a few questions at the bottom here.

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

Great. In his WS concentrate on what the arrangements for parking were (for himself and visitors) in those 3 years and how anything changed when Ppc came in.

Parking rights were either an express part of the original agreement with l/Lord or an implied term, or a collateral agreement.
Be careful not to show he accepted any new terms as a variation.

Can he ask the landlord what his lease says about parking rights? It's quite important. If he won't cooperate I'd get this from Land Registry.
Exhibit tenant to son's WS.

Queries: 1) what is a "collateral agreement"? And what is "implied" in this context? There is no mention whatsover of parking in his AST. He has said before he was never asked to accept any arrangements re parking when Link came in. Link might say his silence and use of the permit indicates "implied" acceptance of Link's arrangement with the Management Board.

2) Re his landlord's lease: his landlord is not being helpful. He seems to have been browbeaten by the Management Committee who obviously don't want to be seen as letting down the residents by giving away their original rights, via their leaseholds/part freeholds/ASTs etc.

3) What does it cost to get a copy from the Land Registry? I know I can charge the other side if I win, but if I lose it's good money after bad.

4) Parking Prankster tells me that Link should have had a copy of the head lease (as any decent company would) when they were setting up the arrangement. Perhaps there is room for me to ask that Link produce their copy for the court to see?

5) What do you mean by: "Exhibit tenant to son's WS"? Do you mean that the AST should be included with my son's WS and not with mine? My only worry with that is that my son may be called away on the day and not be able to be at the court. I read in some places that if he is unable to be there they may pay no attention to his WS. Because of that I was thinking of attaching his AST to my own WS. What do you think?

Kind_Of_Irritated

Hmm. Told them in my innocence and ignorance that I was the driver.
Spot I parked in hasn't been mentioned by the other side, oddly. This small car park only has one space per resident (except for the freeholder, who rents his property as an office, to the Secretary, who runs his company from there.) So there are 2 spaces in that name. No visitor spaces at all, so since the freeholder only visits occasionally most visitors use that space if only calling in for a short time.

Have I uploaded the sign for you to see? I can never work out what is forbidding and what isn't.

I quoted Jopson and other cases in my original Defence. Do I need to mention them again in this WS? Or can it wait until the Skeleton - which the way things are going is going to be rather a chubby skeleton!:rotfl:

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

And Defendant's needs to say she's visited regularly since start of tenancy, has always parked without interference, what happened on that day (feat I parked in same visitor spot as always). Is she accepting she was the driver? If not, It needs to say the driver was not her (and why she can confidently say that) or that it could have been either of you (and why - eg you regularly swap cars, you both regularly drop in on son together and separately, you often share a car and either of you could have been driving etc). Add anything memorable about that day to give it credence (eg it was his birthday/he'd just passed his exams/had a promotion... so we both visited together).
And deal with signage not making an offer but being forbidding (do you accept the sign they've produced is the right one? In the case I'm involved in the sign is clearly the wrong one)

The statements set the scene for your Jopson legal argument.

Kind_Of_Irritated

Here is the sign. There are 3 in the small car park. I took this photo. Is it "forbidding"?

http://i1347.photobucket.com/albums/p714/Zinqua1/20160913_153413%202_zpsd8lftcds.jpg

Fruitcake

There is no offer of parking for non permit holders so I think the signs are forbidding, but I'm no expert.

There is nothing in the lease about parking at all, but there is the standard bit about quiet enjoyment.

There are a couple of bits I would redact. Item 3.2, whilst it talks about "authorities" and charges, it mentions "of a novel nature" and things added after the contract has been agreed, so I would redact that. To any right minded person it is only referring to council tax etcetera, but I don't think the scammers should be given the slightest chance of twisting words.

The 'phone number is a prohibited premium rate number.

The 0871 number breaches Regulation 41 of the Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013. These regulations came from BIS, (UK Gov department for Business, Innovation, and Skills) not Ofcom, and took effect on 13 June 2014.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-cuts-off-costly-calls

This can be reported to Trading Standards (via the Citizen's Advice national Consumer Helpline on 0345 404 0506).

The 0871 number may also be a breach of the parking industry Code of Practice.

The omission of call costs from the sign breaches Ofcom regulations that took effect 1 July 2015. This can be reported to ASA (Advertising Standards Agency) via their webform.

Whether there is any mileage in reporting the scammers for the use of prohibited 'phone numbers I don't know, but I would always put everything they do wrong in front of a judge given the opportunity.