County court claim from Parking and property maintenance and BW legal (own space)

rotster

That's what I thought might be happening - and I'll do that. Many thanks :-)

D_P_Dance

I own the property in question (leasehold). The allocated parking space is included in the lease.

Read this

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/324523-ukpc-liable-for-trespass-success/#

and this

https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/residential-parking.html

Complain to your MP. On 18th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these private parking companies. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, and persistent offenders denied access. Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers.

Until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

rotster

Many thanks - will check these out.

rotster

Hi - as ever, many thanks for the advice above, which is hugely helpful.

I have now submitted my witness statements, following which one of the cases has been dropped (after a subject access request showed that the parking attendant had photographed the permit on the passenger seat), the other has not.

Their witness statement from BWL on behalf of the manco seems to hnag on a clause in the lease, which they say gives the manco/freeholder the right to impose a parking scheme/charge:

The company may at any times during the term hereby granted in the interests of good estate management impose such regulations of general application regarding the development of flats and parking spaces therein as it may be in its absolute discretion to think fit in addition or in place of the Regulations (but so that any such regulation 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 or substitutions thereof.

Is there any advice/precedent on this? Could the introduction of a parking scheme be said to conflict with the lease in that the lease grants me the right to:

"peaceably hold and enjoy the Property during the Term hereby granted without interruption by the Developer or any person rightfully claiming under or in trust for it"?

It certainly feels like my peaceable enjoyment of the property has been interrupted. Any advice ahead of the hearing in a few weeks would be greatly appreciated.

Many thanks again for all the advice so far.

Umkomaas

Read this thread, particularly the reported judgment given by the Judge at the end of the hearing. While a county court judgment doesn't necessarily carry any weight in other hearings, the reasons behind the judgment will give you food for thought in defending your case.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5969018

First of all, I would like to give a very big thank you to the great people on this forum who have helped me with this case. You all deserve a very big pat on the back.

Myself and my Lay rep were in court today and both claims have been struck out.

The main argument that the Judge summarized on was that there was no consideration in the contract. The point is that the parties must exchange something of value. Consideration is needed so that both parties incur some sort of burden or obligation in the agreement. VCS could not offer me anything of value as I was already parked in my own demised parking bay, so no contract could exist.

I also had £250 cost awarded in my favor but the claim for unreasonable behavior was not entertained.

Elements of a Contract. The requisite elements that must be established to demonstrate the formation of a legally binding contract are (1) offer; (2) acceptance; (3) consideration; (4) mutuality of obligation; (5) competency and capacity; and, in certain circumstances, (6) a written instrument.

rotster

Many thanks, @Umkomaas - this is super helpful, I hadn't thought about this angle. In the section on 'Formation of Contact' in their WS, the claimant states 'The Claimant has provided their part of the contract by providing a space for the Defendant to park within', which of course they haven't as it is mine in accordance with the lease - and seems to bring their whole argument tumbling down! Many thanks again :-)

Umkomaas

rotster wrote: »

Many thanks, @Umkomaas - this is super helpful, I hadn't thought about this angle. In the section on 'Formation of Contact' in their WS, the claimant states 'The Claimant has provided their part of the contract by providing a space for the Defendant to park within', which of course they haven't as it is mine in accordance with the lease - and seems to bring their whole argument tumbling down! Many thanks again :-)

What a neck these companies have!

Go after them for a chunk of costs on the basis they had no case to ever pursue in the first place, and this unreasonableness on their part has caused you significant time costs to research and prepare your defence as well as unbearable stress placed on you and your family.

rotster

I‘m just heading out to do exactly that for the case they dropped

Le_Kirk

The company may at any times during the term hereby granted in the interests of good estate management impose such regulations of general application regarding the development of flats and parking spaces therein as it may be in its absolute discretion to think fit in addition or in place of the Regulations (but so that any such regulation 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 or substitutions thereof.

"peaceably hold and enjoy the Property during the Term hereby granted without interruption by the Developer or any person rightfully claiming under or in trust for it"?

I would say that the two items are mutually exclusive, you cannot peaceably enjoy if someone can go round changing the rules. Also what happened to the Landlord and Tenant Act whereby there has to be a consultation and 75% of the residents/leaseholders/owners have to agree to changes with no more than 10% disagreeing?

rotster

Thanks, @Le_Kirk - this is kinda what I was thinking too. And even if they do have the right to impose new regulations, one could reasonably expect them to explicitly state that that is what they are doing, I would have thought.