IMPORTANT REMINDER: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information. If you are uploading images, please take extra care that you have redacted all personal information.
Court Report - Guildford - Another UKCPM Claim Bites The Dust
bargepole
Forumite 3.2K Posts
Case No.: E4GF9T29 – UK Car Park Management Ltd. -v- Miss C, before District Judge Trigg
Claimant represented by Mr Ajike, solicitors’ agent
Defendant attended in person, with lay representative Mr Bargepole
Order: Claim dismissed, Claimant to pay Defendant’s witness costs of £105.40 within 21 days.
Miss C had been a leaseholder of the flat at New Central, Woking, since 2011, and UKCPM were brought in to operate a permit scheme in 2013. The underground car park can only be accessed by means of a key fob, issued to all residents. Some spaces are numbered, and allocated to specific flats, while the rest are unmarked, and available on a first come, first served basis. She had parked in one of these.
Her lease grants her a right to park, subject to vehicles being taxed and roadworthy, with no commercial vehicles, caravans or trailers permitted.
The Claimant’s case was that, because the lease has a clause saying that the landlord, or managing agent, can impose regulations for the efficient management of the estate, this entitled the Claimant to rely upon that, and the terms of its signage.
Our case was that any such regulations had to be consistent with the lease terms, and this was not, it would have required a properly executed variation of lease. We relied on Jopson, Noor, and Parkinson. Alternatively, the Claimant’s signage stated ‘Authorised Vehicles Only’, and she was de facto authorised by virtue of possessing a key fob.
The DJ was well up to speed on all these issues, having heard many similar cases previously, and she ruled that any regulations imposed must be reasonable. It was not reasonable to attempt to penalise a leaseholder who was parking in accordance with the terms of her lease. If she had been parking in someone else’s marked bay, or blocking an exit, the Claimant may have an arguable case, but in this case they didn’t. The sign also did not create any contractual liability, so the claim must fail.
For Mr Deep's benefit, we did apply for further costs for unreasonable behaviour, but the DJ ruled that was a high threshold which had not been met in this case, although she did comment that the WS filed by Gladstones was 'very poor'.
Claimant represented by Mr Ajike, solicitors’ agent
Defendant attended in person, with lay representative Mr Bargepole
Order: Claim dismissed, Claimant to pay Defendant’s witness costs of £105.40 within 21 days.
Miss C had been a leaseholder of the flat at New Central, Woking, since 2011, and UKCPM were brought in to operate a permit scheme in 2013. The underground car park can only be accessed by means of a key fob, issued to all residents. Some spaces are numbered, and allocated to specific flats, while the rest are unmarked, and available on a first come, first served basis. She had parked in one of these.
Her lease grants her a right to park, subject to vehicles being taxed and roadworthy, with no commercial vehicles, caravans or trailers permitted.
The Claimant’s case was that, because the lease has a clause saying that the landlord, or managing agent, can impose regulations for the efficient management of the estate, this entitled the Claimant to rely upon that, and the terms of its signage.
Our case was that any such regulations had to be consistent with the lease terms, and this was not, it would have required a properly executed variation of lease. We relied on Jopson, Noor, and Parkinson. Alternatively, the Claimant’s signage stated ‘Authorised Vehicles Only’, and she was de facto authorised by virtue of possessing a key fob.
The DJ was well up to speed on all these issues, having heard many similar cases previously, and she ruled that any regulations imposed must be reasonable. It was not reasonable to attempt to penalise a leaseholder who was parking in accordance with the terms of her lease. If she had been parking in someone else’s marked bay, or blocking an exit, the Claimant may have an arguable case, but in this case they didn’t. The sign also did not create any contractual liability, so the claim must fail.
For Mr Deep's benefit, we did apply for further costs for unreasonable behaviour, but the DJ ruled that was a high threshold which had not been met in this case, although she did comment that the WS filed by Gladstones was 'very poor'.
I have been providing assistance, including Lay Representation at Court hearings (current score: won 56, lost 14), to defendants in parking cases for over 5 years. I have an LLB (Hons) degree, and have a Graduate Diploma in Civil Litigation from CILEx. However, any advice given on these forums by me is NOT formal legal advice, and I accept no liability for its accuracy.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Latest MSE News and Guides
Replies
Given the poor claims in general from Gladstones, could there be a case to have them sanctioned under the Mental Health Act ??
It is no wonder that Gladstones have turned themselves into a huge joke
I honestly think they don't care. It's a money tree for them. Even when they lose they charge the client for their time.
Probably right ..... give a thought to the dummy PC's as it's only back street legals that are available to them
The rubbish Gladstones again
they think that a captive audience is fair game, well its not and it shouldnt be either, so they deserve a good kicking at each and every opportunity
well done BP and Miss C
They have no place there whatsoever, not even in a location where it's near a station or airport, etc.
All they need is a gate/key fobs for residents, or parking posts. Maybe a few polite PRIVATE LAND - RESIDENTS ONLY signs as a deterrent, too. No scammer needed at all.
Maybe the only way to achieve that is for more people to take a leaf out of Sassii's book and sue the Managing Agents and refuse to have the costs added to leaseholder fees later, make them suck it up and realise what they are doing to residents. I hope Sassii succeeds.
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
I like your thoughts but these people are not real solicitors, they are rogue traders who attracts other rogue traders like a magnet
Gladstones carries no respect, they have killed off any reputation they may have had and above all a company nobody can trust.
It's a sad tale about Gladstones, they did it all by themselves by inventing the great IPC scam and a fake IAS.
Government know about them, the courts know about them, the SRA know about them, we know about them
It's now a case of getting this scam closed down
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5858504
How Judges entertain these cases and do not sanction the Claimants for unreasonableness in these cases is anyone's guess - read that one and the fact there was ONE photo, from the back, while the driver turned and used a bay to give way to another leaving driver...
Seems like fraud to me.
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD