Leaseheld space & Double ticket

BarraDisciple

Thank you!

I'll go through it and take what I can use for my reply, assuming that is a template

[Deleted User]

It is a template, but there are templates which require lots of rejigging and templates which require very little.

From where the draft says “The Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims does, of course, provide this further opportunity to narrow the issues between your client and myself following the issue of the letter of claim…” to its end, unless you spot any typos, the draft requires no modifications at all. I would mention that I have corrected some typos in post #51 today.

In effect, it is saying “If the parking operator really believes that it has the right to charge me for parking in my own parking space, prove it by supplying this information and these documents”. The information and documents being requested are what should be requested in the vast majority of residential parking cases, nothing more and nothing less.

I am pretty sure that you will find points 1 to 7 self-explanatory: however, if they are not, please do tell me.

Point 8 is saying “If the parking operator claims to be providing a service, it should have used care and skill to make sure to offer that service prior to commencing its operations. So, what did the parking operator do to that end?”.

Point 9 is saying “If the parking operator used its care and skill, it would have known that there was a pre-existing lease. So, how did it come to believe that its contracts had primacy over the lease?”.

Point 10 is saying “If the parking operator believes that my lease contains expressly allows it to operate a scheme, where does it say that in the lease?”.

Point 11 is saying “If the parking operator believes that some regulations have been made in accordance with the lease, show me a copy of those regulations and tell me where in the lease it makes provision for those regulations to be made”.

Point 12 is saying “As the lease granted me a right to park, tell me how the parking operator obtained those rights or a share of them from me”.

Point 13 is saying “If the parking operator believes that my lease gives it the right to demand money from me, tell me how it came to that conclusion”.

Point 14 is saying “If the parking operator does not believe that my lease gives it the right to demand money from me, tell me how it has concluded that it has that right”. [You may wish to google privity of contract.]

Point 15 is saying “If the parking scheme has not been introduced in accordance with my lease, tell me how its contracts have acquired primacy of contract over my lease”.

Point 16 is saying “If the parking scheme is valid, explain how it accords with the legal principle of non-derogation from grant”. [You may wish to google non-derogation from grant.]

Point 17 is saying “If the parking scheme is valid, explain how it accords with the legal principle of quiet enjoyment”. [You may wish to google quiet enjoyment.]

Point 18 is there just in case the parking operator has lost any cases at the location.

Point 19 is simply covering anything which the parking operator believes is relevant but which we have omitted.

Coupon-mad

BarraDisciple wrote: »

Thank you!

I'll go through it and take what I can use for my reply, assuming that is a template

Don't send that wall of words, come back and we (the regulars) will assist.

BarraDisciple

Here I am, guys.

Thank you all again for the support! @Eljayjay2 I really appreciate the template, I took something similar and a little shorter to what would match "my style" more, a bit more concise and to the point. It's just so I have some consistency when I draft a defence, nothing personal, of course. Actually, I'd appreciate your feedback on this.

@Coupon-mad appreciate your help too. I don't know much about the forum, surely not as much as you, but I don't see anything wrong with new posters trying to help? Unless you point out something sketchy in Eljayjay2's reply, I am just left confused on who to trust. That's not to say you shouldn't warn people, just maybe give a bit more context? What is he/she doing wrong?

Anyway, it's between you two and I'd appreciate if we kept the thread on thread :beer:

I would also very much appreciate your feedback on this reply to LBCC, thank you

*** SOLICITORS LIMITED
**********
****************
**********

xx October 2018

Your Ref: xxxxxxxxxx

Dear Sirs,

I am in receipt of your Letter Before Claim of XX September 2018. The address listed above should be used for all future correspondence.

Your letter contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client bases their claim upon.

Your client must know that on 01 October 2017 a new protocol is applicable to debt claims. Since proceedings have not yet been issued, the new protocol clearly applies and must be complied with.

Your letter lacks specificity and breaches both the requirements of the previously applicable Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) and the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2. Please treat this letter as a formal request for all of the documents / information that the protocol now requires your client to provide.

Your client must not issue proceedings without complying with that protocol. I reserve the right to draw any failure of the Claimant to comply with the protocol to the attention of the court and to ask the court to stay the claim and order your client to comply with its pre-action obligations, and when costs come to be considered.

As solicitors you must surely be familiar with the requirements of both the Practice Direction applicable pre-1 October and the Protocol which applies thereafter (and your client, as a serial litigator of small claims, should likewise be aware of them).

As you (and your client) must know, the Practice Direction and Protocol bind all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time.

It is astounding that a firm of Solicitors are sending a consumer a vague and unevidenced 'Letter before Claim' in complete ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the new Protocol.

Nobody, including your client, is immune from the requirements and obligations of the Practice Direction and now the Protocol.

Your client appears to have included sending two letters on Gladstones headed notepaper that amount to False Instruments of which I questioned the validity by sending you an email complaint dated xx/xx/xxxx, to which I have received no reply.

I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:

1. an explanation of the cause of action
2. whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper (Should I keep this as it’s an own space?)
3. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
4. what the details of the claim are; where it is claimed the vehicle was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated
5. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and provide to me a copy of that contract.
6. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
7. Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the IPC code of practice section B, clause 1.1;establishing yourself as the creditor
8. a plan showing where any signs were displayed
9. details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)
10. Provide details of the original charge, and detail any interest and administrative or other charges added
11. Provide a copy of the Information Sheet and the Reply Form
12. An explanation for the additional £60 charge including confirmation that it has already been invoiced and paid.


If your client does not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20), Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13 ,15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.

Furthermore, I exercise my right under Article 15 of the General Data Protection Regulation to be granted access to all personal data of mine that your client holds as a data controller. I expect this to include:

- The categories of personal data concerned
- The recipients or categories of recipient your client discloses my personal data to
- The necessary processing agreement between UK Car Park Management (CPM) and Gladstones solicitors, to ensure you are handling my data in a legally compliant manner
- Your client’s retention period for storing my personal data
- The existence of my right to request rectification, erasure or restriction or to object to such processing
- My rights to lodge a complaint with the ICO;
- Information about the source of the data your client holds on me
- Information about the existence of automated decision-making (including profiling)
- The safeguards your client provides if they transfer personal data to a third country or international organisation.


Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.


Yours faithfully

Thanks again, guys!

Coupon-mad

@Coupon-mad appreciate your help too. I don't know much about the forum, surely not as much as you, but I don't see anything wrong with new posters trying to help? Unless you point out something sketchy in Eljayjay2's reply, I am just left confused on who to trust. That's not to say you shouldn't warn people, just maybe give a bit more context? What is he/she doing wrong?

If you saw the way he'd spammed every residential case on the forum, you'd feel the same as I do. He seems to have an agenda fixated on steering residential cases in one direction... and I know who he is; he has confirmed it here with his posts that match an account elsewhere.

You can certainly trust posters with thousands of posts, or legally qualified people like Johnersh, IamEmanresu, LoadsofChildren123 and bargepole.

2. whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper (Should I keep this as it’s an own space?)

Leave it in, as it makes them have to show their hand.

BarraDisciple

Great, thanks @Coupon-mad. Everything else look good?

What does everyone think?

BarraDisciple

Sorry guys, one more thing:

I was left confused by the LBCC in thay there were two different sheets that basically said the same thing.

The only difference was that one had a deadline to respond within 14 days of date of receipt and one had 30 days.

Which one is it? It's just so i know how long I can take to reply.

Coupon-mad

You have 30 days to reply to an LBC, and you don't need to use the forms.

I would remove this waffle which is purely repetition. The letter reads better without it, IMHO.

As solicitors you must surely be familiar with the requirements of both the Practice Direction applicable pre-1 October and the Protocol which applies thereafter (and your client, as a serial litigator of small claims, should likewise be aware of them).

As you (and your client) must know, the Practice Direction and Protocol bind all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time.

It is astounding that a firm of Solicitors are sending a consumer a vague and unevidenced 'Letter before Claim' in complete ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the new Protocol.

Nobody, including your client, is immune from the requirements and obligations of the Practice Direction and now the Protocol.