District Enforcement - Chancers!

Coupon-mad

Good for you, tentatively.

Why are they saying you cannot opt out?! I think they need legal advice.

Of course you can reject a wholly unsuitable and punitive permit scheme that interferes with your lease!

Tentatively

Cheers Coupon,


I received a letter in the post on the 1st March from the estate managers litigation department acknowledging the LBA and requesting documentary evidence. They're investigating the matter with the PMC so I've bunged all of the correspondence between myself, District and the Property Management Company in a zip file and sent it across with this letter:

Thank you for your response dated 1st March 2019.

No formal action has yet been taken as I wasn’t sure if I had sent the letter to the correct address due to the address being changed on the Companies House website recently.

Please find attached documentary evidence to support my allegations.

Please note the signage photographed on the site in the document titled ‘Appeal reply from District Enforcement’. Inspired have stated in their correspondence that they have contracted with District Enforcement under a sweeping up clause to provide for the benefit of the tenants and occupiers of the Building.

The reason ‘A valid permit is not clearly on display in the windscreen’ is attempting to restrict the parking on our space whereas the Lease has specified no such restriction. This clause allows for the pursuing of occupiers who rightfully park in accordance with their original lease which to the best of my knowledge, has not been lawfully altered to restrict parking in such a way as required by the Landlord and Tenants Act.


If a permit is lost or stolen, a resident would be required to purchase a new permit at cost to themselves. If they decide not to purchase that piece of paper or cannot afford to do so, they would be hounded by a private parking company for the £100 charge and possibly pursued in the courts. That is certainly not to the benefit of any tenant or occupier.

This would be a derogation from grant as this renders the property materially less fit for the purpose for which the lease was granted to the tenant and, as a result of that change, the tenant’s enjoyment of the benefit has been negatively affected.

I would like to draw attention to the fact that even when confronted with their own evidence proving no parking contravention had been committed, District Enforcement refused to cancel the parking charge and threatened court action.


I stated in my correspondence to Inspired that a breach of data protection regulations had occurred when District requested my personal details from the DVLA knowingly, under false pretence. The DVLA allows the requesting of driver details under the following conditions:



a) Landowners or their agents who offer car parking facilities under specific terms and conditions to contact drivers who may have parked their vehicle in breach of the parking conditions.

b) Trespass companies who issue charge notices where parking is not permitted.

The regulations related to parking as specified in Schedule 5 of the Lease (‘The Regulations’) are as follows:

1. Not to bring or keep any inflammable, explosive, dangerous or offensive substances or goods onto the Property or Building (except fuel in the tank of any private
   
2. Not to use the Parking Space other than for the parking of a private motor car or private motorcycle which has an MOT certificate if required and which is in the regular use of the Tenant or other occupier of the Property.
3. Not to park any vehicles on the external areas of the Retained Parts (other than in the Parking Space).

As I was never in breach of any of these parking conditions, nor their illegally imposed conditions, their request of my personal data was also unlawful.


Again, we would prefer this matter to be settled informally or via Alternative Dispute Resolution. However, as a matter of principle, I am prepared to challenge this in the courts if necessary.

Yours sincerely, Tentatively

I've contacted the Leasehold Advisory Service and they've stated that it is indeed derogation from grant and the sweeping up clause cannot be used to restrict parking in such a manner.



Interested to see how they'll reply.

Tentatively

So after countless letters back and forth between myself, the freeholder's legal counsel and the property management agent, they're both refusing to remove District or exempt me from their parking scheme. Not really much I can do without paying to take it to court which I'm not going to be doing as I've decided to up sticks and move within the next 6-8 months.

However, it seems like I'll get my day in court after all!

Just received a LBC from Gladrags stating I owe £160, after I've had written confirmation from the property management agent that the PCN had been rescinded.

I'm not going to bother contacting the freeholder's legal counsel or the property management agent to have them call of their dogs, instead I'm going to let them take me to court where I'll turn up with written evidence from the property management company that the PCN had been rescinded.


I intend to claim costs and damages also, feel free to throw some ballpark figures of what I should be looking to claim :beer:

beamerguy

Tentatively wrote: »

However, it seems like I'll get my day in court after all!

Just received a LBC from Gladrags stating I owe £160, after I've had written confirmation from the property management agent that the PCN had been rescinded.

I'm not going to bother contacting the freeholder's legal counsel or the property management agent to have them call of their dogs, instead I'm going to let them take me to court where I'll turn up with written evidence from the property management company that the PCN had been rescinded.

I intend to claim costs and damages also, feel free to throw some ballpark figures of what I should be looking to claim :beer:

Go and get Gladstones whooped, that's if they even turn up ?

Normal costs awarded is about £95

Get you costs schedule in

Tentatively

Grabbed this from an example in the NEWBIES thread?



Schedule of costs

Research and preparation of defence as litigant in person @£18 per hour,
6 hours. Total £108.

One day off work to attend hearing @£16 per hour X 5 hours (Is this after tax or before? )
£80

Mileage driven to attend court and return will be x miles @ £0.45 per mile

Car parking on day of hearing
£ Unknown

Umkomaas

I'm not going to bother contacting the freeholder's legal counsel or the property management agent to have them call of their dogs, instead I'm going to let them take me to court where I'll turn up with written evidence from the property management company that the PCN had been rescinded.

Be careful, you can't spring an ambush in court, you are required to narrow the issues to avoid court.

This might backfire and it may be the claimant asking this question:

feel free to throw some ballpark figures of what I should be looking to claim

Tentatively

I'm intending to include the cancellation as part of my defence, if they were to then discontinue after reviewing the confirmation of cancellation in writing from the Property Management Company, I'm assuming I'd still be able to claim costs?


And if they still continued to proceed, I would have already made them aware that I had received confirmation of it being cancelled and it wouldn't be an ambush.

Umkomaas

I'm assuing I'd still be able to claim costs?

Generally only nominal costs in the small claims court if you win - up to £95 towards a half day's pay/annual leave, fares or mileage to and from the hearing @0.45ppm, and the cost of any parking on the day.

Anything else you will need to convince the Judge that the claimant has behaved unreasonably - a pretty high bar, we rarely see such additional awards.

https://www.moneyclaimsuk.co.uk/litigant-in-person-costs-and-expenses.aspx

Tentatively

Umkomaas wrote: »

Anything else you will need to convince the Judge that the claimant has behaved unreasonably - a pretty high bar, we rarely see such additional awards.

In Clohessy v Homes (2003), the DJ granted the Defendants an unreasonable costs order, where he it was held that on any objective assessment, the claim was likely to have failed from the outset.


I'd wager I could put in for unreasonable costs, considering the permit was displayed and then the charge subsequently cancelled as the property management company agreed it was visible. District viewed this photograph, denied my appeal and have proceeded to chase me after instruction from the property management company to desist. Thoughts?

Umkomaas

Thoughts

I think this will never get to court. It will follow a well trodden path of lots of pressure from G's, letter of discontinuation a few days before the hearing.

I don't think you're going to get the satisfaction of meeting any Judge.