Landowner Responsibility / Parking Company

Le_Kirk

Jenni_D said:

Le_Kirk said:

It is as in henderson v henderson res judicata

That wasn't the term I was thinking of though 🤔

Edit: estoppel is the word I was thinking of, but I know there's a longer phrase for it. (Cause of action estoppel? i.e. the subsequent claims should be estopped?)

Yep, don't these Latin terms annoy!  I thought that cause of action estoppel would only be after the first claim had been heard so that subsequent claims were e-stopped as you say but before any claims are heard one could use res judicata.  However, as so many of us on here IANAL.

D_P_Dance

i am a landlorde, I have been for nea4ky 50 years.  IMO, imposing a scammer/ex clamber to moniter parking in a residential car park is entirely unreasonable, read this.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5927955/my-management-company-wants-to-bring-in-cpm/p1

Coupon-mad

Cause of action estoppel could be added as a defence to subsequent claims if they've already filed one about similar facts, because they should bring their entire case in one claim.

So it is actually good (for you, as long as you are ready to defend each one) if they are lazy and don't join up the dots, and only file a claim for one or two PCNs first.

Tron103

Hi everyone... 

Sorry to be back again :-(

The Property Management Company are refusing to engage with me at all. I asked them to provide 

• Evidence of any clause in the Lease that specifies a need to display a permit to park in an allocated parking space as defined by the lease. Or a clause in the lease that highlights that if a permit is not displayed, the Leaseholder (or tenant) will be liable to pay a further charge of £160 for failure to display a permit.
• Any contract between you or the Landowner and UKCPM setting out the terms on which they manage the parking at Albion Court. 

There response was you have had our final email and you need to go to the Property Ombudsman. 

I have made a formal complaint to the PO as well as a complaint to the ICO and have written to my MP (it was a wild Saturday night). 

My question is would you recommend considering further action in the form of a LBC as per this thread https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5588292/cpm-penalty-ticket-assistance-required/p11 

The circumstances are very similar but my only concern is that I am a tenant, not the owner. My tenancy agreement does not make any reference to parking at all. 

OR do I simply wait at this point until it potential reaches court?

Huge thanks in advance, I really do appreciate your wisdom.

Beth

D_P_Dance

The Property Management Company are refusing to engage with me at all.

If you are a tenant that is perfectly understandable.  If you are a leaseholder it is not.  However the lease/AST invariably take primacy and, if you feel inclined, you can call the MA as a witness if this gpes to  court.  

Tron103

Hi all, 

I was hoping to get some advice following an update on the parking ticket situation. As a recap, we have £420 in 'charges' outstanding linked to three separate PCNs issued in the space of ten days for not displaying a parking permit when parking in a car parking space linked to a property we rented at the end of last year (despite the parking space being clearly outlined in the lease). 

We have approached the Landowner + the Property Management Company. The Landowner did not reply. The Property Management Company replied to say they would not provide any support as the charges were legally issued and I am liable to pay. They then refused to engage further. 

I subsequently reached out to my Local MP who wrote to the Landowner, Management Company and UKCPM directly. Only UKCPM replied and they asked for a copy of the lease and key points to review the appeal which I provided (rightly or wrongly). I have now received confirmation from my Local MP that UKCPM have refused to rescind the charges based on the below points. 

Should I just give up and pay? The response seems very thorough and I'm feeling utterly overwhelmed. Morally speaking I can't get my head around how I'm being charged to pay £420 to park in a residential car parking space that is outlined in a lease but I feel like I'm out of my depth and am going to get taken to court and charged significantly more which is making me anxious.

• Having reviewed the tenancy agreement provided we must advice that whilst the tenancy does not state a permit must be displayed, it does make provisions for the Landlord to introduce parking regulations. Point 17 of the Fifth Schedule of this document states that the tenant is required to "comply with all reasonable regulations which the Landlord may from time to time make and publish in respect of the use of the car parking spaces within the parking area". Therefore the tenant is required to comply with the parking management scheme we have introduced at our clients request. Furthermore as advised in Point 9 (i)(iii) "The tenant shall not become entitled during the Term by prescription or any other means to any estate right easement or privilege to save as to the extent that any such estate right or easement is specifically granted in this lease". As no estate right to park in the parking areas is granted within the lease the tenant does not have the right to park in the allocated space and there is no right that our contract with the client "overrides".

• We would refer you to the Supreme Court decision dated 4th November 2015, Parking Eye Ltd v Mr Barry Beavis. This case was seen as an important 'test case' due to the complex legal arguments used by both sides. The ruling sets a legally binding precedent on all similar cases .... it was held that an £85 charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable. The Accredited Trade Associations, of which parking operators must be a member in order to apply for DVLA data prescribe a maximum chare of £100. 

(There are some other points about the additional charges for debt recovery + a temporary permit that was issued and not displayed) 

Is there anyone who can help and advise on if I should continue to give in at this point? :-( 

Jenni_D

Ignore Beavis* - that related to a defined set of circumstances which bear no resemblance to an "own space" case, so they're just trying to put the "frighteners" on.

Can you share here a (redacted) copy of what you sent UKCPM please?

* Other than the fact that their Lordships ruled that the PCN charge amount already included costs to the business for debt recovery etc. So adding such charges is a means to "extort the motorist" as Neil O'Brien MP said in the ministerial foreword re. the Parking Code of Practice Bill.

Tron103

Dear Sir, 

Thank you for your continued support in regard to my case with UKCPM. I have enclosed two documents for forwarding. 

1. The Official Copy of the Lease for ADDRESS between LANDOWNER and LEASEHOLDER as held by HM Land Registry.  
2. A copy of our Tenancy Agreement with LANDLORD as issued by ESTATE AGENT

I would like to highlight the following: 

• Neither my contract with the Landlord (Tenancy Agreement), nor the contract between the Landlord and the Landowner (Lease) specifies a need to display a permit at any time when parking in the space that is owned by the property.

• The Lease specifies the ‘Parking Space’ to mean the ‘parking space within the Parking Area from time to time to be allocated by the Landlord to the tenant for parking one private motor car or motor cycle (if any).' It also highlights that in the event that ‘Parking Space’ is defined in clause 1(a) of this Lease to comply with all reasonable regulations which the Landlord may from time to time make and publish in respect of the use of car parking spaces within the Parking Area. The parking area owned by the Leaseholder as part of the Lease is clearly outlined within the Property Plan (the final page of the Lease). 

• The introduction of a permit system, which imposes new obligations on residents and imposes an obligation to pay a set charge of £160 for any failure to comply is not, under any interpretation, a ‘reasonable regulation’. The intention of the permit system is clearly to discourage non-permit holders from using the car-park, not to penalise residents for doing so - but that is what it is now doing.

• In any event, even if the introduction of parking management and a permit system were to come under the definition and scope of a reasonable regulation, no identifiable clause gives the Landowner or the Management Company the right to impose upon Leaseholders or Tenants a contractual relationship with a third party (which UKCPM now claims), nor to levy a specific set charge payable to a third party (which UKCPM now seeks to recover) and which is separate to the Service Charge for any failure to comply. 

• I refer you (and UKCPM) to the cases of Jopson v Homeguard, Pace v Mr N and Saeed v Plustrade, which are authority for the the proposition that a parking company cannot override a resident’s pre-existing parking rights. It was held in those cases parking restrictions (including the introduction of a permit system) and parking charges which caused detriment to residents was in beach of the principle that “a grantor shall not derogate from his grant”. 

I continue to be disappointed that neither the Property Management Company or the Landowner have recognised the failings of the system they have imposed but I hope UKCPM recognise this and withdraw the fines and the ongoing harassment they are utilising in the form of threats of legal action, bailiffs and debt-recovery. 

Kind regards,

Tron103

Thank you @Jenni_D

Let me know if you want me to post the full response from UKCPM.

Trainerman

Totally endorse the comment by @Jenni_D above. The mention of Beavis is just to try to intimidate. I cannot see how that case applies here.

I have not read back over all of it, but it would seem that the actual wording on the lease would be very important. For example, as the PPC quoted, it specifically says you cannot get rights by prescription but that is different to a right to park ! If your lease says this is your space AND makes no mention of permit then I would think you have a strong case. See what other opinions you get, but also read up on other similar cases.