Been to court, won, but still more cases!

Umkomaas

Personally (and I know for some people this is not an option - like for me when I bought my first property) I would never, ever buy anything leasehold in the future. Never. Freeholders and MAs can just be a right pain.

Especially when moving on and trying to sell. Wouldn't an ongoing dispute/interruption of 'peaceful enjoyment' with/by any of the above stakeholders (including the PPC) have to be declared?

If so, that will likely do the resale value a whole pile of no good!

Hasfro

Especially when moving on and trying to sell. Wouldn't an ongoing dispute/interruption of 'peaceful enjoyment' with/by any of the above stakeholders (including the PPC) have to be declared?

If so, that will likely do the resale value a whole pile of no good!

That's precisely why I don't want to go overboard with the MA. I'll just deal with PPC.

For the upcoming case in 2 weeks I only prepared the same witness statement as last time. But added notes about harassment and included the last judgement.

They sent me a letter before claim for 2 more PCNs. I then sent a response telling them that I will be using this response against them in a harassment counter claim if I receive court papers. But I will highlight this to the judge in 2 weeks time. And I will ask the judge to compensate my losses in full including the research time for preparing defences.

I will update what happens. I will be asking for around £700, highlighting the fact that I would have had to come from abroad for the court date. Let's see how it goes.

safarmuk

Especially when moving on and trying to sell. Wouldn't an ongoing dispute/interruption of 'peaceful enjoyment' with/by any of the above stakeholders (including the PPC) have to be declared?

If so, that will likely do the resale value a whole pile of no good!

IMO. Not really, no. Because the dispute is between the current leaseholder and the MA, not the new leaseholder and the MA who may get along famously (and the MA may prefer them!!). Also the new leaseholder may have no issues with a PPC being onsite.

Additionally, if you were to try and sell and because you had a previous dispute with the MA, I can't imagine the MA would do anything stupid like try to scupper the sale - quite the opposite they would want you gone and they would be even dafter to mess with your solicitor/conveyancer who would be dealing with them not you on a property sale because they would open themselves up to damages.

Umkomaas

IMO. Not really, no. Because the dispute is between the current leaseholder and the MA, not the new leaseholder and the MA who may get along famously (and the MA may prefer them!!). Also the new leaseholder may have no issues with a PPC being onsite.

But is that not any different to a freeholder vendor having an ongoing (say boundary) dispute with their neighbour? While the vendor may well be at loggerheads with their soon-to-be ex-neighbour, the purchaser may ultimately get on famously - but the dispute would have to be declared (as I understand it), and I for one would be very sceptical about purchasing without a significant price reduction, just in case the issue doesn't resolve once you occupy.

safarmuk

IMO. Not really, no. Because the dispute is between the current leaseholder and the MA, not the new leaseholder and the MA who may get along famously (and the MA may prefer them!!). Also the new leaseholder may have no issues with a PPC being onsite.

”But is that not any different to a freeholder vendor having an ongoing (say boundary) dispute with their neighbour? While the vendor may well be at loggerheads with their soon-to-be ex-neighbor, the purchaser may ultimately get on famously - but the dispute would have to be declared (as I understand it), and I for one would be very sceptical about purchasing without a significant price reduction, just in case the issue doesn't resolve once you occupy.

I do see where you are coming from but in this situation I personally would see the disclosure has to be that "there is parking enforcement on the site" which the buyer can also see from the signage when they visit. The fact that the current leaseholder doesn't like or want that parking enforcement is not pertinent as the new leaseholder might not be as bothered - if the new Leaseholder was then they would not buy it basis 'they don't want to own somewhere that has parking enforcement' and then for the existing leaseholder it comes down to the lease and if they could then claim damages for the loss of sale as a result.

You could extend this argument to tenants moving in/out. If the leaving tenant has an outstanding PCN do you tell the new tenant that 'there is parking enforcement in place' or that there is 'parking enforcement in place and the last tenant has an outstanding PCN'

It's an interesting dilemma/question - however I am conscious I am hijacking Hasfro's thread. Sorry!

@Hasfro, I got your email - I have some comments on the IAS response and what the PPC included in their appeal information, plus I have a couple of questions. I will email you that first and afterwards only if you want and/or agree I will post the summary of our discussion here for others to discuss/digest/comment

Loadsofchildren123

Fruitcake wrote: »

If anyone uses the IAS and receives an anonymous decision, they should ask for the name of the assessor that did the appeal and the names of all of the officials.

If they don't supply this upon request they are in breach of the ADR 2015 Act.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/542/pdfs/uksi_20150542_en.pdf

SCHEDULE 3 Regulation 9(4)

Requirements that a competent authority must be satisfied that the body meets ...

Transparency

5. The body makes the following information publicly available on its website in a clear and easily understandable manner, and provides, on request, this information to any person on a durable medium—
(a) its contact details, including postal address and e-mail address;
(b) a statement that it has been approved as an ADR entity by the relevant competent authority once this approval has been granted;
(c) its ADR officials, the method of their appointment and the duration of their appointment ...

IAS claims all it assessors are "independent barristers or solicitors". I haven't read these regs but I am hoping they entitle you to know who the assessor is. Because I doubt that the assessors are qualified, as claimed. Otherwise why do they decline to identify them?
POPLA employs all sorts to adjudicate its appeals from what I have read and I can't see IAS putting the bar any higher!

Is that what 5c means, that they have to provide the names?

beamerguy

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

IAS claims all it assessors are "independent barristers or solicitors". I haven't read these regs but I am hoping they entitle you to know who the assessor is. Because I doubt that the assessors are qualified, as claimed. Otherwise why do they decline to identify them?
POPLA employs all sorts to adjudicate its appeals from what I have read and I can't see IAS putting the bar any higher!

Is that what 5c means, that they have to provide the names?

IAS ... AKA ... GLADSTONES SOLICITORS, don't want you know who their assessors are

Until proven otherwise, we must assume that the assessors involve
MR BEAN AND MR BEAN ... AKA ... Will Hurley and John Davies, the infamous sham duo of Gladstones.

Umkomaas

POPLA employs all sorts to adjudicate its appeals from what I have read

Including former call centre battery hens, ex nail technicians and an aspiring pornography author. 'Old' POPLA only ever employed legally trained/qualified Assessors who (eventually) knew the difference between a compliant and non-compliant NtK and who didn't rely on template assessment statements to explain their 'rational' (sic).

Hasfro

@Hasfro, I got your email - I have some comments on the IAS response and what the PPC included in their appeal information, plus I have a couple of questions. I will email you that first and afterwards only if you want and/or agree I will post the summary of our discussion here for others to discuss/digest/comment

Happy to discuss and then will decide on posting. Thanks for this.

Hasfro

Hi all. I would like to ask for opinions on presenting costs for returning from abroad for the upcoming court case. These were not included in my witness statement mainly because the requirements for travel came after I issued the witness statement. So now I have to be out of work for 3 days and travel back from the Middle East. My work agreed obviously as I put the condition there upfront but I still will be out of pocket.

Can I turn up at court with my additional costs and ask the judge for them?

Do I have to inform the claimant now so that maybe they would withdraw the case and then I can use my e-mail to say I informed them and gave them a chance to withdraw?

Thanks again for all your support guys.