Lost IAS - Own Space, CPM not in my Lease

nosferatu1001

You could respond back with:
- these regulations are not reasonable
- they cannot take away a pre-existing right without an explicit variation to the lease
- if you proceed to litigation I will counterclaim against you in the sum of £640, calcualted as 4 times the value you place on the space, due to the aggravated trespass, breach of lease, and breach of data protection act 2018 you gleefully admit to comiitting. At this time your principal will be enjoined a sa co-defendant u nder Part 20 of the CPRs. You may with to inform them that your actions have left them facing this bill. When you win, you will also take their principal to court to obtain an injunciton against them and their agents from further trespassing. 

happyface182

Many thanks for the above advice nosferatu.
Just to keep this thread updated, I didn't respond back at all. I'm not too fussed about counterclaiming as I only assume it will extend this plight that I just want finished. 
They'll have to initiate court proceedings if they want to hear anything more from me.

nosferatu1001

Counterclaims are heard at the same time as the actual claim, and means you get a hearing unless the claimant pays up - if they discontinue it only effects THEIR claim, not your counter. Its also the only way to get them to back off, long term. 

D_P_Dance

  I'm not too fussed about counterclaiming ...  I just want finished. 

Come on, grow a pair.  You have a good chance of costing them a large sum of money, perhhaos getting an incompetent judge dismissed, and even playing a part in getting the law changed.

First they came fot the socialists ...

happyface182

Ok fair enough, many thanks again.
This is a huge unknown to me, How exactly do I go about this?
Do I need to sit down with a  lawyer who will file proceedings? 

D_P_Dance

Start by reading this

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/legal-system/taking-legal-action/small-claims/making-a-small-claim/

Fruitcake

happyface182 said:

Only took them 7 months to reply...

Dear Mr xxxx

We write in reference to your email dated 17/06/2019, the contents of which are noted.

Please note, should we proceed to litigate your conduct will be bought to the Courts attention under CPR 27.14 (2) (g).

We obtained the documents and having reviewed these we can confirm point 4. levies the Landlords’ regulations on to the Leaseholder and those under title (which you are a Proprietor on the register)  ought to have agreed to reasonable regulations being bought in and to assist ‘orderliness’ and the implementation of the Landlord’s obligations i.e. to provide the space, therefore the parking charge has been issued correctly and the balance of £160.00 remains outstanding.

 We enclose an up to date Letter before Claim for payment purposes. In the event payment is not received within 60 days from the date of this email, we hereby put you on notice, it may be our Client's instructions to issue Court proceedings without further warning.

Dear Mr xxxx

We write in reference to your email dated 17/06/2019, the contents of which are noted.

Please note, should we proceed to litigate your conduct will be bought to the Courts attention under CPR 27.14 (2) (g).

We obtained the documents and having reviewed these we can confirm point 4. levies the Landlords’ regulations on to the Leaseholder and those under title (which you are a Proprietor on the register)  ought to have agreed to reasonable regulations being bought in and to assist ‘orderliness’ and the implementation of the Landlord’s obligations i.e. to provide the space, therefore the parking charge has been issued correctly and the balance of £160.00 remains outstanding.

 We enclose an up to date Letter before Claim for payment purposes. In the event payment is not received within 60 days from the date of this email, we hereby put you on notice, it may be our Client's instructions to issue Court proceedings without further warning.

First of all, what is the definition of the word, "reasonable"? Forcing someone to do something that takes away their existing rights cannot possibly be construed as reasonable behaviour.

Secondly, you were never informed that any regulations had been bought brought in so it would be impossible for a leaseholder to comply if they had never seen the variation in the lease specifically allowing scammers to issue scamvoices or scamlicitors to issue a court claim, which in any case your lease does not mention at all. It is too vague a clause. 

In addition, not issuing a permit would be an unfair contract term. "You must display a permit but we are not going to tell you about a permit scheme, are going to deliberately withhold a permit, and not tell you about the variation in lease."

You mentioned earlier in your thread that the scammers were initially brought in because of a parking problem. How long ago was that? Surely the initial stage has now ended, so why are the scammers still there?

Did you ever look at the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 with regards to changes to a lease where either a or b below apply?

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1987/31/contents

Part IV

37 Application by majority of parties for variation of leases.

(5) Any such application shall only be made if—

(a) in a case where the application is in respect of less than nine leases, all, or all but one, of the parties concerned consent to it; or

(b) in a case where the application is in respect of more than eight leases, it is not opposed for any reason by more than 10 per cent. of the total number of the parties concerned and at least 75 per cent. of that number consent to it.

Have you asked the landowner and MA when this ballot occurred as you were never made aware of it? If no such ballot occurred then whoever brought the scammers in has breached this Act.

As an aside, have you asked the local council if advertising consent was ever granted for the scammer's signs? Not having it is a criminal offence although I believe only the council can pursue it through the courts.
Not having consent would mean the scammers are illegally operating a for profit business on your demised property.
Whilst it may not be of too much help, it is not too difficult to find the information and make complaints to the council, MA, landowner, and your MP to show how unreasonable the whole process is. 
If there is no consent, point out to the landowner and MA that they could be subject to criminal proceedings.

It might also be possible for you to make an application for variation of your lease in accordance with the L & T Act,  Part IV Para 35 (2) (a) (iii) such that scammers are prohibited by your lease from operating on your demised space. 

D_P_Dance

Read this

https://forums.landlordzone.co.uk/forum/residential-letting-questions/1053920-private-parking-companies

happyface182

Fruitcake said:

You mentioned earlier in your thread that the scammers were initially brought in because of a parking problem. How long ago was that? Surely the initial stage has now ended, so why are the scammers still there?

I found the below text in an email response from Clarion Housing to the office of my MP

I’ve raised your enquiry with our Housing team. Richard Cox, Neighbourhood Housing Officer’s confirmed a parking scheme is in place at this location. The permit parking scheme was introduced when the development was first built circa 2010.
Our Housing team aren’t notified of changes in ownership to leasehold properties.

Have you asked the landowner and MA when this ballot occurred as you were never made aware of it? If no such ballot occurred then whoever brought the scammers in has breached this Act.

I will ask Clarion this, I highly suspect they did not run the ballot. I'm sure (like with any dealings with them) they won't care, will try to ignore, or simply won't follow up. 

happyface182

Clarion are finally now getting involved and trying to sort it out with CPM. 
Their most recent contact said that CPM were asking for a copy of the lease to which I said HELL NO! They should have done their homework when they started this illegal operation!
Otherwise how can they enforce restrictions on an area if they don't know the rights of the land? To me, this is almost an admission of guilt that they have knowingly assumed authority over land that they have no rights over.
I said this to Clarion and also asked how this is different from me putting on a parking attendants uniform and enforcing restrictions on a car park of my choice? They had no answer. 

I said I'm happy to show it to Clarion (as they more than likely have a copy anyway) but NOT CPM! 
If they choose to find a common lease from for leaseholders within the same block and provide that to CPM, then so be it, but I'm not helping CPM get them out of the mess they've made for themselves. 

I believe I've done the right thing, can someone confirm please?