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

Coupon-mad

Bumping this for others to see.

mnkut

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Bumping this for others to see.

Hello Coupon-Mad, any thoughts on how we can make this point applicable for visitors of tenants'?

Fruitcake

mnkut wrote: »

Hello Coupon-Mad, any thoughts on how we can make this point applicable for visitors of tenants'?

It would depend on what the lease said about visitor parking, or use of a tenant's space. If there are no restrictions specified in the lease, then the tenant as landholder can allow a visitor use of his/her parking bay.
A witness statement from the tenant giving permission for a visitor to use the tenant's space might sway a judge that the parking company cannot add on terms to the tenant's lease with rules about who can and cannot park in the tenant's space.

In any case, the tenant might have parked the visitor's vehicle in their space themselves and would therefore be the keeper of the vehicle on the day in question, with all the protection of their own lease in force.

Coupon-mad

mnkut wrote: »

Hello Coupon-Mad, any thoughts on how we can make this point applicable for visitors of tenants'?

It does depend upon the tenancy or lease (or expectation over a long period of time) allowing a right to park - what was said to the tenant at the time of signing up? Are cars allowed to park there, including visitors? The Jopson case mentions that visitors and delivery drivers must be able to stop so it was not merely Miss Jopson who the Judge held had that right (but it wasn't a right to park, it was a right of way, to include unloading).

I wish we had the Keefe case which sounds more like a parking situation with no permit (rather than temporarily unloading). Bulstrode v Lambert (1953) which was mentioned in the Jopson case, was also about temporary stopping only.

This case was about parking rights where a tenant had been granted that right and the transcript is online:

Saeed v Plustrade Limited (2002)

''The tenant of a flat was granted a right in common with others to park on such part of the forecourt as might from time to time be specified by the landlord as reserved for parking when space was available and subject to such regulations as the landlord might make from time to time. The landlord proposed to reduce 12 spaces to 4 spaces, and to charge for them. On appeal it was confirmed that the landlord was only entitled to change the location of the spaces, not to reduce the number of spaces, or to charge for them*.''

* the landlord had already conceded that he could not charge.