Gladstones CCC - UKCPM

AOneVS

After lambasting the DVLA, I got home to find a letter from them dated 3rd January

It shows UK CPM accessed my data on 6th April, a day before the NtK was sent.

The_Slithy_Tove

AOneVS wrote: »

I've been through the lease, couldn't see any wording specific to 'quiet enjoyment'. Here are the two statements regarding visitors parking:

Tenants Covenants 1 - 3.19 Not to use the Visitors Parking Spaces other than for the temporary parking of vehicles belonging to visitors attending at the Property.

and

The Second Schedule - Rights Granted to the Tenant - 1.6 To permit visitors to the Property to use the Visitors Parking Spaces on a first come first served basis.

The point is, though, that the lease does talk about the visitors spaces. So what it says goes, and no more conditions can be added arbitrarily. Even if you contravened what those clauses say, the lease doesn't say that contraventions will be "punished" by you paying a third party company a bunch of money. It's up to the freeholder to take action if he thinks you are breaching the terms of the lease.

AOneVS

I've read a lot about the lease having primacy of contract and I'm hoping this will form the basis of my case. The defense I took inspiration from had a good amount of cases where leases were involved.

Coupon-mad

Umkomaas wrote: »

I'm no expert in this stuff, and this may be for a later part of the process, but in your para 5 (which includes the above), should you not be giving some indication in that paragraph as to why your details have 'been obtained unlawfully'?

I thought the same thing and would probably remove it because I think AOneVS would struggle to show at a hearing that, in this case, data was obtained unlawfully. By introducing that argument, IMHO you are effectively handing the Claimant a chance to blind the Judge with the 'science' of the KADOE agreement and their ATA membership that they will say proves they are 'playing nicely'.

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

The point is, though, that the lease does talk about the visitors spaces. So what it says goes, and no more conditions can be added arbitrarily. Even if you contravened what those clauses say, the lease doesn't say that contraventions will be "punished" by you paying a third party company a bunch of money. It's up to the freeholder to take action if he thinks you are breaching the terms of the lease.

Nutshell. And it would only be in the gift of the landowner to do so, under the tort of trespass.

An alleged breach of a lease covenant is not a matter for a third party contractor to allow at a price!

And although the lease says this (and I wouldn't be drawing this to anyone's attention):

Tenants Covenants 1 - 3.19 Not to {xxxxxxxxxxxx} visitors attending at the Property.

That covenant does not include mention of:

- any parking charge, or
- the fact that some random terms on the car park signage form part of and are incorporated into the covenant NOT to park there if you were not a visitor. So they can't bolt those terms or that charge into the lease covenants now, after a parking event by a resident relying upon primacy of contract and the fact the regime is designed to deter trespassers, not penalise residents (oh, wait...!!).

I've read a lot about the lease having primacy of contract and I'm hoping this will form the basis of my case. The defense I took inspiration from had a good amount of cases where leases were involved.

Yes it shows the defence looks sound to me. A nice job well done! I think you will certainly need your research and case law to win this because of that lease covenant that really doesn't help (hence why I have edited it above - do not use that one).

I suggest you remove it from this public thread now.

AOneVS

Hi Coupon-Mad, please could you clarify why that would need removing? Thanks!

Coupon-mad

It reads to me like you are shooting yourself in the foot to let a PPC see that covenant. Read it...

AOneVS

Can't seem to edit my post. I think you could read that in favour of the visitor who parked there.

In any case, their sign states the condition applies midnight to 8am. Ticket was at 9:43pm.

Umkomaas

AOneVS wrote: »

Can't seem to edit my post. I think you could read that in favour of the visitor who parked there.

In any case, their sign states the condition applies midnight to 8am. Ticket was at 9:43pm.

There's an EDIT button on each of your posts. A line of four blue buttons at the bottom. The EDIT button is on the left of the line. Press it and that will give you access to your original input text which you can then amend as necessary.

AOneVS

For some reason the option to edit is greyed out on my phone.

Coupon-mad

AOneVS wrote: »

Can't seem to edit my post. I think you could read that in favour of the visitor who parked there.

Ah, I was reading it that this was a claim aimed at you, the resident, because you said it was 'where I live' and you are writing the defence as if this is your claim. You mean you are writing this defence for a relative/friend/visitor named on the claim form? If so, I take it back, the covenant does their defence no harm.