Parking in own space - Gladstoned

[Deleted User]

A quick update on this one - and a question: it turns out not to have been a mistake when Northampton allocated the case to London, which is a considerable distance for the defendant to travel. Apparently, the Thames Valley county courts have such a high workload that they're having to shift cases to London (I wonder if the high workload is anything to do with the parking scammers!)


As part of the submission to the court (copy to claimants within 14 days of case) we were hoping to get a definitive answer from the managing agents as to whether or not the defendant explicitly agreed to display a parking permit to park in his own space - he doesn't recall signing any such undertaking. The managing agents are being most unhelpful and will not provide a definitive answer to this question: "Can you please highlight to me where in the lease agreement (page and row) it states that as part of the parking management I agreed to display a parking permit". Their answer is, "on signing the lease you accepted all covenants. You are therefore subject to all regulations introduced at any point during the term of your lease agreement ..." Further, they say, "The introduction of controlled parking was one of these [covenants] and details of the scheme were sent to individual owners by PPM".


Any thoughts on the legality of this, and how it might affect the case? Thanks.

The_Deep

Their answer is, "on signing the lease you accepted all covenants. You are therefore subject to all regulations introduced at any point during the term of your lease agreement .

Only if they are reasonable surely, appointing a scammer is not. They deter tenants and lower resale values.

[Deleted User]

According to Parking Prankster they can't just vary the terms of the lease unilaterally anyway. We've sent one final request to the managing agent for a definitive answer, explaining to them that it's required in a forthcoming county court case; I'm not hopeful of a positive (i.e. unambiguous) response.


In cases such as these, where a managing agent is involved, is there an opportunity to hit them for costs, as well as the scammers, if we win?

Guys_Dad

Why don't you just refer the managing agent to the legal requirement to get consent from 75% of leaseholders for any variations such as the introduction of a PPC, ask them why they didn't comply and threaten legal action if the charge is not withdrawn.

The_Slithy_Tove

johnsmith1890 wrote: »

According to Parking Prankster they can't just vary the terms of the lease unilaterally anyway. We've sent one final request to the managing agent for a definitive answer, explaining to them that it's required in a forthcoming county court case; I'm not hopeful of a positive (i.e. unambiguous) response

Have you asked them when they are available to attend court to be questioned on this matter in person?

The_Deep

Try posting on here as many letting agents read it..

https://forums.landlordzone.co.uk/

[Deleted User]

Sorry guys, another quick question: in talking to someone who recently won an almost identical case to the one here, he stated that even if the scammers don't turn up they can still win a case, based on their submissions to the court. Is this right? I thought they had to turn up, otherwise they automatically lost.

Quentin

You have been correctly advised

Redx

No one from either side has to turn up in person, it's not mandatory

If the claimant or defendant tells the court they are not attending , usually 2 weeks or more before the hearing, they confirm that the case can be heard on papers

Sometimes both sides do this, it's not unusual for these scenarios to happen and yes a claimant could win on papers, as could a defendant

[Deleted User]

Redx wrote: »

No one from either side has to turn up in person, it's not mandatory

If the claimant or defendant tells the court they are not attending , usually 2 weeks or more before the hearing, they confirm that the case can be heard on papers

Sometimes both sides do this, it's not unusual for these scenarios to happen and yes a claimant could win on papers, as could a defendant

Okay, thanks. Early on in this case Gladstones requested the case to be held 'on papers' and we rejected this. So they can still have it held 'on papers' as far as they are concerned? I'm beginning to think this is what they might do, given the inconvenience of the court location - inconvenient for both parties, I would say.