Claim Form, 2 contract breaches, own parking space, no permit displayed, Link Parking

Elo88

Hi,

Seen all of these, thank you. I have not complained to the MP. I called the Management Company but they couldn't help. Obviously I have no transcript of that.

What got me worried is that I found this gem in my Lease:


The agent states they didn't hire Link Parking, they say the Developer did. Does the text in yellow mean I have to comply to what the PCC signs say? Nothing in my contract about permits or the PCC.

Thanks,

Jenni_D

What does leave or part mean?

Elo88

I think it's a typo, should be 'park'? lol

I read it that I cannot park anything in a way that obstructs parking spaces or passageways. Exception is my own parking space where I can park a 'domestic vehicle'. To my understanding I observed these terms. 

I am concerned about the text in yellow, would you think this means I should comply to PCC's regulations?

Thanks,

Coupon-mad

Phone calls are utterly pointless and I have no idea why people think calling is helpful or why so many people just reach for their phone these days for something important, where you need to evidence and a paper/email trail.

Your phone call is as useful in evidence as the paper it is written on...

You need to get it confirmed by email that the managing agent did NOT introduce any parking regulations and that it is a hangover of something imposed by the developer when the properties were built. Not an obligation imposed by the managing agent or current landowner (unless the Developer is still the owner of the estate?).

Le_Kirk

You should demand from the management company the dates when any consultation with leaseholders/freeholders/residents was carried out and what was the outcome of the vote to change the parking arrangements.  This has to be done in line with the Landlord & Tenant Act.

Half_way

Le_Kirk said:

You should demand from the management company the dates when any consultation with leaseholders/freeholders/residents was carried out and what was the outcome of the vote to change the parking arrangements.  This has to be done in line with the Landlord & Tenant Act.

As above, one of the things with residential "own space" issues is that people must be pro active in dealing with the issues around them

Fruitcake

Le_Kirk said:

You should demand from the management company the dates when any consultation with leaseholders/freeholders/residents was carried out and what was the outcome of the vote to change the parking arrangements.  This has to be done in line with the Landlord & Tenant Act.

... and landlords, in accordance with Section 37 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.

Elo88

Hi all,

Thanks for your posts above, your help is highly appreciated!

I wrote to management company on Friday, may be too late but still I will have something to show in court.

I also finished my defence, basing on @eagle5's defence. I used the 'TEMPLATE DEFENCE - NEW FROM OCTOBER 2020' only modifying the content below, leaving the other paragraphs unchanged. Can you tell me what you think please?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2.         It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. It is admitted that the Defendant is the Lessee to Plot 102 which is inclusive of one allocated parking space.

3.     Under the terms of the Defendant's lease, a number of references are made to conditions of parking motor vehicles. ‘Allocated Parking Space’ is defined as ‘ the parking space marked with the same plot number as the Property and shown edged green on the Plan’

The defendant's lease states in paragraph 4 (v) Use: “(...) 4. The tenant must not leave or park so as to cause any obstruction in or on any parking spaces or passageways forming part of the Premises any motor vehicle, motorcycle, bicycle or other item belonging to or used by the Tenant or occupier of the Premises or by any of his or their friends, servants or invitees. The tenant must observe all regulations made by the Management Company from time to time relating to the parking of such vehicles. The tenant must not park any caravan or boat on any private garden or any parking space or on any other part of the Premises or the Estate.”

In SCHEDULE 1 (Rights and easements granted), at paragraph 6, “The right to use the Allocated Parking Space (if any) for the parking of a domestic motor vehicle only.”.

The Defendant, at all material times, parked in accordance with the terms granted by the lease. The erection of the Claimant's signage, and the purported contractual terms conveyed therein, are incapable of binding the Defendant in any way, and their existence does not constitute a legally valid variation of the terms of the lease. Accordingly, the Defendant denies having breached any contractual terms whether express, implied, or by conduct.

There are no terms within the lease requiring lessees to display parking permits, or to pay penalties to third parties, such as the Claimant, for non-display of same.

The defendant's lease also states in paragraph 5.1 Quiet Enjoyment: “The Tenant paying the Rents and performing and observing the covenants and conditions on the part of the Tenant herein contained the Landlord shall permit the Tenant peaceably and quietly to hold and and enjoy the Premises during the Term without any interruption or disturbance from or by the Landlord or by any person lawfully claiming through under or in trust for the Landlord.”

 4.         The Claimant, or Managing Agent, in order to establish a right to impose unilateral terms which vary the terms of the lease, must have such variation approved by at least 75% of the leaseholders, pursuant to Section 37 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1987. There is a maximum number of dissenters to the ballot permitted according to the Act, which is 10%, and no such ballot has been carried out therefore, no such variation of lease can be legally enforced upon the defendant or any other leaseholder.

Coupon-mad

That's good.   

I would add that there was a permit in the vehicle and you believe it was visible even if it may have slipped, and the Claimant it put to strict proof that the car as check from all windows.

You need more paragraph numbers, of course.

NB:  As leaseholders with allocated spaces, why have you and your neighbours allowed Link Parking to remain onsite, unchallenged? 

You have no reason to put up with living like this and having to display a poxy permit to park in YOUR space. Whatever next, a permit to use your own toilet or shower?

Get them kicked out by writing to the Managing Agents and all leaseholders signing to say that this is interfering with your leasehold rights and would have required a consensus vote, as per the L&T Act and that none of you voted for this regime and you want the contract ended now and no other parking firm appointed.

Elo88

Thank you, @Coupon-mad this is very helpful! I included new points now as per your suggestions. he final version of my defence below (paras 2 & 3 to the standard template replaced with the text below).

I already wrote to the managing agent, let's see what they say.

On the side note, is this sentence - from the original 2020 template correct? : 

"(b) that any hearing is not vacated but continues as a costs hearing," I googled the term 'costs hearing' but couldn't find anything? Should this not be a 'court hearing' instead?


My DEFENCE:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The facts as known to the Defendant:

2.         It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question but liability is denied. It is admitted that the Defendant is the Lessee to Plot 102 which is inclusive of one allocated parking space.

3. It is admitted that at all times there was a parking permit in the vehicle, which the Defendant believes was visible even if it had slipped off the dashboard. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the car was checked from all windows.

4.      Under the terms of the Defendant's lease, a number of references are made to conditions of parking motor vehicles. ‘Allocated Parking Space’ is defined as ‘the parking space marked with the same plot number as the Property and shown edged green on the Plan’

5. The Defendant's lease states: 

In paragraph 4 (v) Use: “(...) 4. The tenant must not leave or park so as to cause any obstruction in or on any parking spaces or passageways forming part of the Premises any motor vehicle, motorcycle, bicycle or other item belonging to or used by the Tenant or occupier of the Premises or by any of his or their friends, servants or invitees. The tenant must observe all regulations made by the Management Company from time to time relating to the parking of such vehicles. The tenant must not park any caravan or boat on any private garden or any parking space or on any other part of the Premises or the Estate.”

In SCHEDULE 1 (Rights and easements granted), in paragraph 6: “The right to use the Allocated Parking Space (if any) for the parking of a domestic motor vehicle only.”.

6. There are no terms within the lease requiring lessees to display parking permits, or to pay penalties to third parties, such as the Claimant, for non-display of same.

7. The Defendant, at all material times, parked in accordance with the terms granted by the lease. The erection of the Claimant's signage, and the purported contractual terms conveyed therein, are incapable of binding the Defendant in any way, and their existence does not constitute a legally valid variation of the terms of the lease. Accordingly, the Defendant denies having breached any contractual terms whether express, implied, or by conduct.

8. The Defendant's lease also states in paragraph 5.1 Quiet Enjoyment: “The Tenant paying the Rents and performing and observing the covenants and conditions on the part of the Tenant herein contained the Landlord shall permit the Tenant peaceably and quietly to hold and enjoy the Premises during the Term without any interruption or disturbance from or by the Landlord or by any person lawfully claiming through under or in trust for the Landlord.”

9. The Claimant, or Managing Agent, in order to establish a right to impose unilateral terms which vary the terms of the lease, must have such variation approved by at least 75% of the leaseholders, pursuant to Section 37 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1987. There is a maximum number of dissenters to the ballot permitted according to the Act, which is 10%, and no such ballot has been carried out therefore, no such variation of lease can be legally enforced upon the defendant or any other leaseholder.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Once again huge thanks for your help people