UK CPM v TBR1 - Residential permit 'own space' argument. Gladstones issued claim.

System

Well it doesnt permit them to bind you to a contract with a third party

Perhaps

The scheme appeared to be in force at the time of the leaseholder's purchase

This will be the main stumbling block.

TBR1

The_Deep wrote: »

I agree with the above. They may well have offended against the provisions of the DPA, kerching, harassed you, kerching, and acted unreasonably, kerching, not to mention trespass, and, depending on the wording of your lease, interfered your leasehold right to quiet enjoyment of your property. CPM know this, but continue to chance their arm in court.

Read this

hxxp://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/residential-parking.htm

I was unsure about a counterclaim on the basis I am not the legal owner of the space. I have received a letter from UK CPM saying that they did access my details through the DVLA however. I'll have to see if I can dig out the clause re quiet enjoyment.

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

You CAN post a link - just a dead one. Host at tinypic and "break" the link by changing http to hxxp. A regular can then change it

Ensure ALL PERSONAL INFO IS REMOVED. Reference no, VRM, etc.

All done, thanks for the info.

TBR1

IamEmanresu wrote: »

This will be the main stumbling block.

I should note that the scheme was not brought to the leaseholder's attention pre-purchase if that makes any difference.

I was relying on there needing to be a proper variation to the existing lease rather than the existence of the scheme at the time of purchase somehow implying a term into the agreement which is not possible with deeds and based on the absence of a variation clause as far as I am aware?

The lease runs from a decade or so ago and was unchanged at the subsequent (last few years) date of purchase.

System

Is the Grantor-Owner the same people that hired UKCPM or alternatively, are the people that hired UKCPM agents/representatives of the Grantor-Owner.

UKCPM have a habit of ignoring the chain of authority or at least not checking their side of the chain of authority and just winging it.

TBR1

IamEmanresu wrote: »

Is the Grantor-Owner the same people that hired UKCPM or alternatively, are the people that hired UKCPM agents/representatives of the Grantor-Owner.

UKCPM have a habit of ignoring the chain of authority or at least not checking their side of the chain of authority and just winging it.

The apartment lease is a sub-underlease and for a considerable term.

I'm pretty sure the chain to UK CPM is at least: Freeholder -> Leasehold company 1 & Leasehold company 2 (who is the 'landlord/s' in our lease) -> Management company 1 -> Management company 2 -> UK CPM.

But that's based on my limited knowledge of the agents instructed to management the property and zero disclosure from UK CPM / Gladstones and may therefore be inaccurate.

Loadsofchildren123

Regarding the freeholder's right to impose new regulations, the only relevant clause I could identify was clause 9 from the tenant covenant schedule. I'd be angling an argument on this one on the basis that complying with regulations "for orderly use and enjoyment of the Common Parts and Estate Common Parts" does not cover parking spaces when assessed against the definitions referred to in the same document, do you agree?


Yes. These things always come down to the definitions and in leasehold cases you have to look very carefully at the terms. If the parking areas are not within the definition of "Common Parts" and "Estate Common Parts" then they have no right to introduce new regulations in relation to the parking areas.


I'll have a look at the documents.


Do you have a Deed of Trust declaring that the legal owner owns it for you beneficially, or is it more informal? I don't think it matters whether you are a true beneficial owner, or just there enjoying the owner's rights as a tenant/licensee, but you need to get your position right.

TBR1

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

Regarding the freeholder's right to impose new regulations, the only relevant clause I could identify was clause 9 from the tenant covenant schedule. I'd be angling an argument on this one on the basis that complying with regulations "for orderly use and enjoyment of the Common Parts and Estate Common Parts" does not cover parking spaces when assessed against the definitions referred to in the same document, do you agree?


Yes. These things always come down to the definitions and in leasehold cases you have to look very carefully at the terms. If the parking areas are not within the definition of "Common Parts" and "Estate Common Parts" then they have no right to introduce new regulations in relation to the parking areas.


I'll have a look at the documents.


Do you have a Deed of Trust declaring that the legal owner owns it for you beneficially, or is it more informal? I don't think it matters whether you are a true beneficial owner, or just there enjoying the owner's rights as a tenant/licensee, but you need to get your position right.

Great, thank you.

I'll make sure the position is clarified in their witness statement once this matter reaches that stage, I am just conscious of disclosing too much personal info on an open forum. If you think it may become relevant I'm happy to discuss that particular point by PM, but I agree that in this situation my exact occupier status should not affect my ability to enjoy the legal owner's rights.

System

I agree that in this situation my exact occupier status should not affect my ability to enjoy the legal owner's rights.

Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which reads:

Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties

Does ParkingEye v Beavis meet the requirements of that second paragraph. Secondly who is the owner and what rights are to be enjoyed?

Coupon-mad

7. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof

Can you truthfully DENY the above (never lie in court) and do you actually want to run a defence that hides your position behind a POFA law that isn't your strongest point/is superfluous?

Would this one not be better defended as driver, (unless the Defendant wasn't!), especially as you have engaged in comms where that might have been implied?

Often where there is a solid defence to argue on various aspects, it is seen to be better for a Defendant to appear in front of a Judge as an honest witness who was there, was the driver, and has serious points to make about 'no contract formed between me and the Claimant', 'derogation from grant' 'primacy of contract' and lack of chain of authority for UKCPM to override property rights.

TBR1

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Can you truthfully DENY the above (never lie in court) and do you actually want to run a defence that hides your position behind a POFA law that isn't your strongest point/is superfluous?

Good point. I meant not admitted and put to strict proof rather than denied. I see why we want to limit our arguments to the strongest only though, on the assumption that the other arguments are strong enough to warrant this approach. I will amend to 'not admitted' now and consider removing all together.