Hw close does a parking sign need to be?

StClements

KeithP wrote: »

Who does this latest letter suggest you pay?

Does it give you thirty days for a response?

Sorry i should have mentioned that, Yes. I have 6 days left including today (according to the date of the letter).

KeithP

StClements wrote: »

Sorry i should have mentioned that, Yes. I have 6 days left including today (according to the date of the letter).

But how does that answer either of my questions, which were:

KeithP wrote: »

Who does this latest letter suggest you pay?

Does it give you thirty days for a response?

StClements

KeithP wrote: »

Who does this latest letter suggest you pay?

Does it give you thirty days for a response?

Pay the solicitors (Gladstone)

30 days, yes.

Quentin

You now need to prepare for the court claim that will follow

#2 in the newbies faq thread covers court claims right through from the LBC you have now received right through to the hearing with advice on each stage

KeithP

Then that appears to be a valid Letter of Claim.

You should react to that as described in post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

Coupon-mad

LBC stage is fully covered there as are the stages you will need to defend the claim.

StClements

I have quite a few tickets for the same non existent infringement, i want to get ahead of it to make sure I'm not incorrectly believing I will. So to test it, I've decided to write a counter letter before claim for the first pcn i received, based on the below case which was an amazing read and similar to mine:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5588292&page=1

below is my attempt to create my own case based on the above, feedback would be very appreciated:

Dear Sirs,

Parking ticket issued 17th June 2018. by UKCPM reference: XXXXXX
LETTER BEFORE CLAIM
I am writing to put you on notice that I intend to add you as a party to proceedings which UKCPM Ltd are threatening to bring against me, and that I intend to make a claim against you within those proceedings (or by way of a separate claim) for damages in respect of breach of contract.
UKCPM’s claim, and my claim against you for damages, relate to a parking charge notice (“PCN”) issued by UKCPM to my car on the 17th June 2018 at my address listed above. In total the amount of £150.00 is being sought from me.
UKCPM base their claim on a contract they entered into with the Linden/Gaillford Try (the freeholder), to provide parking services on the Estate of which my address above is a part. This letter assumes you were part of that contract.

Summary of the facts

1. On 2nd of June 2017 I purchased from LCTC (together with my partner) a lease of address above.
2. By Virtue of the Lease I purchased the leasehold title to the Property for a term of 250 years. The Property, as set out above, comprised the flat and a number of easements defined as LR11.1 detailed under schedule 4 of the Unit Lease (‘my lease’) agreement between Galifford Try PLC and LCLT and Liden Ltd.
3. Under schedule 4 of my lease paragraph 10 “The right for the residents employees and visitors ..of the tenants of the demised premises to park motor vehicles in any of the residents parking spaces”
4. Further the deed of covenant agreed by Linden accompanying my lease states in paragraph 6 “LINDEN covenants with the Tenant to observe and perform the convents on the part of the Owner contained in the section 106 Agreement and will indemnify the Tenant against any non-observance ..of the same”
5. The ‘Travel Plan’ (Planning document: PA_15_03538_S) subject to this section 106 Agreement and commissioned by Liden, states in section 6.4 that a “total of 32 car parking spots are to be provided” for the residents.
6. The lease granted to me and my partner contains various rights and imposed upon us various obligations. Likewise, it granted and imposed various rights/obligations to/upon Linden and Galliford Try PLC.
7. The lease therefore does not limit and nor can limit my use of the Parking Space, of which I have communally exclusive occupation – and in respect of which I have been granted the right of quiet enjoyment (see easements in LR11.1).
8. Without any prior agreement with myself UKCPM where suddenly engaged in parking management on the Estate. The have been allowed to introduce a permit system by which any car parked without a permit is issued a charge. I continued to park as I was entitled to be my lease which does not require me to display a ticket nor has Linden at any point issued me one.
9. It was only when I was issued with a ticket on 17th June 2018 that I noticed that parking sign had been installed some distance from my parking bay. Although the height at which it has been placed and the small size of the font used mean I cannot clearly read what it says.
10. Nowhere in the lease does it give you the right to vary the terms of the lease neither have any of terms ever been varied with my knowledge or consent. Should you at a future date seek to vary them and impact ay of the easements I enjoy within my lease, if I do not explicitly agree it do, my silence does not mean tacit approval.
11. When I received a PCN I complained to UKCPM and Linden that I had not received a permit. Only Linden responded informing me that the easement had not been handed over to me yet ‘the parking space has not been made available to yet’. I do not accept Linden have a legal right to without their obligations under the leasehold agreement.
12. I would remind you that Linden does not have the right to impose on me a contractual relation with a third party i.e. UKCPM. Nor to levy a specific set charge payable to a third party for any failure to comply (with UKCPM now seeks to recover) and which is separate to the Service Charge or the Estate Rent charge (or the additional contribution to those which is provided for in the Lease).
13. I refer you to the case of Jopson v Homeguard, Pace V Mr N and Saeed v Plustrade, which are authority for the proposition that parking company cannot override a resident’s preexisting parking rights. It was held in those cases that parking restrictions (including the introduction of a permit system) and parking charges which caused detriment to the residents was in breach of the principle that “a grantor shall not derogate from his grant”.
14. Even if a permit/parking system were permitted, there is no provision in the Leasehold for either you or the Landlord to require me to pay a ‘charge’ of £100 for failure to comply with it (or for UKCPM to do on your behalf). Nor is there any provision to inexplicably add £50 to the charge. UKCPM has no right whatsoever to pursue me for a breach of contract because no contract with them can exist
15. When I became aware of the permit system following the PCN on the 17th of June 2018, I decided, purely for convenience and not because I accepted any right Linden have to impose any obligation on me (or any penalty/charge for failing to comply with such obligation) that I would display one.
16. If you were a part to the engagement of UKCPM, my position is that you have no right to pursue a system that penalises those who already enjoy an unfettered right to park in their leasehold.
17. Since I have a good leasehold to the parking space and since neither you have any right to interfere with my leasehold rights other than in respect of any stipulated clauses, you had no right to allow or request UKCPM to unilaterally impose upon me a contractual obligation to display a permit or otherwise pay them £100. Nor to authorise them to enter my Parking Space to issue my vehicle with a PCN or for any other reason, because they do not have my authority to do so and such authority is not in your gift.
18. There has also been a breach of my rights under the Data Protection Act. To aggravate the matter, UKCPM have continued to pursue me through their legal representatives, processing my data without any legal justification. If you were a party to the engagement of UKCPM, then UKCPM is acting as your agent, having been authorised by you to carry out its parking management. Making you jointly and severely liable for its breaches of the Data Protection Act.
Basis of the claim

19. If it was you who contracted with UKCPM to provide parking services/introduce and enforce a permit system, then you have unlawfully interfered with my rights to use and occupy the Parking Space and to the easement granted to me by LR11.1 of the lease.
20. You have attempted to impose upon me unreasonable and onerous new obligations towards a third party, by engaging UKCPM to manage parking on the Estate, by which you have authorised them to demand that I display a permit and that I pay £100 “charge” for any failure to do so each time. Neither you nor the Landowner are entitled to impose such conditions prior to the PCN, nor do those clauses empower you to impose upon me a contractual relationship with a third party. Furthermore, to the extent that you are entitled, you neither gave me notice of such new obligations prior to the PCN, nor do those clauses empower you to impose upon me a contractual relationship with a third party. Furthermore, to the extent that you are entitled to impose a parking regime on me, any breach of its terms is a matter between me and you/the Landowner. It is not a matter for UKCPM.
21. You have allowed and/or commissioned a trespass on the Parking Space by UKCPM on 17th of June 2018 for which you are jointly and severely liable.
22. You have allowed and/or commissioned a breach of my rights under the Data Protection Act by UKCPM which you are jointly and severally liable.
23. As a result of your actions, I have suffered damage and distress and I will seek an award of damages against you in the sum of £899 in respect of the following:
i. Interesting with my rights under the Lease by seeking to impose regulations which are not reasonable, do not aid my use and enjoyment of the Property or the Estate, and which are incompatible with my rights (which I put at £500 – this is calculated with reference to the amount being sought from me (£150 and rising), the amount of time I have already had to spend dealing with the issue and court fees which will be added if UKCPM carries out its threat to sue me);
ii. Trespass (£150, a sum equivalent to the amount UKCPM is currently seeking to recover from me); and
iii. Breaching of my Data Protection Act rights (£250).

24. I intend to join you as a party to any proceedings UKCPM issues against me and will make a counterclaim against you in the terms above. Alternatively, I may choose to issue a sperate claim. I will also seek costs against you (court fees plus my time at £19 per hour).

Summary of claim:
25. Any changes you are entitled to make under the terms of the lease must be reasonable and protect the easements ‘use and enjoyment’ of the Property and other properties on the Estate and they must not be incompatible with my rights under the Lease. The intention and meaning of the clauses is not so that you can restrict my use and enjoyment of the property and impose unreasonable obligations upon me, nor interfere with my right to quiet enjoyment.
26. The right to introduce changes does not include the right to impose a contractual relationship between me and a third party (UKCPM) in relation to the Property, nor the right to impose a specific charge, payable to a third party (UKCPM), for any breach of those regulations, nor does it permit you to impose onerous obligations in respect of the Parking Space to which I already had communally exclusively rights and the right to quiet enjoyment.
27. In authorising/requiring UKCPM to carry out management of the car parking on the Estate, including the Parking Space, and authorising/requiring them to introduce and enforce a permit system, you have acted outside of the leasehold terms and breached my right to quiet enjoyment of easements without interruption.
28. In the alternative should the lease agreement authorise you to introduce a permit system, via a third party, you failed to give me any notice of the new “regulation” or at all and neither did you provide me with a permit, leaving me unaware of and unable to comply with the new “regulation”.
29. UKCPM have no right to enter my property, you therefore have no right to authorise UKCPM to enter my property in order to put a PCN on my vehicle. This unauthorised entry was a trespass for which you are jointly and severely liable along with UKCPM.
30. UKCPM acting on your behalf has breached my rights under the Data Protection Act, for which you and UKCPM are jointly and severely liable.
The relief claimed:
The seems to be two options open to you in order to avoid being joined as a party to the proceedings:
A. To intervene with UKCPM and arrange the cancellation of the PCN.
B. In line with Lindens obligations under covenant 6 of the Deed of Covenant to pay a sum of money to me so that I can settle the amount being claimed and to compensate me for your breach of contract. £150 is required to settle the PCN. And I ask for a further £350 to compensate me for your breach of contract (total of £500). If you pay this then I will agree not to pursue a claim in trespass or for breach of my Data Protection Rights. However, I require written confirmation from you that you have instructed UKCPM (and will instruct any new PPC engaged by you to operate on the Estate) that it must not enter onto the Parking Space if my car should occupy it for any reason.
Documents I upon which I will rely:
A copy of the lease which you already have.
A copy of the covenants accompanying the lease which you already have.
A copy of the travel plan for the sight which you already have.
Email from Karen Day at Linden Homes

Next steps:

I refer you to the Practice Direction – Pre Action Conduct. Part of the Civil Procedure Rules governing civil litigation, which can be found on the internet in the following link:
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct
The practice direction sets out the steps that each party to a dispute of this nature is expected to follow before resorting to court proceedings. I refer you to paragraphs 13-16 of the Practice Direction, which sets out the costs consequences of any failure to comply with it. I also refer you to paragraph 6, in particular 6C which obliges you to produce the documents upon which you will rely if this matter proceeds.

Umkomaas

This is not a detailed proof read, but these are significant pieces that jumped out at me on a cursory skim read. You really need to get this fully checked if you're going to let a Judge see what it is you've written and what your case actually is.

1. Lidens/Lindens

2. Where/were

3. be my lease/by my lease

4. impact ay of the easements/impact any of the easements

5. if I do not explicitly agree it do (no idea?)

6. the parking space has not been made available to yet (.... to you yet?)

7. (with UKCPM now seeks to recover) - 'which'?

8. preexisting - pre-existing

9. Even if a permit/parking system were permitted - was?

10. Making you jointly and severely liable - severally.

11. 17th of June 2018 for which you are jointly and severely liable. - and another!

12. You have allowed and/or commissioned a breach of my rights under the Data Protection Act by UKCPM which you are jointly and severally liable. - got it right this time!

13. i. Interesting with my rights under the Lease by seeking to impose regulations which are not reasonable, - doesn't make sense!

14. 24. I intend to join you as a party to any proceedings UKCPM issues against me and will make a counterclaim against you in the terms above. - AIUI you can't make a counterclaim against someone who is not claiming against you.

15. 29. UKCPM have no right to enter my property, you therefore have no right to authorise UKCPM to enter my property in order to put a PCN on my vehicle. This unauthorised entry was a trespass for which you are jointly and severely liable along with UKCPM. - back at it again!

16. 30. UKCPM acting on your behalf has breached my rights under the Data Protection Act, for which you and UKCPM are jointly and severely liable - and yet again, don't hold back!

17. Documents I upon which I will rely: - ??

18. A copy of the travel plan for the sight which you already have. - site

19. I refer you to the Practice Direction – Pre Action Conduct. Part of the Civil Procedure Rules governing civil litigation, which can be found on the internet in the following link:
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct - have you checked out the 2017 Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims which I understand supersedes this? IANAL, but you do need to check this out before quoting from potentially outdated legislation.

As it stands, a lack of attention to detail (so much of it above) is unlikely to have a great deal of credibility. Needs a lot more tightening and further researching before you put a stamp on that envelope.

StClements

Thank you so much for your feedback Umkomaas, really appreciated. Lots of grammar errors, my apologies, I just didn't see them, going to print it out and eye ball now, made all the corrections required that you've identified:

Dear Sirs,

RE: Parking ticket issued 17th June 2018. by UKCPM reference: 2081333
LETTER BEFORE CLAIM
I am writing to put you on notice that I intend to add you as a party to proceedings which UKCPM Ltd are threatening to bring against me, and that I intend to make a claim against you within those proceedings (or by way of a separate claim) for damages in respect of breach of contract.
UKCPM’s claim, and my claim against you for damages, relate to a parking charge notice (“PCN”) issued by UKCPM to my car on the 17th June 2018 at my address listed above. In total the amount of £150.00 is being sought from me.
UKCPM base their claim on a contract they entered into with the Linden/Gaillford Try (the freeholder), to provide parking services on the Estate of which my address above is a part. This letter assumes you were part of that contract.

Summary of the facts

1. On 2nd of June 2017 I purchased from LCTC (together with my partner) a lease of address above.
2. By Virtue of the Lease I purchased the leasehold title to the Property for a term of 250 years. The Property, as set out above, comprised the flat and a number of easements defined as LR11.1 detailed under schedule 4 of the Unit Lease (‘my lease’) agreement between Galifford Try PLC and LCLT and Liden Ltd.
3. Under schedule 4 of my lease paragraph 10 “The right for the residents employees and visitors ..of the tenants of the demised premises to park motor vehicles in any of the residents parking spaces”
4. Further the deed of covenant agreed by Linden accompanying my lease states in paragraph 6 “LINDEN covenants with the Tenant to observe and perform the convents on the part of the Owner contained in the section 106 Agreement and will indemnify the Tenant against any non-observance ..of the same”
5. The ‘Travel Plan’ (Planning document: PA_15_03538_S) subject to this section 106 Agreement and commissioned by Liden, states in section 6.4 that a “total of 32 car parking spots are to be provided” for the residents.
6. The lease granted to me and my partner contains various rights and imposed upon us various obligations. Likewise, it granted and imposed various rights/obligations to/upon Linden and Galliford Try PLC.
7. The lease therefore does not limit and nor can limit my use of the Parking Space, of which I have communally exclusive occupation – and in respect of which I have been granted the right of quiet enjoyment (see easements in LR11.1).
8. Without any prior agreement with myself UKCPM were suddenly engaged in parking management on the Estate. The have been allowed to introduce a permit system by which any car parked without a permit is issued a charge. I continued to park as I was entitled to by my lease which does not require me to display a ticket nor has Linden at any point issued me one.
9. It was only when I was issued with a ticket on 17th June 2018 that I noticed that parking sign had been installed some distance from my parking bay. Although the height at which it has been placed and the small size of the font used mean I cannot clearly read what it says.
10. Nowhere in the lease does it give you the right to vary the terms of the lease neither have any of terms ever been varied with my knowledge or consent. Should you at a future date seek to vary them and impact any of the easements I enjoy within my lease, if I do not explicitly agree to it, my silence does not mean tacit approval.
11. When I received a PCN I complained to UKCPM and Linden that I had not received a permit. Only Linden responded informing me that the easement “spaces have not been released and will be retained by Linden Homes “. I do not accept Linden have a legal right to without their obligations under the leasehold agreement.
12. I would remind you that Linden does not have the right to impose on me a contractual relation with a third party i.e. UKCPM. Nor to levy a specific set charge payable to a third party for any failure to comply (which UKCPM now seeks to recover) and which is separate to the Service Charge or the Estate Rent charge (or the additional contribution to those which is provided for in the Lease).
13. I refer you to the case of Jopson v Homeguard, Pace V Mr N and Saeed v Plustrade, which are authority for the proposition that parking company cannot override a resident’s pre-existing parking rights. It was held in those cases that parking restrictions (including the introduction of a permit system) and parking charges which caused detriment to the residents was in breach of the principle that “a grantor shall not derogate from his grant”.
14. Even if a permit/parking system was permitted, there is no provision in the Leasehold for either you or the Landlord to require me to pay a ‘charge’ of £100 for failure to comply with it (or for UKCPM to do on your behalf). Nor is there any provision to inexplicably add £50 to the charge. UKCPM has no right whatsoever to pursue me for a breach of contract because no contract with them can exist
15. When I became aware of the permit system following the PCN on the 17th of June 2018, I decided, purely for convenience and not because I accepted any right Linden have to impose any obligation on me (or any penalty/charge for failing to comply with such obligation) that I would display one.
16. If you were a part to the engagement of UKCPM, my position is that you have no right to pursue a system that penalises those who already enjoy an unfettered right to park in their leasehold.
17. Since I have a good leasehold to the parking space and since neither you have any right to interfere with my leasehold rights other than in respect of any stipulated clauses, you had no right to allow or request UKCPM to unilaterally impose upon me a contractual obligation to display a permit or otherwise pay them £100. Nor to authorise them to enter my Parking Space to issue my vehicle with a PCN or for any other reason, because they do not have my authority to do so and such authority is not in your gift.
18. There has also been a breach of my rights under the Data Protection Act. To aggravate the matter, UKCPM have continued to pursue me through their legal representatives, processing my data without any legal justification. If you were a party to the engagement of UKCPM, then UKCPM is acting as your agent, having been authorised by you to carry out its parking management. Making you jointly and sever liable for its breaches of the Data Protection Act.
Basis of the claim

19. If it was you who contracted with UKCPM to provide parking services/introduce and enforce a permit system, then you have unlawfully interfered with my rights to use and occupy the Parking Space and to the easement granted to me by LR11.1 of the lease.
20. You have attempted to impose upon me unreasonable and onerous new obligations towards a third party, by engaging UKCPM to manage parking on the Estate, by which you have authorised them to demand that I display a permit and that I pay £100 “charge” for any failure to do so each time. Neither you nor the Landowner are entitled to impose such conditions prior to the PCN, nor do those clauses empower you to impose upon me a contractual relationship with a third party. Furthermore, to the extent that you are entitled, you neither gave me notice of such new obligations prior to the PCN, nor do those clauses empower you to impose upon me a contractual relationship with a third party. Furthermore, to the extent that you are entitled to impose a parking regime on me, any breach of its terms is a matter between me and you/the Landowner. It is not a matter for UKCPM.
21. You have allowed and/or commissioned a trespass on the Parking Space by UKCPM on 17th of June 2018 for which you are jointly and severally liable.
22. You have allowed and/or commissioned a breach of my rights under the Data Protection Act by UKCPM which you are jointly and severally liable.
23. As a result of your actions, I have suffered damage and distress and I will seek an award of damages against you in the sum of £899 in respect of the following:
i. interfering with my rights under the Lease by seeking to impose regulations which are not reasonable, do not aid my use and enjoyment of the Property or the Estate, and which are incompatible with my rights (which I put at £500 – this is calculated with reference to the amount being sought from me (£150 and rising), the amount of time I have already had to spend dealing with the issue and court fees which will be added if UKCPM carries out its threat to sue me);
ii. Trespass (£150, a sum equivalent to the amount UKCPM is currently seeking to recover from me); and
iii. Breaching of my Data Protection Act rights (£250).

24. I intend to join you as a party to any proceedings UKCPM issues against me and will make a claim against you in the terms above. Alternatively, I may choose to issue a sperate claim. I will also seek costs against you (court fees plus my time at £19 per hour).

Summary of claim:
25. Any changes you are entitled to make under the terms of the lease must be reasonable and protect the easements ‘use and enjoyment’ of the Property and other properties on the Estate and they must not be incompatible with my rights under the Lease. The intention and meaning of the clauses is not so that you can restrict my use and enjoyment of the property and impose unreasonable obligations upon me, nor interfere with my right to quiet enjoyment.
26. The right to introduce changes does not include the right to impose a contractual relationship between me and a third party (UKCPM) in relation to the Property, nor the right to impose a specific charge, payable to a third party (UKCPM), for any breach of those regulations, nor does it permit you to impose onerous obligations in respect of the Parking Space to which I already had communally exclusively rights and the right to quiet enjoyment.
27. In authorising/requiring UKCPM to carry out management of the car parking on the Estate, including the Parking Space, and authorising/requiring them to introduce and enforce a permit system, you have acted outside of the leasehold terms and breached my right to quiet enjoyment of easements without interruption.
28. In the alternative should the lease agreement authorise you to introduce a permit system, via a third party, you failed to give me any notice of the new “regulation” or at all and neither did you provide me with a permit, leaving me unaware of and unable to comply with the new “regulation”.
29. UKCPM have no right to enter my property, you therefore have no right to authorise UKCPM to enter my property in order to put a PCN on my vehicle. This unauthorised entry was a trespass for which you are jointly and severally liable along with UKCPM.
30. UKCPM acting on your behalf has breached my rights under the Data Protection Act, for which you and UKCPM are jointly and severally liable.
The relief claimed:
The seems to be two options open to you in order to avoid being joined as a party to the proceedings:
A. To intervene with UKCPM and arrange the cancellation of the PCN.
B. In line with Linden’s obligations under covenant 6 of the Deed of Covenant to pay a sum of money to me so that I can settle the amount being claimed and to compensate me for your breach of contract. £150 is required to settle the PCN and I ask for a further £350 to compensate me for your breach of contract (total of £500). If you pay this then I will agree not to pursue a claim in trespass or for breach of my Data Protection Rights. However, I require written confirmation from you that you have instructed UKCPM (and will instruct any new PPC engaged by you to operate on the Estate) that it must not enter onto the Parking Space if my car should occupy it for any reason.
Documents upon which I will rely:
A copy of the lease which you already have.
A copy of the covenants accompanying the lease which you already have.
A copy of the travel plan for the site which you already have.
Email from Karen Day at Linden Homes

Next steps:

I refer you to the Pre Action Protocol For Debt Claims. Part of the Civil Procedure Rules governing civil litigation, which can be found on the internet in the following link:
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/protocols/debt-pap.pdf

StClements

I've received a response from the builder to my LBC, the essence of which was telling me to do one. They're happy to meet me on court.

Separately and probably more importantly, I have received an MCOL which I have acknowledged online so I guess that means I need to draft up my defense.

Does anyone know if it possible to join my counterclaim against UKCPM with my claim against the builder(leaseholder)?