Multiple PCN's when permit displayed

Biggkidd

Signage:



PG1:



PG2:



PG3:



PG4



PG5:



Land Reg:



Hope you guys can view:eek:

They also provided a million pictures of signage around the site, NTK and pics.

KeithP

Pages 3 and 4 are identical.

Why not edit post #32 so that the pages appear correctly?
Then delete post #33.

Help others to help you.

System

Where is their contract. They are not landowners/occupiers so can only derive their standing from the contract they have been given. (paras 7,8 and 10 refer)

You'll have issues with para 12 as any permit will refer to the your right (if proven) to park in a space. See also the sign.

IMHO this will be a score draw so watch for costs.

Biggkidd

Cheers Keith, still getting used to the setup.. all done now

nosferatu1001

Para 9 and 10 are their usual bluster.

The key is REASONABLE. It is not REASONABLE to reduce your granted rights, to charge you monies outside of your ground rent, to force you to contract iwth a third party for something you already own rights to, etc.

They then suggest that accepting the permit means you are bound by a contract somehow. This is clearly nonsense - someone sending you something through the post doesnt mean you accept it just by opening the letter. You respond that this was displayed ONLY as a courtesy. Also, why is the onus on you to object? Its just an unsolicited piece of junk mail - why should you waste your time responding to it?

Biggkidd

Totally agree with this! Who in their right mind would accept its reasonable for a 3rd party to act in this manner? As i'm not a 100% homeowner, I cannot become a member of the RMA. Matters regarding the estate are taken out of 'our' hands (our meaning all the other residents) and essentially the RMA & PPM have enforced these rules without consultation. One of the members who signed the 'contract' with PPM has actually left the RMA, yet PPM continue to use the signature to confirm conformity. Worth mentioning? I will use these points to prepare my skeleton argument but does my WS need tweaking at all? I think i've covered most of the points raised in my initial defence, but you guys are the experts!!

System

Have you got the contract? Could you put it up.

They can only operate if they have the authority as they cannot offer parking as such unless they have a contract. The contract (like your lease) has restrictions which may or may not allow them to pursue you.

So was there a contract in the pack, what does it say and who signed it.

you guys are the experts!!

Wouldn't go that far.

Biggkidd

The first signee on this 'contract' has since left the RMA, so can this contract still be valid?

Sassii

Did you tried to call the court asking if the PPC paid the court trial fees on time or if the court received their WS on time.

As I can see the PPC had a contract with Management Company not with the Landlord, is that right?.

Check your lease definitions for common parts, foot path, estate roads as in some contracts Management Company doesn't have control of all the estates.

System

#3 in the contract is your main point of attack.

UKCPM in #3 is putting the onus on whoever signed the contract that the client (KGMS/Trinity) have the authority to employ them.

As Sassii says, get that Lease out and check the names and definitions on it. You'll have to go in hard or the judge will accept the paperwork as OK.