Parking charge on my own parking bay

Quitto

I'm yet to receive a code as I understand from CPP's response if I do not provide a "valid permit" or pay them in 28 days.

Quitto

I have requested a copy of contract between HA and CPP twice. I was advised to deal with CPP directly by HA and my requests were ignored.

Quitto

Here is HA's latest response:

As advised on more than one occasion, we do not contest any penalties on behalf of residents.

We have not created a regulation, but have introduced parking management due to residents request for enforcement on the scheme, due to the illegal parking concerns raised. Residents pay, £30 a year for the permit. All parking queries, appeals etc. are to be managed by CPP.

You mention it was not within your lease, but your lease states as the leasee:

"To comply with such reasonable regulations as the Landlord or the Superior Landlord may make from time to time relating to the orderly and proper use of the Common Parts and security of the Building and including regulations as to the manner of use of any car parking space or visitors car
parking spaces and the nature of any vehicle which may be parked thereon". In this case, parking enforcement was introduced 'relating to the orderly and proper use of the common parts and security of the building'. We do not have in-house parking enforcements and so the majority of our sites are managed by CPP.

CPP were always managing the scheme prior to gates being installed. Following the installation of the gate, residents had a high number of concerns with illegal parking on their bay and we instructed CPP to monitor leaseholder bays at residents request for enforcement.

I advise for the last time, you are to liaise with CPP on any penalty received.

I am sorry if my response is not what you expected, should you be unhappy with my response, you are welcome to submit a complaint to:xxxxxxxxxxxxx


The lease states the following and I reminded them of that:

“Common Parts” means those parts of the Building (whether or not within the
structure of the Building) to be used in common by any of the Leaseholder, other
tenants and occupiers of the Building, the Landlord, and those properly authorised
or permitted by them to do so, and “Common Parts” includes (but without
limitation) any atrium and entrance hall, corridors, lobbies, staircases, lavatories,
access ways, passages, lifts, escalators, turntables, courtyards, external
pavements, car park, and its ramp, service and loading areas, service road,
gardens and other such amenities, but excluding any such parts as may be within
the Premises.

As a result I was told off by HA and have 2 ghost tickets from CPP and no POPLA codes (I have to wait for a POPLA code on July's ticket for 28 days and also there is another older ticket with my appeal, which they did not respond to for nearly 4 months). Could anyone please advise how justice can be achieved here?

Loadsofchildren123

So they are relying on this clause:

4.2 Comply with Regulations
To comply with such reasonable regulations as the Landlord or the Superior Landlord may make from time to time relating to the orderly and proper use of the Common Parts and security of the Building and including (for the avoidance of doubt) regulations as to the manner of use of any car parking space or visitors car parking spaces and the nature of any vehicle which may be parked thereon

And you are saying that the right to make regulations relates, under the clause, only to "Common Parts" which is defined to specifically exclude "the Premises" - the "Premises" is defined as your property PLUS the parking space. The only potential fly in the ointment is that 4.2 is said to include the use of "any car parking space". Therefore the definitions are contradictory.


Contra preferentem rule: any uncertainty will be resolved in favour of the person who did not draft the contract/the consumer. ie you.


I'd write them a firm LBC to say that you will either issue proceedings, or apply to join them as a party to any proceedings issued by the PPC and make a counterclaim against them for breach of the quiet enjoyment covenant and trespass to your space and your vehicle. You can get the precedent from hairray's thread. Also a LBC to the PPC as well - again I put the precedent on hairray's thread. Those LBCs were tailored to hairray's lease, you will need to work on the letters to make sure you are referring to the correct parts of your lease and make sure that they correctly quote your lease. But they are a good starting point and I put a lot of work into them. In hairray's case he was given the bum's rush too until he wrote the LBCs when the pcns were magically cancelled.

The_Deep

To comply with such reasonable regulations as the Landlord or the Superior Landlord may make from time to time relating to the orderly and proper use of the Common Parts


I suspect that many here would not agree that the appointment of a PPC who goes on to target residents is reasonable. IMO it is NOT in the best interests of the residents.

Quitto

The_Deep wrote: »

To comply with such reasonable regulations as the Landlord or the Superior Landlord may make from time to time relating to the orderly and proper use of the Common Parts


I suspect that many here would not agree that the appointment of a PPC who goes on to target residents is reasonable. IMO it is NOT in the best interests of the residents.

That's exactly what I told them in my last email but it is unlikely that I will get any response.

safarmuk

That's exactly what I told them in my last email but it is unlikely that I will get any response.

You are not alone, most MA's we see on here have the exact same attitude and in most cases it takes the LBC letters that LOC123 talks about to make things happen.

Remember, it works two ways, when organisations want to make you do or pay something what do they threaten ... LOC123's LBC letters do exactly the same thing just in reverse.