LBC - stage 2 response help please

Pat26

I wrote this second response below to Gladstones few weeks back still disputing the debt. Gladstones have rejected it saying their client, the parking company has the authority to issue parking charges on the relevant land and they are satisfied the parrking charges were issued correctly. What was wrong with my second response (below) and before I draft my third response what can I say differently. 

"I am the leaseholder and resident of <Flat number, name etc>. The Lessor <name> is the landlord of the

private land where the <flat> is situated and where the parking

charge was issued. At the time of the issue of the parking charges the vehicle registered <reg number> was parked in a parking space on the Manager’s Land which is defined in the lease

as the area of the land within the Estate from time to time provided for the communal use

and enjoyment of residents of Apartments and/or Houses on the Estate (but subject to

reduction or variation from time to time) together with any other area adjacent to it which

is designated from time to time as part of the Manager’s Land including (but not limited to)

any gate lodge and entrance gates and other security gates and any security cameras and

their supports and all boundary walls railings fences Common Parts Roads Accessways and

Footpaths and the car parking areas including the Parking Space and any Visitor’s Parking

Spaces within the Estate and the Refuse Areas and Cycle Stores and the landscaped areas

and other parcels of land (if any) on the Estate that are nominated from time to time by the

Builder as being part of the Manager’s Land TOGETHER WITH the Transmission Media

serving more than one property on the Estate. The lease does not define any clauses for

display of any permit when parking on the Manager’s Land. I have not received any

variations to this lease from the Lessor and the manager stating the requirement of

displaying corresponding permit to the bay in which the vehicle is parked on Manager’s

Land, prior to the issue of parking charges by your client." 

Where did I go wrong or what should I add? 

Pat26

This was the response I received from Gladstones
"Our Client has authority to issue parking charges on the Relevant Land. In any event, your charges were issued when parking in a visitors bay and therefore we are satisfied the parking charges were issued correctly."

The full sum of <£££> remains outstanding. We are sorry this is not the answer you were hoping for however we are willing to work with you to come to a suitable arrangement.

We are prepared to accept <£££ - 100> without prejudice or alternatively we are open to the option of a payment plan for the full sum of <£££>. If this is something you wish to discuss, please confirm the amount you wish/are able to pay monthly for us to review.

In the absence of a substantive response or payment of the settlement sum within 30 days of this email, our Client may elect to issue legal proceedings without further notice. Please note you are always at liberty to seek your own independent legal advice or Citizens Advice Bureau to discuss your options further."

Pat26

A draft of my third response (thanks to Fruitcake!) - please review. Note, the client in this response is the parking company and this letter is to Gladstones

"At the time the parking charge was issued I was parked in a Visitor's Parking Space within the estate. The Visitor's Parking Space is part of the Manager's Land. There is no requirement in my lease to display a permit when parking in Visitor's Parking Space.

In accordance with Section 37 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 the Manager cannot vary my lease without a ballot of all landlords and leaseholders.

The Lessor or the Manager has not notified me of such a ballot and provided me with an updated lease. 

If such a ballot required by the Section 37 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (the law) was carried out without my knowledge, what was the result, why was I not provided with an updated lease and who will be appearing in court to confirm these changes under oath?

If no ballot was taken, then my lease remains as originally provided to me. It has primacy of contract over anything your client says."

Hope this is sufficient. Sometimes less is more.  Do I need to add that the parking company (Gladstone's client) isn't party to my lease and/or that I have acted in accordance to my lease and/or reference to the "the right to peaceful enjoyment"?

Coupon-mad

You can't stop a court claim by writing to Gladstones but it's good that you have engaged because the Judge will want to see that evidence later.  When we say you 'can't stop a court claim' that is all we mean - this will not stop the claim, but bring it on! 

This is where you get a fair hearing and win this year.  Scam over.  

We see almost every poster win their case or many are discontinued when Gladstones give up, shortly before hearings.  There is a 99% win rate here (in cass where people follow all our advice from defence through to hearing) and has been since we started counting, some 5 years ago.  And there is no CCJ risk as long as you follow our advice.

D_P_Dance

Have you read this?

https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/www.gladstonessolicitors.co.uk

Pat26

Pat26 said:

A draft of my third response (thanks to Fruitcake!) - please review. Note, the client in this response is the parking company and this letter is to Gladstones

"At the time the parking charge was issued I was parked in a Visitor's Parking Space within the estate. The Visitor's Parking Space is part of the Manager's Land. There is no requirement in my lease to display a permit when parking in Visitor's Parking Space.

In accordance with Section 37 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 the Manager cannot vary my lease without a ballot of all landlords and leaseholders.

The Lessor or the Manager has not notified me of such a ballot and provided me with an updated lease. 

If such a ballot required by the Section 37 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (the law) was carried out without my knowledge, what was the result, why was I not provided with an updated lease and who will be appearing in court to confirm these changes under oath?

If no ballot was taken, then my lease remains as originally provided to me. It has primacy of contract over anything your client says."

Hope this is sufficient. Sometimes less is more.  Do I need to add that the parking company (Gladstone's client) isn't party to my lease and/or that I have acted in accordance to my lease and/or reference to the "the right to peaceful enjoyment"?

Any thoughts on this?

Coupon-mad

You can’t ask Gladstones what the result of a ballot was (whether one took place or not) as they don’t know. 

Reword it to make sense and tell them things as fact. No questions. 

Pat26

Reworded to provide the facts (please note this is LBC to Gladstones and their client is PCM):

"In the notice provided by your client the reason for issue is parked in a bay without displaying corresponding permit to the bay in which the vehicle was parked.

There is no requirement in my lease to display a permit when parking in a Visitor's Parking Space. 

In accordance with Section 37 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 a lease cannot be varied without a ballot of all landlords and leaseholders and any variation to my lease has to be notified in writing by the Landlord to me as the Tenant. The Landlord has not notified me of any variation therefore my lease remains as originally provided to me. My lease has primacy of contract over your client’s notice or any other contract I am not party to that may be used by your client with regards to this matter."

Hope the above is sufficient.
Can I also confirm - I was in a visitor bay. The lease says it's for visitors. I was using the bay under the instructions of the management company but exceeded the time allocated to me by the management company because I was sick. I have proof of this situation with letters from MC and COVID tests etc. I explained this to Gladstones in my first reply to LBC but Gladstones didn't empathise (what was I thinking expecting a humane reaction!!). So back to the facts - PCM issued PCN for not displaying a permit. My lease says nothing about displaying a permit in a visitor parking space. If this gets to court I hope there's logic and circumstances to tip the balance my way. 

Pat26

In addition to the above I was also thinking when a parking company obtain the registered keeper details and if the address is the same as that of the very land they operate in, is their common sense so lacking that they don't stop to think that their target is a resident whose leaseholder/tenant rights they have been indirectly assigned (through a contract with the land's manager) to protect. 

Fruitcake

Pat26 said:

In addition to the above I was also thinking when a parking company obtain the registered keeper details and if the address is the same as that of the very land they operate in, is their common sense so lacking that they don't stop to think that their target is a resident whose leaseholder/tenant rights they have been indirectly assigned (through a contract with the land's manager) to protect. 

They know exactly what they are doing, and all they see is ££££££££££.