Ace Security FIRST APPEAL ARGH!

akzy1990


4. The Defendant avers that the operator signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in!Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd!(2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in!K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd![2001] EWCA Civ 2011. The Defendant will also rely on the case of Parking Eye Limited (Respondent) V Beavis (Appellant) (2015) UKSC 67 whereby His Honour Judge Harris in Oxford recognises that when you have a resident, the tenancy agreement or lease will take precedence over the arrangement between the ultimate landlord and the third-party parking manager.


5. Accordingly it is denied that:
5.1 there was any agreement as between the Defendant and the Claimant
5.2 the letter “changes to car park management” sent by the landlord takes precedence over the Tenancy Agreement
5.3 the letter letter “changes to car park management” sent by the landlord was compliant with clause XXXX of the Tenancy Agreement
5.4 the letter “changes to car park management” sent by the landlord stated there would be a variation of the tenancy agreement as required by clause XXXX of the Tenancy Agreement
5.5 there was an agreement in writing to vary the Tenancy Agreement in accordance with clause XXXX of the Tenancy Agreement
5.6 a letter of consultation for the change in car park management was sent prior to the letter “changes to car park management” dated XXXX/11/XXXX, in accordance with clause XXXX
5.7 there was any obligation (at all) to display a permit; and

5.8 the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.