Permit displayed inside car and motorcycle parked in same bay received ticket - Link Parking

D_P_Dance

Jenni_D said:

Unfortunately a £10 claim may be frowned upon under de minimis - a trivial matter which should not waste the court's time.

It may, but it may not. I do not think that attempting to obtain monies to which you are not entitled is trivial.  

Jenni_D

D_P_Dance said:

Jenni_D said:

Unfortunately a £10 claim may be frowned upon under de minimis - a trivial matter which should not waste the court's time.

It may, but it may not. I do not think that attempting to obtain monies to which you are not entitled is trivial.  

#1 congrats on using the quote function

#2 Do you have too many negatives in your reply? You seem to be contradicting your previous assertion.

I stand by my previous comment - a court is reasonably likely to treat a £10 claim as frivolous (trivial) whereby the costs of claiming far outweigh the sum to be recovered, so de minimis may well apply.

Fruitcake

You need to look at the terms in your lease/rental agreement, and the Head Lease if there is one.
The MA failed to answer your questions. You should ask them what the head lease says, and ask them to provide any and all legally binding documentation between or flowing from the landowner to you that states you must display a permit, and that an unregulated private parking company can issue charges and court claims against you.

If there is a lease of any kind, it cannot be varied without a ballot in accordance with Part IV, Section 37, of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. There must be a majority in favour and less than a specified number of votes against as defined by the Act before a lease can lawfully be changed.

The PPC is not a party to the lease, it is a stranger, and has no say in the matter.
All landlords and leaseholders must be included in the ballot.

Requiring you to provide details of the bike is an unfair contract term, and void for impossibility if it is not in your lease or communicated to you in writing before the PCN was issued.

As for doing an IAS appeal, win or lose it will cost the PPC money.

Fruitcake

Jenni_D said:

D_P_Dance said:

Jenni_D said:

Unfortunately a £10 claim may be frowned upon under de minimis - a trivial matter which should not waste the court's time.

It may, but it may not. I do not think that attempting to obtain monies to which you are not entitled is trivial.  

#1 congrats on using the quote function

#2 Do you have too many negatives in your reply? You seem to be contradicting your previous assertion.

I stand by my previous comment - a court is reasonably likely to treat a £10 claim as frivolous (trivial) whereby the costs of claiming far outweigh the sum to be recovered, so de minimis may well apply.

I seem to recall a PPC once made a claim for £1, and it was allowed.

Jenni_D

I imagine that was an exception rather than the rule though. Also, any claim filed via MCOL will likely just be robo-processed - it won't get considered properly until a judge sees it.  

I assume that defendant used de minimis in their defence?  

D_P_Dance

#1 congrats on using the quote function

Why, is is no big deal?

WRT your argument, you may be right, you may be wrong.  It depends on the judge and the credibility of the LIP.  I think that I could give a judge a good argument that such a claim is not frivolous.  

These companies lie, cheat, and bring spurious claims.   Surely defendeants are allowed to fight back?

shaf119

Fruitcake said:

1. You need to look at the terms in your lease/rental agreement, and the Head Lease if there is one.
The MA failed to answer your questions. You should ask them what the head lease says, and ask them to provide any and all legally binding documentation between or flowing from the landowner to you that states you must display a permit, and that an unregulated private parking company can issue charges and court claims against you.

If there is a lease of any kind, it cannot be varied without a ballot in accordance with Part IV, Section 37, of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. There must be a majority in favour and less than a specified number of votes against as defined by the Act before a lease can lawfully be changed.

The PPC is not a party to the lease, it is a stranger, and has no say in the matter.
All landlords and leaseholders must be included in the ballot.

Requiring you to provide details of the bike is an unfair contract term, and void for impossibility if it is not in your lease or communicated to you in writing before the PCN was issued.

As for doing an IAS appeal, win or lose it will cost the PPC money.

I only have what I mentioned what was in my tenancy agreement (posted in thread earlier), which was the parking space number.

I have asked the Estate Agents to contact my landlord and provide documentation in regards to point 1.

As for moving forward, I am nearing the end of 28 day threat in in the letter Link Parking has sent me.

On what grounds do I appeal to the IAS? (even though its mentioned all over the thread that they're a kangaroo court)

And is the intention to take the appeal all the way to an actual court? 

Thank you

Fruitcake

Grounds for an IAS appeal should include,

You have an unfettered right to use the parking space as granted by your lease.
An unregulated parking company that was not a party to your lease cannot take away your existing rights. That would constitute a derogation of grant.
No ballot of landlords and tenants was carried out in accordance with Part IV, Section 37 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, therefore there has been no lawful variation of your lease, therefore no contract between you and the parking company has ever been formed, nor has such an alleged contract breached, irrespective of what signage has been erected.
They do not have a right to issue charges or court claims against you for parking in your demised space.

Throw in inadequate signage, not the landowner, no standing to issue charges in their own name.

Don't expect to win. Expect a court claim in the future. Do keep hammering the landowner, landlord, and MA about this unlawful breach of your right to quiet enjoyment by an unregulated third party.
Ge other residents to do the same.

Complain to your MP

Move home

D_P_Dance

If it goes to court consider a counter claim for breach of data.

shaf119

Fruitcake said:

Grounds for an IAS appeal should include,

You have an unfettered right to use the parking space as granted by your lease.
An unregulated parking company that was not a party to your lease cannot take away your existing rights. That would constitute a derogation of grant.
No ballot of landlords and tenants was carried out in accordance with Part IV, Section 37 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, therefore there has been no lawful variation of your lease, therefore no contract between you and the parking company has ever been formed, nor has such an alleged contract breached, irrespective of what signage has been erected.
They do not have a right to issue charges or court claims against you for parking in your demised space.

Throw in inadequate signage, not the landowner, no standing to issue charges in their own name.

Don't expect to win. Expect a court claim in the future. Do keep hammering the landowner, landlord, and MA about this unlawful breach of your right to quiet enjoyment by an unregulated third party.
Ge other residents to do the same.

Complain to your MP

Move home

Thank you,

I have heard back from the landlord and this is what I got;

'The landlord has reverted back and mentioned that he does not have an emailable copy of the headlease, however having been through the lease, there is no mention of the need to show a parking permit in the bay, the parking space is referred to and only to be used by a private car, but nothing about a permit.'

I think it was the previous estate manager and not the landlord (unless the landlord instructed them) that got Link Parking to patrol the car park.