Advice county court claim, BW legal

Fruitcake

Your other job is to produce a Summary Costs Assessment. This should include ordinary costs plus additional costs for unreasonable behaviour.

The scammers should have taken due care and diligence to ensure they had authority to operate on your private property before commencing operations on the site.
They should have cancelled the charge and never commenced proceedings as soon as they were aware the land was private property.

The MA is jointly culpable for this if they neglected to do their own checks on land ownership before contracting with the scammers, and/or failing to warn the scammers that this particular space was owned by you.

You do need to take care however that the parking space is freehold as opposed to leasehold. 

Le_Kirk

If you can attach it using the insert an image or insert a URL we should be able to see it.  You will probably have to detach it from you e-mail and save it to your hard drive.  Sometimes just copying and pasting into the body of the reply box works, otherwise you will have to use an image hosting site and use the URL method.
The managing agent is an agent, you need to get hold of the management company.  Are all the leaseholders not directors of the management company?  Before Link parking were appointed was there a consultation of leaseholders and a vote to ensure that 75% of them agreed and no mote than 10% disagreed to the appointment?

Coupon-mad

No-one said you can't attach debt letters.  Not that they assist, particularly. They are not the sort of evidence I list in my suggestions for this stage in the NEWBIES thread.  Where it shows an example WS, typical exhibits, and costs assessment (it's all there for you already).

We simply told you that your cannot attach THAT letter.

Coupon-mad

LOL, there doesn't have to be a challenge by residents.  If the MA failed to follow the law then the set up breaches that law.

Le_Kirk

jvf1000 said:

Reply to Le_ Kirk. In my defence I had made a reference to S 37 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 in which a right to impose  unilateral terms which vary the terms of the lease must be approved by at least 75% of the leaseholder and to my knowledge I was unaware on any such vote being passed.
Response to my defence by BWlegal  was, Whilst my comments are noted  our client ( Link Parking) is not aware of any challenge or enforcement action being taken (or contemplated) against the managing agents by the residents regarding any alleged breach of section 37 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. For all intents and purposes, Our client was engaged to enforce the contractual terms of parking and there is no evidence to the contrary that the Management company is not entitled to engage a third party to manage the car park

There may be no evidence to the contrary BUT is there favourable evidence that the ManCo were entitled and empowered by the leaseholders/freeholders to engage such a parking company?

Le_Kirk

Speak to other leaseholders/tenants to see if they took part in a consultation.  Speak to the property manager and ask for a copy of the outcome of the vote of ALL leaseholders.
Cannot see any attached contract!

Were_Doomed

That contract (all 2 pages of it) is redacted and as such it is meaningless. It certainly falls foul of the legislation governing contracts ... one of our esteemed colleagues may be along shortly to expand on this.

Le_Kirk said:

Speak to other leaseholders/tenants to see if they took part in a consultation.  Speak to the property manager and ask for a copy of the outcome of the vote of ALL leaseholders.
Cannot see any attached contract!

Contract was posted here.

nosferatu1001

Have you seen jonnersh thread about redactions? In shirt they are not permitted to do so.  

You simply challenge them to show the MA had the authority. And if they don't, then they're screwed but that's a matter between them and th3 MA. ITS NO BUSINESS OF YOURS that the ppc failed to show any reasonable diligence, when they KNOW o4 should have known that leases would be involved. 

You can sue the ma fir tortious interference with th3 terms of you4 lease. 

Le_Kirk

Were_Doomed said:

That contract (all 2 pages of it) is redacted and as such it is meaningless. It certainly falls foul of the legislation governing contracts ... one of our esteemed colleagues may be along shortly to expand on this.

Le_Kirk said:

Speak to other leaseholders/tenants to see if they took part in a consultation.  Speak to the property manager and ask for a copy of the outcome of the vote of ALL leaseholders.
Cannot see any attached contract!

Contract was posted here.

I see it now.  Contract = toilet paper

Were_Doomed

nosferatu1001 said:

Have you seen jonnersh thread about redactions? In shirt they are not permitted to do so.  

You simply challenge them to show the MA had the authority. And if they don't, then they're screwed but that's a matter between them and th3 MA. ITS NO BUSINESS OF YOURS that the ppc failed to show any reasonable diligence, when they KNOW o4 should have known that leases would be involved. 

You can sue the ma fir tortious interference with th3 terms of you4 lease. 

The contract is so redacted that you can't even tell who it is with! Could be the freeholder - could be the MA. If it's with the MA, where's the provenance that this has been engaged with the authority of the freeholder?

PS - your keyboard looks faulty  

(Post edited to include quote, for clarity).