Persuasive appeal case - lease rights beat PPCs at residential car parks

The_Slithy_Tove

I am not a lawyer ...

As I read it, this appeal relates ONLY to the act of stopping in some manner that is not classed as parking. So, it won't hold for parking in your allocated space (where if it's part of the demised property, the arguments are entirely different), or for parking in a communal area. It does put some clarity around situations where there's a "catch-all" clause in the lease, allowing the leassor to impose additional conditions, and the notice they must give.

Although paragraphs 19-21 of the appeal go a way to defining what "parking" actually is, I don't believe it helps massively in airport stopping cases. There, they claim they are enforcing a "no stopping" rule (rather than no parking). OK, it means that they can't use POFA, as it relates only to "parking", but airports aren't relevant land anyway, so POFA doesn't apply. It could be used for other cases, such as when Park Direct issue charges when people stop briefly in the process of turning round. It may also be used in complaints to the DVLA where the KADOE agreement of the PPC is for "parking" and not "stopping".

bargepole

The_Deep wrote: »

I am puzzled why both cases were lost in the first instance.

They were lost because the original dozy DJs thought that the Beavis judgment meant that all private parking claims must automatically be upheld.

bargepole

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I wish we had the claim number from the other one (heard on the same day involving another resident, parking in their designated space with a temporary loan car) but not sure there's a transcript, if there is then the BMPA will try to get it.

There wasn't any transcript ordered for the second one. That's been confirmed by the solicitors involved.

Coupon-mad

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

I am not a lawyer ...

As I read it, this appeal relates ONLY to the act of stopping in some manner that is not classed as parking. So, it won't hold for parking in your allocated space (where if it's part of the demised property, the arguments are entirely different), or for parking in a communal area. It does put some clarity around situations where there's a "catch-all" clause in the lease, allowing the leassor to impose additional conditions, and the notice they must give.

Annoyingly it seems B9GF1A3E, Homeguard v Keefe, would have been useful for that if there had been a transcript. But bargepole confirms there wasn't.

Although paragraphs 19-21 of the appeal go a way to defining what "parking" actually is, I don't believe it helps massively in airport stopping cases. There, they claim they are enforcing a "no stopping" rule (rather than no parking). OK, it means that they can't use POFA, as it relates only to "parking", but airports aren't relevant land anyway, so POFA doesn't apply. It could be used for other cases, such as when Park Direct issue charges when people stop briefly in the process of turning round. It may also be used in complaints to the DVLA where the KADOE agreement of the PPC is for "parking" and not "stopping".

Yes but a lot of those cases are about letting a passenger out and this Judge does cover that his view is that is not parking. Well worth adducing this case in any brief 'stop' case. A Judge will take heed of it as it's an Appeal case, much better than we've had before.

hoohoo

If this was a Gladstones case, why are Gladstones not bringing this to the judges attention in other residential cases?

This would appear to be a breach of the SRA code of conduct

O5.1 you do not attempt to deceive or knowingly or recklessly mislead the court;

IB5.2 drawing the court's attention to relevant cases and statutory provisions, and any material procedural irregularity;

Coupon-mad

hoohoo wrote: »

If this was a Gladstones case, why are Gladstones not bringing this to the judges attention in other residential cases?

This would appear to be a breach of the SRA code of conduct

O5.1 you do not attempt to deceive or knowingly or recklessly mislead the court;

IB5.2 drawing the court's attention to relevant cases and statutory provisions, and any material procedural irregularity;

Wow good point!

Also, surely it also follows that they have a duty to bring the court's attention to B9GF1A3E, Homeguard v Keefe, that was heard on the same day about the same car park, where the driver had a courtesy car, presumably no permit displayed in that vehicle (appeal also won - would have been such a useful transcript!).

henrik777

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Wow good point!

Also, surely it also follows that they have a duty to bring the court's attention to B9GF1A3E, Homeguard v Keefe, that was heard on the same day about the same car park, where the driver had a courtesy car, presumably no permit displayed in that vehicle (appeal also won - would have been such a useful transcript!).

That's why i asked the solicitor if he had it. Sadly not. Can confirm it was Gladstones though.

Not sure they need to bring non binding cases to the attention of the court.

Northlakes

Para 10 of the judgement details a clear attempt by Homeguard from their signage to usurp the lease.
All too common a problem which the judiciary needs to get wise to.

Kind_Of_Irritated

BRAVO! :rotfl:

The letters 'GF' in the citation indicate that the super-efficient Gladstones issued the original claim. Another epic fail.

Wonderful. We'll get those bar stewards ere long. :beer:

Coupon-mad

henrik777 wrote: »

That's why i asked the solicitor if he had it. Sadly not. Can confirm it was Gladstones though.

Not sure they need to bring non binding cases to the attention of the court.

So frustrating we don't have any transcript for one about a courtesy car not having a permit.

:eek: