Large VCS claim received for residential space

Loadsofchildren123

On MCOL, the claim was issued on 31/07/18, but I've had a notification saying "Date of service of 07/08/2018 notified on 22/08/2018". Does this mean my deadline for defence is a bit further away than I thought, and do weekends count? I thought it was only 5 days between issue and service

The 5 days does not include Saturdays, Sundays or Bank holidays. Accordingly, the 5 days ended on 7 August, as recorded on the court file. Your deadlines run from 7 August.

lucere

Having re-read Link v Blainey I am a little concerned, particularly the judge's point about the right of parking from the lease not being transferred by the tenancy agreement (although this may be more because there is no mention of parking in their AST?).

Are the parking terms in my tenancy agreement (posted above) strong enough to give me a right to park, even though they do not specify the exact parking space? I guess the crucial point is there is no mention in any document of having to display a permit..

Following from this, does this clause in my superior lease mean that parking terms cannot be changed? This would be great!

"7.4 The Company may at any time or times during the Term in the interest of good estate management impose such regulations of general application regarding the Development as it may in its reasonable discretion think fit in addition to or in place of the Regulations (but so that any such regulations shall not conflict with this Lease) and the Company shall have power in its reasonable discretion to revoke amend or add to such regulations or additions thereto"

As stated previously, the superior lease gives:

"1.7 The exclusive right to park one private motor vehicle on the parking space (or each of the spaces as the case may be) (if any) shown and numbered on Plan 1 which corresponds with the number of the Apartment or such alternative space as may be advised by the Lessor and/or the Management Company in writing from time to time"

So controlling the rights of residents to park would conflict with the lease, right?

Sorry for the rambling, this is such a big amount they're trying to rob me of I want to know exactly what I'm talking about!

Coupon-mad

So controlling the rights of residents to park would conflict with the lease, right?

Yes. Link v Blaney is a cautionary tale, for various reasons. And it is rare.

Loadsofchildren123

"7.4 The Company may at any time or times during the Term in the interest of good estate management impose such regulations of general application regarding the Development as it may in its reasonable discretion think fit in addition to or in place of the Regulations (but so that any such regulations shall not conflict with this Lease) and the Company shall have power in its reasonable discretion to revoke amend or add to such regulations or additions thereto"

In the lease there will be Regulations and these will be things like where you have to store rubbish, that ball games can't be played in the gardens, that you can't ride horses in the estate, can't have a BBQ in the gardens etc. Somewhere near the beginning there will be a definition of "Regulations" which may or may not help and there will always be a clause allowing new/further Regulations to be introduced. This is that clause.


You have to look very carefully at the precise wording used and the definition of "Regulations" and any prescribed procedure for introducing new Regulations.


The PPC will rely on this clause to say that the freeholder/MC or MA was entitled to introduce the new parking regime (requirement for permits) under this clause.


But you will say it doesn't. Look at its precise wording, I've highlighted in red the bit that helps you. You will say that the requirement for a parking permit is not a regulation of "general application regarding the development". It is not general, it is very specific. "General" would be things like riding horses, dogs off leads, storing rubbish etc.


Then there is the argument that, even if they were entitled to introduce new parking rules as a new regulation, they are NOT entitled to impose on you a contractual relationship with a third party, nor a charge for failing to comply with a new regulation. I doubt the lease has anything that says that the Freeholder may levy a charge of £100 for any breach of the Regulations and the Leaseholder must pay that charge within x days.


Your tenancy passes on to you the parking rights enjoyed by your landlord. Those parking rights do not require a permit.


Please read hairray's thread which will educate you on these issues. There was a more recent thread where after the leaseholder did some digging (he was like a terrier, wouldn't take no for an answer) it turned out that the parking contract contained a clause whereby the MA/MC could demand tickets given to genuine residents be cancelled. I'll link it in a minute.

Loadsofchildren123

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74535137#Comment_74535137

lucere

My landlord has now given me the direct phone number of the manager for the complex at the Management Company, as he's had no luck convincing him to cancel the tickets – the MC said they can't do anything about it which I refuse to accept. Landlord has suggested I call the MC instead – is this a good idea and what arguments can I put forward?

NeilCr

lucere wrote: »

My landlord has now given me the direct phone number of the manager for the complex at the Management Company, as he's had no luck convincing him to cancel the tickets – the MC said they can't do anything about it which I refuse to accept. Landlord has suggested I call the MC instead – is this a good idea and what arguments can I put forward?

Ask them who is the other party to the contract with the PPC as you wish to speak to someone who has the authority to cancel the ticket from the complex end.

And, what authority was used to introduce the PPC in the first place.

It's possible that the Management Company/Managing Agent may not be able to cancel the ticket as they aren't party to the contract. They may well be employed by the freeholder.