Parking Ticket in My Spot - Appeal Rejected - P4Parking

The_Deep

"Reaching out"? What is wrong with "instructing"?

MercilessKiller

Thanks - I've modified that and now sent it. Sara mentioned she's going away for a month and Izabela, her counter part, is out till next week so I'm worried I won't get a response but we're up against the clock.

I have separately reached out on the residents forum to try and get the contact details of a director. As the "client", a Director of NSQRML may be able to also instruct the cancellation.

Though with the management company on the contract no longer existing, nor the staff mentioned, I'm wondering if that contract even holds up on it's own anyway! HML Group confirmed they weren't responsible for the contract.

MercilessKiller

Well - they're quick at responding. Izabela did just respond to me with the same stupid response that Sara provided earlier, saying that my lease DOES confirm they can impose Estate Regulations and that I have broken that regulation.

I've now replied once again with a carbon copy of my original letter stating why the P4Parking contract breaks my rights as a leaseholder and does not comply with the "Estate Regulation" clause. Awaiting a further response.

At this point, it's clear they are making a choice not to help me regardless of my legal right.

MercilessKiller

I think I just found the smoking gun in the P4Parking terms:
https://gyazo.com/421f991603dd5fef604e3331e1725cdb

I'm jumping for joy at this point and now thinking about who and how to send this.

Fruitcake

MercilessKiller wrote: »

I think I just found the smoking gun in the P4Parking terms:
https://gyazo.com/421f991603dd5fef604e3331e1725cdb

I'm jumping for joy at this point and now thinking about who and how to send this.

The pedant in me says, "ah but, a fine was not issued."

MercilessKiller

Fruitcake wrote: »

The pedant in me says, "ah but, a fine was not issued."

Ha - we shall see.

Either way, this is now proof at least that there is a reason to register my number plate, which I did (and provided evidence for).

All the arguments are stacking up... HML Group keep saying they won't exercise their right to cancel the charge as they believe it to be valid so I'll also send them this. They didn't know the terms of the contract before I pointed them out so they obviously don't care.

The more I dig in, the more things that seem to suggest I'm in the right. Equally, under the location terms in P4Parking's contract, there's no mention of underground parking anywhere - only the public road names were they also enforce tickets. Another argument to raise.

nosferatu1001

Just point out that, in the event that a claim is issued against you, you iwll
1) Issue a counterclaim against the C, AND the management company, for torious interference with your lease
2) Require the managament co attendance as a witness to confirm why they have not instructed their agent to cancel, when ALL estate regulatison are there for the benefit of the residents, not a parking company
3) Seek an injunction barring the management co from operating in your space, at their expense.

Loadsofchildren123

Bravo OP.


I'm really busy at work atm, if you want me to give an opinion on the interrelationships and rights of the different entities, can you summarise them all (distinguishing those which existed at the start and still exist, and how each was replaced and with what new entity, and any salient facts, eg same directors) in one message?


The use of the word "fine" isn't an issue, it's a common mistake that they think these are fines and that's how lots of people refer to them.


It is certainly a smoking gun. The Claimant is stuffed.


Send this to the Claimant's solicitors. Say it is clear that they have no cause of action whatsoever and you expect them to desist writing to you immediately and for their client to cease processing your data (save for the retention of your number plate on their white list). Point out in no uncertain terms that it is no wonder they haven't produced the contract, in spite of you asking for it and them being obliged to provide it in line with their pre-action obligations, because it is their very own petard which hoists them. It is clear that they had no right to issue the pcn in the first place under the terms of the original contract (setting aside any arguments about whether that contract was valid at the time your pcn was issued).


Write to all the other entities involved to say how disgracefully they have behaved in fobbing you off and how it is clearly within their power to instruct the Claimant to cancel the charge and to leave you alone; that the parking regulations are NOT new estate regulations under the terms of the lease and that, even if they come under that definition, they have not been properly introduced in accordance with the law (freeholders and managing agents cannot simply introduce new rules which impact owners and residents without doing so properly, with notice, in writing etc) and that, in any event, new estate regulations cannot impose on leaseholders and their authorised occupiers a third party contractual relationship and that the lease does not permit any charges other than the service charges/ground rent [whatever the case may be in your lease]; that their actions in failing to do so breach the covenant of Quiet Enjoyment and how they are supporting baseless litigation against you (and no doubt other residents). Say that if this matter proceeds without their intervention, then you WILL be issuing claims against them for damages.

MercilessKiller

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

Bravo OP.


I'm really busy at work atm, if you want me to give an opinion on the interrelationships and rights of the different entities, can you summarise them all (distinguishing those which existed at the start and still exist, and how each was replaced and with what new entity, and any salient facts, eg same directors) in one message?


The use of the word "fine" isn't an issue, it's a common mistake that they think these are fines and that's how lots of people refer to them.


It is certainly a smoking gun. The Claimant is stuffed.


Send this to the Claimant's solicitors. Say it is clear that they have no cause of action whatsoever and you expect them to desist writing to you immediately and for their client to cease processing your data (save for the retention of your number plate on their white list). Point out in no uncertain terms that it is no wonder they haven't produced the contract, in spite of you asking for it and them being obliged to provide it in line with their pre-action obligations, because it is their very own petard which hoists them. It is clear that they had no right to issue the pcn in the first place under the terms of the original contract (setting aside any arguments about whether that contract was valid at the time your pcn was issued).


Write to all the other entities involved to say how disgracefully they have behaved in fobbing you off and how it is clearly within their power to instruct the Claimant to cancel the charge and to leave you alone; that the parking regulations are NOT new estate regulations under the terms of the lease and that, even if they come under that definition, they have not been properly introduced in accordance with the law (freeholders and managing agents cannot simply introduce new rules which impact owners and residents without doing so properly, with notice, in writing etc) and that, in any event, new estate regulations cannot impose on leaseholders and their authorised occupiers a third party contractual relationship and that the lease does not permit any charges other than the service charges/ground rent [whatever the case may be in your lease]; that their actions in failing to do so breach the covenant of Quiet Enjoyment and how they are supporting baseless litigation against you (and no doubt other residents). Say that if this matter proceeds without their intervention, then you WILL be issuing claims against them for damages.

Thanks for your response. I don't have the Claimant's solicitors details at this point (I only received the parking charge 2 weeks ago) - But will certainly bear that in mind for when they do reach out.

I am now in the process of contacting both HML Group and the Directors of NSQ Residents Management Limited to detail this exception, along with the other points raised as to why this contract is a tort if enforced upon me, and noting my complaint about being fobbed off and ignored when it is clear I had my legal rights ignored. I've also confirmed I will pursue a issues to claim damages should they not exercise their right (as per their contract with P4Parking) to cancel the charge.

I have to admit, I would never have been able to do all of this alone. Not there yet but feels like we're at a critical point. We're a week away from the 21 day period where they can cancel the ticket without charge so I feel like we're going to know one way or the other within the next couple of days which way it's going to go.

Thanks again everyone!

twhitehousescat

they can cancel the charge , right upto the court waiting room , however at a later point they may have to pay P4 costs