Letter before claim

Loadsofchildren123

That sign is forbidding. It makes an offer to permit holders and forbids anyone else. This was held in a recent case with a sign of almost identical wording. It's on Pranksters blog, I can't remember the name but can look it up on Monday at work.

Case law- doesn't need to go in your statement. It goes in the skeleton/defence. But you need to make sure what you say in the WS ties in with the case law.

Contract terms can be-
Express - expressly stated at the time the contract (the tenancy) is entered not. Can be written or oral. If anything expressly said about parking it's an express term of the tenancy even if it isn't in writing.
Implied- not expressly stated, but so obvious by the nature of the contract, the facts and the parties conduct that it is a term of the contract. As not expressly stated it is implied.
Collateral contract - a scone are agreement relating to the first reached afterwards. So eg your son signs AST then asks L/L a couple of weeks later about parking space and L/L says yes that comes with the flat this would be a collateral contract (or possibly an implied term of the original contract, depending on the circumstances and timing).

If you refer to a document in a WS it needs to be exhibited (ie attached to the WS and labelled - with the initials of the person making the statement and the letter 1. In WS you say "I refer to exhibit AB1 which is a copy of my tenancy agreement". I'd exhibit it to your son's as he is the tenant. Any further exhibits would be AB2, AB3 etc.

Your son - really important he comes if the case falls on his evidence about a term not written in his tenancy. Other side entitled to cross examine him. Without him it may be disregarded (but they would still read the tenancy agreement and would take his untested evidence about what he was told re parking with a pinch of salt).

Will post more in a minute answering your other WS.

Kind_Of_Irritated

TY Fruitcake. I'm no sign expert either. That is why this is concerning me.

Are you referring here to the original lease [redacted] which I uploaded earlier?

"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."

That section 3 is concerning Rent & charges. I'm pretty sure it could hardly be twisted to apply to parking. Or could it!?

I wouldn't have thought it right to redact anything in the original AST (which I am emailing anyway in its original entirety to the court). That would weaken my cause and would be leapt on by M Gardner and pals.

Interesting on the tel number. Prohibited, is it? I'll mention that in my WS. Anyone have a link to show if this is the case? "The 0871 number may also be a breach of the parking industry Code of Practice".

Fruitcake wrote: »

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, not Ofcom, and took effect on 13 June 2014. 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 via their webform

Loadsofchildren123

A word of caution. Redaction is supposed to be to preserve privacy or for commercial sensitivity reasons.
You shouldn't just redact bits that don't help you. If there is an argument about it and you are asked why you redacted those bits what would you say? If the judge pound out he would not be impressed and it makes you look evasive.

Loadsofchildren123

Cross posted with Kindof.

Kindof - you'll have to check the IPC Code of Practice to see if it does or doesn't prohibit its members from using these numbers.

Loadsofchildren123

You say 1 space per flat. Is it one specific designated space?

So where did you park as a visitor? On your sons space while he was out?

Loadsofchildren123

Kind_Of_Irritated wrote: »

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

2. Landlord will not want to lose a good tenant. Can't son say Dear Landlord, I really want to get this parking charge overturned. I think the parking company was brought in to stop unconnected 3rd parties parking here, not tenants and genuine visitors. Please help me by giving me this information, I will be using it against the parking company, not to rock the boat with the management committee.

3. I just got a copy of a title for £3 (shoes who owns it). Don't know what a copy title document (ie the lease) would be but I don't think it would be much.


4. Yes ask them. But I doubt PPCs do this sort of due diligence. Rather than wait for them to say they don't have it (and leaving it too late to get hold of documents yourself from Land Reg, I'd just get it yourself now tbh. It could take a couple of weeks to arrive.

Loadsofchildren123

I'm concerned there was never any right for visitors to park in that other space because someone else has the rights to it. However if this is what everyone habitually does and it was never frowned upon and nobody was ever asked to move, then you could argue there was an implied agreement by the person whose it is that short term visitors can use it.
What was son told by landlord about visitor parking?

Kind_Of_Irritated

Thanks Loadsof. What does "Ho, Dee's" mean - "It makes an offer to permit Ho,Dee's and forbids anyone else. "?

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

That sign is forbidding. It makes an offer to permit Ho,Dee's and forbids anyone else. This was held in a recent case with a sign of almost identical wording. It's on Pranksters blog, I can't remember the name but can look it up on Monday at work.

Thanks, but I need to send the WSs in by 2:00pm Monday. I'll email PP and see if he can recall.

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

Case law- doesn't need to go in your statement. It goes in the skeleton/defence. But you need to make sure what you say in the WS ties in with the case law.

Also, Is it the case that in the WS I must mention anything which I might expand on in the Skeleton?

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

Contract terms can be-
Express - expressly stated at the time the contract (the tenancy) is entered not. Can be written or oral. If anything expressly said about parking it's an express term of the tenancy even if it isn't in writing.
Implied- not expressly stated, but so obvious by the nature of the contract, the facts and the parties conduct that it is a term of the contract. As not expressly stated it is implied.
Collateral contract - a scone are agreement relating to the first reached afterwards. So eg your son signs AST then asks L/L a couple of weeks later about parking space and L/L says yes that comes with the flat this would be a collateral contract (or possibly an implied term of the original contract, depending on the circumstances and timing).

Gawd! A minefield. His word against whose? Landlord won't be there to back him up, and in any case the landlord and mngmt board are not being helpful in any way. The mngmt think they did the right thing using Link. They insist LP are far better than A N Other PPC they had had before.

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

If you refer to a document in a WS it needs to be exhibited (I've attached to the WS and labelled - with initials of the person making the statement and the letter 1. In WS you say "I refer to exhibit AB1 which is a copy of my tenancy agreement". I'd exhibit it to your son's as he is the tenant.

Thank you for that. There is so much I could attach (incl emails and letters between me and Link and my son and Link) but am still not sure whether I need to or whether it's better to just say that I will present and address those matters at a later date, before the hearing (in the skeleton).

I fully expect my son to be able to come, it's just that there are sometimes unforeseen eventualities. But, I'll make sure he knows he needs to attend. Btw, he too got a "charge" from LP in his own space a week or so ago! Permit wasn't on show! He's fuming and likely to move out soon.

If they'll still read his tenancy agreement anyway, that's fine. Means I don't have to send it in my WS package (just in his).

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

Your son - really important he comes if the case falls on his evidence about a term not written in his tenancy. Other side entitled to cross examine him. Without him it may be disregarded (but they would still read the tenancy agreement and would take his untested evidence about what he was told re parking with a pinch of salt).

Will post more in a minute answering your other WS.

Thank you for these comprehensive answers, btw, loadsofchildren. :A (How do you do this with "loads of"? I had 4 and I hardly had time to read a newspaper!)

Kind_Of_Irritated

Exactly, loadsof... just what I thought. I won't redact anything from the AST, or from anything I am using as evidence.

Loadsofchildren123

Lol, Hodees was a typo which I then corrected. I meant permit holders!