Parking in own space - Gladstoned

Coupon-mad

I'm not sure whether proceeding with a case almost identical to one they lost earlier would necessarily qualify.

Search for res judicata.

Might our inflexibility in this mater be held against us by the judge?

Unlikely. Of course the scammer should not just rock up with some cardboard signs operate in a residential car park without undertaking due diligence to protect and pay regard to any existing rights and easements.

Le_Kirk

johnsmith1890 wrote: »

Still doesn't work. What's the delimiter for a string search " ' # * or something else (the double and single quotes don't seem to work)?

Search this Forum, Advanced Search, put beamerguy in User Name (note LOWER CASE) add Abuse of Process in keyword(s), change radio button from threads to posts, search now. Gets you loads of posts, amongst them, [URL="https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6014081one[/COLOR][/URL].

[Deleted User]

Jus dotting the i's and crossing the t's on this one, ready for the case next week. I looked at res judicata but it seemed only to apply to instances of repeated harassment of the same defendant - is that right? Our argument is that an almost identical case has recently been lost, so why are they pursuing this one?


The scammer's main thrust, in their WS, is this:


The defendant alleges he has a right to park his vehicle on the Relevant Land under his lease. However, at paragraph 4.2 of the lease it states "That the Leaseholder and the persons deriving title under the Leaseholder will at all times to comply with such reasonable regulations as the Landlord my make from time to time ...". As such, the Landlord agreed to any commencement of a parking enforcement scheme under the Lease.

Leaving aside the apparent mistake of mentioning the Landlord in the last sentence, when presumably it should be the Leaseholder, what's the stock argument against this point?

KeithP

Simple.

The introduction of a parking enforcement scheme that penalises any resident for parking in their rightful place cannot under any stretch of the imagination be described as a reasonable regulation.

[Deleted User]

KeithP wrote: »

Simple.

The introduction of a parking enforcement scheme that penalises any resident for parking in their rightful place cannot under any stretch of the imagination be described as a reasonable regulation.

I like it. Thanks.


The costs schedule here:


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/72079752#Comment_72079752


Examples seem to be from 2017. Where can I find current rates?

KeithP

The rates have not changed.

Umkomaas

Jus dotting the i's and crossing the t's on this one, ready for the case next week. I looked at res judicata but it seemed only to apply to instances of repeated harassment of the same defendant - is that right? Our argument is that an almost identical case has recently been lost, so why are they pursuing this one?

Do you mean the identical case was lost against you? If so, then res judicata applies. If it was against someone else, then it doesn't.

[Deleted User]

Umkomaas wrote: »

Do you mean the identical case was lost against you? If so, then res judicata applies. If it was against someone else, then it doesn't.

Sorry, badly worded. A neighbour with the same parking arrangements, same PPC, same lease, and the same issue - parking in own space whilst not displaying a permit - won the case about three weeks ago (Gladstones didn't turn up).

[Deleted User]

Another point - we've got the WS from Gladstones. Their main thrust is that we didn't demonstrate to them that the property lease exempts us from having to display a parking permit (it says nothing about parking permits)

.

Isn't this disingenuous or at least putting the cart before the horse? If your lease is based on one that was drawn up prior to the involvement of the PPC it self evidently is not going to make your entitlement to park a car conditional on the display of a permit, much less contain an exemption clause.

In any case the lease will contain provisions entitling you to pass and re pass over the land. Classic jopson v homeguard when loading/unloading.

Permits are a tool to identify resident vehicles. It would be possible for the PPC to manage the site by maintaining registration numbers of cars. In seeking to charge a penalty against an individual who is resident and entitled to park they are introducing a contractual charge not required or permitted in the lease - it actually restricts your right (assuming the lease does include a specific bay within the demise with no permit rule etc).

Reasonable regulations are, for example, don't leave shoes by your front door at the top of the stairs/fire escape because they're a trip hazard to others. A chore if you've muddy boots, but not impinging your use of your demised property.

[Deleted User]

Johnersh wrote: »

.

Isn't this disingenuous or at least putting the cart before the horse? If your lease is based on one that was drawn up prior to the involvement of the PPC it self evidently is not going to make your entitlement to park a car conditional on the display of a permit, much less contain an exemption clause.

In any case the lease will contain provisions entitling you to pass and re pass over the land. Classic jopson v homeguard when loading/unloading.

Permits are a tool to identify resident vehicles. It would be possible for the PPC to manage the site by maintaining registration numbers of cars. In seeking to charge a penalty against an individual who is resident and entitled to park they are introducing a contractual charge not required or permitted in the lease - it actually restricts your right (assuming the lease does include a specific bay within the demise with no permit rule etc).

Reasonable regulations are, for example, don't leave shoes by your front door at the top of the stairs/fire escape because they're a trip hazard to others. A chore if you've muddy boots, but not impinging your use of your demised property.

Thanks for these points. I've included the gist of this in notes for the hearing.