TICKET FOR PARKING IN MY OWN SPACE / UK CPM & Gladstone Solicitors

alexreid1234

Hi NOSFERATU1001

"Does your AST give you any rights to peaceful enjoyment, anything on use of communal areas, etc?"

There is nothing in my tenancy that states anything about 'peaceful enjoyment' or use of communal areas. I have just checked it and there isn't a section on this.

"Any rules in there about "from time to time" bringing in new "regulations"? "

Nope there is nothing that says about bringing in regulations from time to time. The only thing it says about changes to the agreement are:

"Apart from the rent and service charges, the terms of this agreement can only be changed by:

Written consent between you and us; or
Legislations; or
By us telling you about the required changes and asking for your comments, which we will consider and then decide whether to make the changes

alexreid1234

Hi Safarmuk

Search for "Hairrays" thread. In that you will find three letters before claim drafted by user LoadsofChildren123 (a solicitor by profession). Read them to understand more the position you will be taking. Those letters to the landowner, management agent and car parking company got his ticket cancelled.

Stupidly I already replied to their Letter Before Claim (before I found this group) Is it too late to do another one?

Also to be clear, who is your landlord, is it a person or the housing association?

Moat Housing who is a social housing landlord.

Coupon-mad

Stupidly I already replied to their Letter Before Claim (before I found this group) Is it too late to do another one?

Nope, in fact you are positively encouraged to enter into pre-court discussions to resolve any dispute, which in this case where it's a scum PPC, means (as far as we are concerned) throwing everything at the scammers. Write what you like!

safarmuk

Nope, in fact you are positively encouraged to enter into pre-court discussions to resolve any dispute, which in this case where it's a scum PPC, means (as far as we are concerned) throwing everything at the scammers. Write what you like!

... within reason ...

As C-M said you can write a second response and in that one I would pick apart all the problems with their LBC as it is unlikely to be compliant. If you can string this out for a few days if they re-issue the LBC in October it falls under the new pre-action protocols which will make it far harder for them to be compliant.

Loadsofchildren123

"Apart from the rent and service charges, the terms of this agreement can only be changed by:

Written consent between you and us; or
Legislations; or
By us telling you about the required changes and asking for your comments, which we will consider and then decide whether to make the changes"


Brilliant. Write to them again pointing this out and give them the written evidence that the landlord granted you the parking rights as part of the tenancy even though the tenancy document is silent on them (if not a part of the original tenancy this would be a collateral contract to the tenancy because it's connected).


I'm not a property lawyer, but I think I read recently that all contracts granting rights in property include the right to peaceful enjoyment even if that term is not explicitly stated. Google it and see what you can find.


You need to turn the tables and write them a LBC and the landlord, threatening to sue them. Where the landowner/landlord is washing its hands and saying it's between you and the PPC such a letter will force the landowner/landlord to engage and this often results in the pcn being cancelled. The LBCs on hairray's thread are slightly more detailed than yours will need to be because he was a leasehold owner rather than a tenant and the lease was a long and more complex document than your tenancy is. But they will highlight to you what the issues are.

Loadsofchildren123

This sums it up. You have a right under common law to peaceful enjoyment:
http://www.foxwilliams.com/news/704

Loadsofchildren123

http://www.kwm.com/en/uk/knowledge/insights/the-practicalities-of-derogation-from-grant-and-quiet-enjoyment-20160101
This one's a useful read as well about derogation from grant - note the following paragraph, I've put in bold the best bit:


"The covenant means that the tenant is entitled to enjoy the full benefit of the property free of interference. The covenant is qualified. Therefore, it is restricted to protecting the tenant against interference by either landlord or persons claiming to be under the landlord, this includes but is not limited to: agents, licensees, employees; tenants or successors. If there is breach of the quiet enjoyment covenant a tenant can either seek an injunction to restrain the interference or seek damages for losses caused by such interference"


Also this para:
"This interference need not be a positive step taken by the Landlord but may result in the Landlord's failure to act. "

System

Oops. Time for an LBCC in the other direction then

Loadsofchildren123

The way forward in residential cases is definitely LBCs threatening action against landlord/landowner/freeholder, and the PPC as well.


The person who brought the PPC in will invariably say at first "nothing to do with us". Only when faced with a persuasive LBC threatening a damages claim will they actually be persuaded to do anything at all.

alexreid1234

Thanks LOADSOFCHILDREN123 and everyone else!

I have drafted up the following reply to Gladstone for now (I will do my landowner - Moat on Monday)

I haven't included the pre-court protocol yet, shall I bother with this seeing it has changed now?

Could you have a look at my response below and advise if it is a valid defence and makes sense please? I have quoted other cases which essentially beat Gladstones claim!

****

Dear Helen,

You state that my tenancy agreement is ‘silent’ but I strongly disagree with this for the following reasons:

Under the parking clause on my tenancy agreement is states the following “"If we own a private parking area on the estate the property is on, we may allow you to use a parking space on which you can park a private car or motorcycle only". Please see the attached photo of this part of my tenancy agreement.
Although it says ‘may’ I can confirm that I have written confirmation from the landowner (Moat Housing) that confirms I have permission to park in the pool bays here at XXXXXX. With this proof, it confirms my right to park. Please see the attached proof.

Based on the above, I clearly have full rights to park at XXXXXXX

You referred me to the ‘Link Parking VS Blaney (May 2017) where you said “any landowner’s rights were subject to regulations brought in from time to time and therefore any tenancy agreement must be subject to it as well”.

The above does not apply to me because of the following:

In the Link V Blaney case the DJ Pratt ruled that the Head Lease did contain the right to vary the parking regime at the location because the tenancy agreement in that case had the following wording:


"landlord is entitled from time to time may introduce regulations with regards to the proper management of the location".

My tenancy agreement does not state anything similar to the above. It doesn’t state anything that permits a management company subject me to terms and conditions from time to time or that my lease can be varied. I will bring my full tenancy agreement to court so the judge can view this.
More specifically though, in my tenancy it states the following under section 8, ‘Changes to this agreement’:

“8 CHANGES TO THIS AGREEMENT
Apart from the rent and service charges, the terms of this agreement can only be changed by:

Written consent between you and us; or
Legislations; or
By us telling you about the required changes and asking for your comments, which we will consider and then decide whether to make the changes"

Please see the attached picture of this section of my tenancy agreement

As such, my contract is with the landowner, not UK CPM. There is nothing in my contract with the landowner that requires me to have a permit to park on the land that I have permission to park on. As you cannot unilaterally alter my contract, you have no legal right to subject me to your parking conditions or claim that I owe money.

Following the case of In Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant’s right to park by requiring a permit to park.

TBC...

Advice? Thinking I could throw in breach of data protection as well and sue for damages?

Thank you!