Gladstone solicitor letter in relation to Parking patrol fine

rebeccaeliza

I deny any debt to Parking Patrol Office (UK) Ltd. The lease agreement grants an unequivocal right to park on the estate and it does not say “on the condition that you display a permit”, breach of Quiet enjoyment.

My Parking rights are covered in several places in my Lease and this grants me primacy of contract. The Lease allows:
“Quiet Enjoyment- That the lessee paying the Rent and observing and performing the said covenants conditions and provisions herein contained shall and may peacefully possess and utilise the Car Parking Space for the Term without lawful interruption from or by the Lessor or any person rightfully claiming through under or in trust for it”

The only obligations are:
''The car parking space should be used individually for the parking of a single roadworthy motorcar only and not at any time whatsoever as a parking space for a commercial vehicle

The lessee shall to the satisfaction in all respects of the Lessor keep the Car Parking Space maintained and in a reasonable condition

Not to do anything which is not consistent with the use of the Car Parking Space nor allow anyone else to do so.”
I will attach a copy of the lease for you to view this first hand.
I also refer you to the case in Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] where it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park, and again in Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016] it was also found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.
A permit may be displayed out of ease from avoiding the hassle of having to spend my time resolving these fines but there is no obligation to do so as per the lease.
When contracting to enforce parking charges at a residential site UKPPO Ltd have a duty to pay regard to the lawful rights of those living there and to ascertain what arrangements already exist under the leasehold agreements. As I’ve already made you aware I am joint leasehold landowner and I didn't 'agree' anywhere in that contract, to pay parking charges over and above the purchase price, ground rent and service charges for that space. I did not agree to display any parking permit and my lease was never varied.

This makes the data processing of my information unlawful and UKKPO Ltd have no excuse. This misuse of my data and unwarranted, unwelcome demand and escalation to debt collector letters and your threat of claim, has caused me significant harassment and distress. As agents for the landowner, all parties are responsible for breach of the DPA Principles in processing my data.

I do NOT consent (and nor does the registered keeper) to any further data processing of my details or his, under any circumstances. In your case this continued unwarranted pursuit of baseless demands is causing significant distress and wasted time and trouble, plus the worry of a court case, which is utterly unfounded harassment. Upon receiving this, consider this a ‘Section 10 Notice’ under the DPA. As such, do not process any more of my data in pursuit of the charge and remove my data relating to this matter from your system and that of your client. Failure to do so may result in the matter being reported to the ICO, as well as a (separate/additional ) claim under the DPA.

You and your client are further warned that should any party contact me again in pursuit of the 'parking charge notice', each breach may give rise to a further sum in compensation.

I look forward to receiving your client's remittance and/or substantive response within 14 days of the date of this letter. I have drawn my management companies attention to the matters at hand here, and how they are acting in total disregard for the interests of the residents and their rights under the lease and will advise them also of my proposed action against them, for breach of lease and damages under the tort of misuse of my private information.

Yours Faithfully,


What do think of this as a letter to G?

Coupon-mad

Very good!

Remove the odd 'breach of Quiet enjoyment' phrase left in the first sentence which makes no sense there.

The only thing I would add would be the Jopson v Homeguard case (as it was an Appeal case decided by HHJ Harris QC and is persuasive on County Courts so even better than the other two cases). I would add something about it after you say 'I did not agree to display any parking permit and my lease was never varied' because the Jopson case found as fact that the parking firm had unlawfully disregarded the rights under the lease in her case and she was able to claim over £2000 in costs.

And this one is similar to yours, they are also working on a robust letter for the solicitors and the managing agents:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5588292

Have a look at the wording I quoted which makes it crystal clear that the letter is an 'objection to processing' and spell out the distress caused. All this is laying the foundations to counterclaim or claim, even though you passed them your data (not the DVLA) there would likely be grounds for you to sue for compensation if you had reasonably spelt out the issues and objected to data processing at this stage after months of hassle and still they carried on.