Moving Forward. LBC from Solicitors for UK CPM Ltd

thehamburglerswife

Hi, I got in touch with the landowner, but they are refusing as they do not get involved in the fines. 

They argue that letters were sent out about the new parking company (my mother has been going blind for years and can barely see) and that all letters were hand-delivered so must have been opened by us. (This was around the time I was out of the country for University, but the address was still my residence alongside my mother. My mother did not know about the change). Although, no one can prove this as this is around 2018.

In their email, she openly admits that the parking enforcement company is not there to enforce parking, but make income from their fines and as long as they can prove we have been aware of the parking conditions, these tickets stand.

I don't even know what to email her back. I have already touched upon Primacy of Contract.

patient_dream

thehamburglerswife said:

Hi, I got in touch with the landowner, but they are refusing as they do not get involved in the fines. 

In their email, she openly admits that the parking enforcement company is not there to enforce parking, but make income from their fines and as long as they can prove we have been aware of the parking conditions, these tickets stand.

I don't even know what to email her back. I have already touched upon Primacy of Contract.

WOW, we know that this is the case and operators just farm the car park only for money

For the landlord to confirm this in writing is unreal and that will raise the eyes of a Judge about CPM only being on site to make money.  Sounds like open season for extortion approved by the landowner

The lady has done no favours for herself

thehamburglerswife

patient_dream said:

thehamburglerswife said:

Hi, I got in touch with the landowner, but they are refusing as they do not get involved in the fines. 

In their email, she openly admits that the parking enforcement company is not there to enforce parking, but make income from their fines and as long as they can prove we have been aware of the parking conditions, these tickets stand.

I don't even know what to email her back. I have already touched upon Primacy of Contract.

WOW, we know that this is the case and operators just farm the car park only for money

For the landlord to confirm this in writing is unreal and that will raise the eyes of a Judge about CPM only being on site to make money.  Sounds like open season for extortion approved by the landowner

The lady has done no favours for herself

Yes, I was quite shocked at that when reading. But she is probably a secretory for the Management Company, who is the landowner. The landlord (who is my grandmother) has no contact even with this company, neither does my mother.

I am not quite sure she realises just what she wrote out and I have not responded as yet, as no clue how to respond on that without highlighting to her how bad legally that sounds. As we were residence. What is the point of the parking then as a resident? 

Should I continue to fight this with the landowner (at least this is a secretory or receptionist), they don't care about Primacy of contract. She states that in 2018 all residents were hand delivered letters stating the company had changed (as again, old permit used and fines were for parking with no permit) and that they can't help. To which, how can they prove residents have received this and saw this? To them, the tickets are valid and stands and there is nothing they can do.

Her exacts words were, 'They are not paid to enforce the parking but rather make their income from the fines.'

I am honestly shocked and no clue how to respond even further. Still waiting on the Car Park, and the Solicitors. Have not received any feedback from my requests and rejection of acknowledgement. 

Umkomaas

'They are not paid to enforce the parking but rather make their income from the fines.'

I am honestly shocked

No forum regular is. It's the standard business model of every PPC we deal with here. 

thehamburglerswife

Umkomaas said:

'They are not paid to enforce the parking but rather make their income from the fines.'

I am honestly shocked

No forum regular is. It's the standard business model of every PPC we deal with here. 

I knew this is what they do, but to have this in writing from the Landowner as a paper trail. 

Coupon-mad

I think she meant 'we don't pay them' (yeah...we knew that...).

But what it actually says is they are just there to make money and fine residents, never mind 'parking management'!

I'd reply pointing out that such an approach has no legitimate interest or commercial justification and she's just admitted that the aim is purely penal  (fines) and nothing to do with parking management.  This system does not fall under 'reasonable regulations' that Managing Agents might think they can impose on residents and it is causing a derogation from grant (i.e. interfering with the leaseholders' leases).

thehamburglerswife

Coupon-mad said:

I think she meant 'we don't pay them' (yeah...we knew that...).

But what it actually says is they are just there to make money and fine residents, never mind 'parking management'!

I'd reply pointing out that such an approach has no legitimate interest or commercial justification and she's just admitted that the aim is purely penal  (fines) and nothing to do with parking management.  This system does not fall under 'reasonable regulations' that Managing Agents might think they can impose on residents and it is causing a derogation from grant (i.e. interfering with the leaseholders' leases).

How is this reply? I have basically just taken most of what you wrote, as I have tried to read up on the meaning, but still somewhat goes above me. From what it sounds like, it only reinforces Primacy of Contract.

"This approach to not enforce parking but rather make income from fines has no legitimate interest or commercial justification as per your statement in your previous email. This is in fact purely penal rather than parking management.

This does not fall under reasonable regulations. Derogation from grant would be applicable as well because interferes with the tenant's own lease."

Coupon-mad

This isn't really very grammatical and sounds like you don't know what it means:

Derogation from grant would be applicable.

The covenant for 'quiet enjoyment' (seen in leases) focuses on the use by the tenant of the demised premises, whereas the obligation not to derogate from grant focuses on the use which the landlord (and their agent) makes of premises it retains.

The rule against derogation from grant

The rule against derogation from grant applies to the grant of easements and rights granted within leases. The rule against derogation from grant applies in addition to any obligation of quiet enjoyment. There is a substantial overlap between the two, but there is a fundamental difference. The obligation not to derogate from grant runs with the land and requires the grantor (landowner/agent) not to take any action that inconveniences the grantee (leaseholder and family/residents/visitors).

The principle is that you can't grant something with one hand, then take it away with the other:

https://www.eversheds-sutherland.com/global/en/what/articles/index.page?ArticleID=en/Real_estate/Derogation_from_grant_19June09

thehamburglerswife

Coupon-mad said:

This isn't really very grammatical and sounds like you don't know what it means:

Derogation from grant would be applicable.

The covenant for 'quiet enjoyment' (seen in leases) focuses on the use by the tenant of the demised premises, whereas the obligation not to derogate from grant focuses on the use which the landlord (and their agent) makes of premises it retains.

The rule against derogation from grant

The rule against derogation from grant applies to the grant of easements and rights granted within leases. The rule against derogation from grant applies in addition to any obligation of quiet enjoyment. There is a substantial overlap between the two, but there is a fundamental difference. The obligation not to derogate from grant runs with the land and requires the grantor (landowner/agent) not to take any action that inconveniences the grantee (leaseholder and family/residents/visitors).

The principle is that you can't grant something with one hand, then take it away with the other:

https://www.eversheds-sutherland.com/global/en/what/articles/index.page?ArticleID=en/Real_estate/Derogation_from_grant_19June09

Sorry, I am not quire certain about what derogation from grant is. I am also not very familiar with these aspects of the law, and am learning a lot. Is this phrasing better? 

"This approach to not enforce parking but rather make income from fines has no legitimate interest or commercial justification as per your statement in your previous email. This is in fact purely penal rather than parking management.

This does not fall under reasonable regulations and allows for derogation from grant to be applicable. This is based upon the rights granted within a lease. This legal concept requires the landowner ( xxxx Mangement Company or your agent xxxx Car Park Management) not to act or do anything that inconveniences or deprives the benefit of the leaseholder and family/residents/visitors, who is my mother and I. 

Which is exactly what is happening regarding by xxx Manangement Company and xxx Car Park Management."

Coupon-mad

Sorry, I am not quire certain about what derogation from grant is.

I know, that's why I explained. Read what I put, it is an easy doctrine.