PCN to keeper questions

nosferatu1001

Lodge with the court, now, that you have been served a "supplmental" WS just XX HOURS before the hearing, and this is clearly in breach of the court order of X date as it was not served X days before the hearing date of XYZ
You ask that the court does not allow any relief from sanctions, and that this WS is sturck out and the claimants unreasonable behaviour in attempting to ambush a consumer is noted.

Lauybob

How do I do this?



Just email? Or can I call them to make a note of it?


Or do both?


Have sent an email to the court and asked for a receipt / confirmation if possible. May call them aswell if people here think that would be a good idea?

Thanks

nosferatu1001

How about you try both, and see what they say?
Calling has the advantage that you can get the persons name, time etc so if nothing happens you have some credibility.

Redx

I agree, use any and all means at your disposal to inform the judge of this bad practice , better that they be told thrice than not at all and that you be admonished for not using the one delivery method that you omitted that they required

Lauybob

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

How about you try both, and see what they say?
Calling has the advantage that you can get the persons name, time etc so if nothing happens you have some credibility.

Just called them, they said they have made a note of it on their system but for me to bring this up in court to the judge, and it will be up to the judge to make a decision there and then.


Is there much else I need/can do in the meantime? Should I try to cover some points regarding the new WS incase the judge accepts it?


Thanks guys

nosferatu1001

I would suggest the re is little chance they would accept it; not if you raise objections to it strongly enough

Of course preparing makes sense. It would be foolish not to do anything about this information you have.

Lauybob

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

I would suggest the re is little chance they would accept it; not if you raise objections to it strongly enough

Of course preparing makes sense. It would be foolish not to do anything about this information you have.

Makes sense.

Anyway the updated WS mentions a date I mentioned when I provided the lease. 2 things on this,

1. they got the date wrong (they wrote 2015 instead of 2018) and also

2. they are saying that they could not validate the lease as I only provided a page of it (ones that were relevant to me).


Anything I could do with that?



Also they added in about the 'subject to any reasonable regulation' but I assume I just fight that with the DJ Skelly opinion on the case about the union jack flag? As I've already done this in the defence and skeleton argument I assume I'm covered for this?


They've also quoted in their new WS the part of the lease about not to park or allow to park any car etc 'including any car parking spaces specifically allocated by the Management Company to the owner or owners of any of the other apartment and save only to such extent and subject to such conditions may be permitted by law and such regulations as may be imposed by the Management Company for the good of the Estate'


What do I need to do at this point? It seems as though they keep banging on the tune about me being in a 'covenant' or contract with the Management Company, but that doesn't mean I have a contract with them the PPC does it?


Not sure if this is relevant but the PPC has been removed and replaced by a different company on the estate recently. Does this have bearing on anything?

Here's what I previously posted, any help with any of this?

Like I said previously, surely the only people that can put a claim in is the management company, not the PPC as they are a third party (whom I have no contract with?)


In terms of prep too, do I just update my skeleton or just write down these points in some new document for the judge to see?


Thanks

nosferatu1001

Amend your skeleton with additions made as a result of this new WS done in red, so you can see the difference and so can the ocurt.

Reasonable regulation is easy to fight - something that punishes a leaseholder is not reasonable, something that takes away something they already have - the right to par k - is not only not reaosnable, it is derogation from grant.

Given you are a memebr of the Estate, and as this owuld be a variation to lease, they need ot prove the 75% accpetance / no more tha n10% rejection was carried out
There is no proof here

Did they say they are going to turn up? Ask the court why they are adding new particulars of claim - advancing new arguments - when surely as part of their diligence they would have had sight of leases?

Lauybob

Amend your skeleton with additions made as a result of this new WS done in red, so you can see the difference and so can the ocurt.

I guess just take the amended skeleton with me? rather than send it as I have no time to get it to either claimant or court on time.

Reasonable regulation is easy to fight - something that punishes a leaseholder is not reasonable, something that takes away something they already have - the right to par k - is not only not reaosnable, it is derogation from grant.

That's already in my defence and skeleton, along with the expert view of DJ Skelly about flying union jacks.

Given you are a memebr of the Estate, and as this owuld be a variation to lease, they need ot prove the 75% accpetance / no more tha n10% rejection was carried out
There is no proof here

This is what I've added:


[FONT=&quot]24. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The Claimant has pointed the court that the parking space is ‘subject to any reasonable regulations which the Management Company may make in relation thereto’. However, something that punishes a leaseholder is not reasonable. Taking something away from the leaseholder for something they already have i.e. the right to park is not only unreasonable but a derogation from the grant. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]It is wholly unreasonable to introduce something that causes distress and nuisance to residents. The Defendant would like to point out DJ Skelly’s opinion being a barrister specialising in property law, could be seen as an ‘experts view’ and ‘professional opinion’ relating to a very similar case (skeleton point 22).[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]25. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Regarding the Claimant pointing out the SIX SCHEDULE at paragraph 6 of the lease; given that I am the member of the Estate, and that this would be a variation of the lease, the Claimant needs to carry out and prove 75% acceptance, and no more than 10% objected to the proposed variation. There is no such proof that this was carried out.[/FONT]

Is this ok?

Did they say they are going to turn up? Ask the court why they are adding new particulars of claim - advancing new arguments - when surely as part of their diligence they would have had sight of leases?

What do you mean? They haven't said they have or haven't anywhere, just assumed they were. By asking the court, do you mean tomorrow or in the updated skeleton?

Coupon-mad

Gladstones sometimes say their client might not turn up and that if no rep is appointed to the hearing, the court should consider their papers in their absence (which is OK and gives YOU the floor!).

I think you don't need to 'ask the court' as such; this is all about exposing the holes in the evidence.

Get there half an hour early to get through security, and take a costs schedule, and a wage slip to prove your loss of leave/salary, and also claim your travel and parking.