Letter Before Claim - SCS Law & UKPC - Please Advise

CVKTA

Wow! I hadn't come across this thread.
Kudos to you Gunner on all fronts!
I'm hoping not to have to attend a court date. I'm hoping that sense will prevail and UKPC will see that they do not have a case against me as per the wording within my lease.

Would people recommend sending them a copy to try and clear it up as per the Pre-Action Protocol, or insist that they should have their own/go and attain their own?!

Thaks

Coupon-mad

I think you have done enough under the PAP.

I agree with the others that checking the primacy of contract in the leases of the residents BEFORE starting 'enforcement' (for that read 'private nuisance') at the site, was expected as a bare minimum and UKPC should already have a copy and can easily get a copy of the head lease if they want to read the generic words.

You WILL get a court claim unless you can persuade the Managing Agent to tell UKPC to do one, as they should have done before they signed the contract.

Private residential car parks DO NOT need scumbag PPCs at all, ever.

At most (if they suffer from trespassers using their site as a car park) such locations need a gate or cheap, lockable parking posts.

NOT ex-clamper thugs like UKPC marauding around looking for excuses to fine residents.

CVKTA

Thanks Coupon-mad.
The email tennis will continue.

CVKTA

Good day all,

Just fired off the latest reply. Posted below for viewing...


I believe I have done enough and more to meet any requirements under the Pre-Action Protocol, I have been fully compliant with your client’s requests and there has been a full open dialogue between us since your initial correspondence.

On a letter to you dated 14th March 2019 and under the Pre-Action Protocol, I graciously provided the relevant excerpts from my Lease document. This was done without any requests from you to view this documentation and I was under absolutely no obligation to provide you with this.

I’m struggling to express my confusion as to why your client would set up a contract with a landowner without carrying out due diligence to confirm that they had the right to form legitimate contracts with leaseholders? Surely this would be a bare minimum before setting up their operation? I refer you back to my letter dated 14th March 2019.

If astonishingly your client does not have a copy of the head lease then this is readily available for a mere £3.00 from the HM Land Registry. The Pre-Action Protocol states that costs incurred in complying with a pre-action protocol should be proportionate. I am willing to forego any costs that I have incurred with photocopying and printing during our correspondence, so in the interest of fairness I don’t believe a minimal spend by your client to attain the documents that they bizarrely claim not to have that they need to pursue this nefarious claim is an unlawful ask.

Yours Sincerely

CVKTA

Hi all,

It's been a while, but I've received a response from SCS LAW in response to the above. See below and any comments, inputs would be appreciated:


"Re: UK Parking Control Ltd



I write further to our previous correspondence on this matter. I have received a copy of the leasehold agreement and taken our client's instructions in respect of the same.



It is our client's position that the leasehold agreement allows for the introduction and management of parking controls at the site.



Our client notes that Part 2 of the Third Schedule (page 15) of the leasehold agreement grants a tenant the "exclusive right to park one private motor vehicle on the parking space". However, paragraph 22 of the Third Schedule (page 21) requires the Lessee, "at all times during the Term to observe the Regulations". Regulations is defined in paragraph 1.12 (page 8) as, "the regulations at present force which are set out in the Seventh Schedule or those for the time being in force pursuant to such Schedule 6.4". Clause 6.4 of the Provisos (page 12) states, "the Company may at any time or times during the Term in the interest of good management impose such regulations of general application regarding the Estate as it may in its absolute discretion think fit in addition to or in place of the Regulations".



The Estate is defined in the Particulars (page 5) as, "the land now or formerly registered at HM Land Registry under title number WM823761". The parking space is derived under the ownership of the land and therefore Clause 6.4 would apply and allow for regulations to be introduced. Regulations can include the introduction of a parking scheme.



The vehicle was parked in breach of the terms and conditions of parking at the site, by being parked in a permit holder parking space, without clearly displaying a valid permit. Therefore, it is our client's position that the PCNs were validly issued.



I trust this clarifies our client's position and I look forward to receiving your response in due course."

Thanks
CVKTA

CVKTA

Hi All,

I've studied SCS's response further and their stated: paragraph 22 of the Third Schedule (page 21) requires the Lessee, "at all times during the Term to observe the Regulations". is a direct quote from my lease which is absoutely fine.

They then went on to quote: Clause 6.4 of the Provisos (page 12) states, "the Company may at any time or times during the Term in the interest of good management impose such regulations of general application regarding the Estate as it may in its absolute discretion think fit in addition to or in place of the Regulations". but failed to quote the rest of the wording from the lease :
(But so that any such regulations shall not conflict with this Lease) and the company shall have power in its absolute discretion to revoke amend or add to such regulations or any additions thereto.


Going back to the original statement within my lease of the "exclusive right to park one private motor vehicle on the parking space"


Am I correct in thinking (as common sense tells us) that that particular caveat within the lease was obviously not for these parking scumbags to try to utilise!? And also that under Primacy of Contract AND the above mentioned "(But so that any such regulations shall not conflict with this Lease)" that they again have no leg to stand on?


Looking for feedback from my fellow UKPC haters...

Thanks

CVKTA

Le_Kirk

..... and just in case it hasn't been mentioned on this thread yet, any changes to terms of lease regarding parking (and probably anything else) has to go through a consultation process with more than 75% of leaseholders agreeing and not more than 10% disagreeing.

CVKTA

Le_Kirk, thank you for your input.

On this point, I’ve just noticed that from my move in date (June 2014) I was furnished with the agreement between UKPC and my MA which has a start date of September 2014 and a contract run period of 12 months. This would of course take us up to September 2015.
I’ve moved house now but as a resident in September 2015 I never received any notice of renewal of the agreement between ukpc and my MA.

Would this constitute going against your terms mentioned above?

I know this all leads back to my Primacy of Contract but a layered defence always helps!

Thanks

CVKTA

Hi all,

Does anyone else have any ideas or inputs that they could add at all?

Any help appreciated.

Many thanks

CVKTA

Coupon-mad

I agree with what you have posted and all are worth using in the court defence. As I said earlier:

I think you have done enough under the PAP.

I agree with the others that checking the primacy of contract in the leases of the residents BEFORE starting 'enforcement' (for that read 'private nuisance') at the site, was expected as a bare minimum and UKPC should already have a copy and can easily get a copy of the head lease if they want to read the generic words.

You WILL get a court claim unless you can persuade the Managing Agent to tell UKPC to do one, as they should have done before they signed the contract.

Private residential car parks DO NOT need scumbag PPCs at all, ever.

At most (if they suffer from trespassers using their site as a car park) such locations need a gate or cheap, lockable parking posts.

NOT ex-clamper thugs like UKPC marauding around looking for excuses to fine residents.