Rights of Third Parties Act?

nosferatu1001

How can something that tries to REMOVE YOUR RIGHT TO PARK unless you CONTRACT with a complete stranger to the lease be at all reasonable?

TELL the MA to cancel it, otherwise the injunciton that follows their Agent will be their costs to bear.

Coupon-mad

Is this in your actual lease, the document you have re your ownership of the flat?

To comply with, and ensure that the owners and drivers or all cars using the Car Park under its authority, comply with all reasonable regulations made by the Landlord of the Management Company at any time for their running or management.

You're sorted then.

Is he/she, with that clause, IamEmanresu? Link v Blaney wasn't.

System

What's Link v Blaney got to do with the subject at hand, which is the Contract Rights of 3rd Parties (Link) and a lease that excludes these?

my-goodness

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Is this in your actual lease, the document you have re your ownership of the flat?





Is he/she, with that clause, IamEmanresu? Link v Blaney wasn't.

Yes, unfortunately it's in the lease...

System

@my-goodness.

You have been granted exclusive use of the space (without preconditions). Your lease also excludes others not party to the lease the right to "enforce any term". The Beavis case was all about 3rd parties enforcing terms between two parties under a core contract.

Your lease would exclude the application of Beavis.

Coupon-mad

IamEmanresu wrote: »

What's Link v Blaney got to do with the subject at hand, which is the Contract Rights of 3rd Parties (Link) and a lease that excludes these?

Dunno, if property law confuses you, then it certainly confuses me!

The clauses seem to contradict each other. I see what you are saying though, I think! That ParkingEye was all about PE being the offerer of the contract in their own right. And in this case, a third party cannot do that.

my-goodness

IamEmanresu wrote: »

@my-goodness.

You have been granted exclusive use of the space (without preconditions). Your lease also excludes others not party to the lease the right to "enforce any term". The Beavis case was all about 3rd parties enforcing terms between two parties under a core contract.

Your lease would exclude the application of Beavis.

Thanks for this. So the third party clause would mean that ONLY the MA could enforce car parking rules, not a third party?

my-goodness

Hello everyone, help urgently needed please. I received their letter before claim in early November and, as advised, acknowledged the letter but also pointed out that it did not contain all the information needed, as laid out in the PD.

They have now just responded claiming their original letter was compliant. They have also said that I've missed the 30-day deadline for sending a full response (since I was waiting for their reply to my acknowledgement letter), but they are 'willing' to extend the deadline for my response until tomorrow!

Surely this can't be correct?

nosferatu1001

No, it isnt correct

So you point out to them all the ways it was not compliant
And that their latest response clearly shows they have contempt for the PAP
You require they comply with your response of X date (first letter) by providing... within 14 days, else you will consider the matter clsoed

my-goodness

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

No, it isnt correct

So you point out to them all the ways it was not compliant
And that their latest response clearly shows they have contempt for the PAP
You require they comply with your response of X date (first letter) by providing... within 14 days, else you will consider the matter clsoed

Thank you for your help, I've done as you've said