Advice over parking terms in rental agreement

dla123

Hi All

Quick question. On taking over my property I signed an agreement with the building management firm that specifically says parking permits "must be clearly displayed on the windshield at all times or a ticket will be issued with a penalty" the wording is clearly meant to act "in terrorem", meaning (IMO) that failure to display the ticket was a breach of the contract, rather than an invocation of any secondary clause (the charge I got) This contract being requested by the building management and signed/dated would (again IMO) have primacy over any quasi-contract with a 3rd party PCC.

In light of the recent ruling, does this help, or hinder my case. It creates a clearer chain of contract over controlled parking (provided the parking firm can show the chain to the building management/landlord) but it also raises the issue of the charge I've received clearly being a 'penalty' and since there is no mention of costs in this clause, I think it would be easier to show that the cost has no connection to the loss (zero, as it's my space - listed in the landlords title deeds).

I have mitigating circumstances that I believe could provide a very good defense for frustration of the contract (in terms of displaying the permit), if this is a breach of contract issue, in addition to the above, but don't want to use this, if I'm shooting myself in the foot by handing this document to them.

For info, I'll still be attacking all other avenues, I just want to know whether to include or exclude this from my defense (assuming they don't find it).

Any advice would be appreciated.

Redx

which "recent ruling" ??

if you mean BEAVIS , that was 2 years ago , around bonfire night 2015

System

What does the Landlord's lease say with regards to covenants?

If you have an unfettered right to park in your own space such a secondary agreement with the building management company may be void.