Link parking residential claim

System

They’ve had two similar cases, the one I think you refer to, that they lost as the lease gave the owner of the flat access rights to the parking space that couldn’t be altered. However, they also won a case where I believe a tenancy agreement signed by the defendants allowed the site management company to impose parking restrictions. This was Link Parking v Blaney, I’ve tried to, but haven’t managed to find the court transcripts. Does anyone on this forum have a link they could kindly provide to them?

Coupon-mad

You won't find Link v Blaney posted by the Parking Prankster. Someone else on pepipoo suggested maybe he was gagged? Who knows?

But he's never shown the transcript despite posting about the build up to the case.

Sadly, Link v Blaney was a case featuring the same notoriously aggressive 'lay rep' whose behaviour was exposed in the transcript of the UHW Nurses case, which was a very bad loss. In that case, the lay rep in question was held by the Judge to have displayed wholly unreasonable conduct in emails and in court (for details, see the transcripts posted by bargepole on here and on pepipoo).

The facts of that hearing and what was said are in the public domain and make your hair stand on end if you take the time to read it:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/73265359#Comment_73265359

Hence I wouldn't bother to read Link v Blaney, albeit I believe the legendary & knowledgeable poster Emanresu who posts occasionally on pepipoo forum (not here any more) had access to a copy if you really want to read that apparently badly pleaded case. By way of balance, there is nothing in the Link v Blaney transcript about unreasonable conduct, but it will just put you off and isn't comparable to other cases for lots of reasons.

I do know the lease in Blaney actually said something specific about 'making regulations' and I think it was worded more detrimentally than most leases that just allow a MA to introduce REASONABLE regulations for good management in the interests of residents...

...which a parking regime imposing onerous charges and obligations that are so bad that they create a private nuisance and would require a variation of the lease, is not!

System

Thanks for all that info, very interesting to read!

The reason I ask about Link vs Blaney is because I think my lease might contain a similar clause to the one that you refer to as being more detrimental than usual.

On a more positive note, after visiting my MP yesterday, he's had trouble himself with these PPCs before and he's going to write to both them and BW legal to tell them to drop their court claim.

I've also learned that the PPC made an agreement with the site management company to not ticket residents provided they can prove they live there and the car is theirs. I'll try and get a copy of this from the MA, not sure what if any legal force it has though.

Coupon-mad

I've also learned that the PPC made an agreement with the site management company to not ticket residents provided they can prove they live there and the car is theirs. I'll try and get a copy of this from the MA, not sure what if any legal force it has though.

That is your silver bullet. Don't just try to get it - persist and insist.

System

Sent my reply to BW legal by recorded delivery on the 28th of May (the deadline they set to hear back was the 30th) and emailed them the same thing on the 30th. They’ve replied today with the below:



Good Morning

Thank you for your email, the contents of which have been noted on file.

Please find attached photographic evidence of the contravention and an image of the signage from the site from the date of the contravention.

Our client is engaged by the landowner of the Car Park to manage and enforce the parking conditions in situ. For all intents and purposes, our client has a legitimate commercial interest and sufficient standing to (a) issue Parking Charge Notices (PCN) as a result of the terms and conditions being breached and (b) bring proceedings in its own name. Please be aware that the contract between Our Client and the landowner is a legally privileged document which you have no right to inspect. However, should this matter progress to court, the contract will be adduced as evidence.

The signage situated across the Car Park forms a unilateral offer to anyone wishing to park their vehicle at the location. As the offer is a unilateral one, there is no need for the motorist to communicate their acceptance; the performance of parking in accordance with the terms and conditions is the act of acceptance. The signs are prominent and the terms and conditions are clearly displayed, and the motorist would have had the opportunity to read and understand them on parking at the Car Park. An objective observer would consider this action to have been done in acceptance of the terms and conditions.

The terms and conditions (referred to in the paragraph above), which you accepted upon entering the Car Park, are clear and unambiguous. The terms make it clear that you should clearly display a valid permit to park. As your vehicle was parked at the site without clearly displaying a valid permit, it was parked in breach of the Terms and Conditions.

As a result of the breach, Our Client is well within their contractual rights to issue the PCN and take all necessary steps (including bringing legal proceedings) to recover the outstanding charge. Please note that Our Client will not accept a settlement for this Account, therefore the Outstanding Balance remains Due and Owing.

We trust this now concludes any outstanding queries you had raised with ourselves. It is important that you now contact us in order to discuss an affordable payment arrangement.

Should you wish to discuss this matter further, please contact our office on 0113 487 0432.

Kind Regards,

bwlegal

Should I reply at all? Looks like a generic cut and paste response to me.

System

Urgent help please!

My partner has been issued a county court claim form from BW legal for Northampton crown court. She did not receive the email from BW Legal that I posted above, but has followed exactly the same steps and sent exactly the same letters to BW Legal that I have.

Link to the claim form:
hxxps://xxx.dropbox.com/s/o5i14o8arjgivlf/IMG_1363.JPG?dl=0

They obviously haven't put the case on hold as the letter they were sent stated they should, also, how can we move the case from Northampton court to a closer one?

Many thanks for any help you can provide!

Redx

that claim came from an office in Northampton, not a court there (the CCBC is a government office , not a court, the court has a different address completely)

the court local to the defendant will be mentioned at DQ stage later in this process

read and follow post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread, doing the AOS online first (the defendant does this, nobody else)

the defendant needs to email a SAR to the DPO at the PPC asap (if its not been done already) with a scan or pic of the N1 form with name and address showing, as proof of ID

then draft the defence and post it below , for critique

post the ISSUE DATE , top right of the N1 form, for further guidance

System

Thanks, issue date is 05 June 2019, should we wait until the end of the 14 day period before replying or just do it as soon as we have our defense ready?

Redx

as I said , your partner does the AOS online asap, nobody is going to be replying to anything at all

KeithP will give detailed instructions on what to do including doing that AOS online

YOU were told to read post #2 of the NEWBIES thread (as should your partner because your partner is the one on the receiving end of this court case, not you)

read the links, especially the BARGEPOLE one that tells you both what happens and when (we dont tell you to read stuff for no reason)

ps:- there is no S in DEFENCE

Redx

just read through this thread and post #1 states that YOU received the letters and that YOU were named as the driver (so NOT your partner)

if all that is true and you have not misled us, then YOU should have been the person named on the N1 court claim form, NOT YOUR PARTNER

presumably your PARTNER,s name is on the V5C as keeper, but if you were named as driver then YOU should have received this court claim, NOT your partner

this may be significant, if true, if post #1 is incorrect and it was your partner receiving the letters, then these facts need to be clarified

The person named on the N1 form has to deal with this, even if its to state that they are not liable because they named the driver (ie:- named YOU)