Long winded battle against PPM/Gladstones/BW Legal - Guardian Newspaper coverage and MP involved

DownwithPPCs

Hi everyone,

Thought I would share my story so far and see if anyone would be able to supply any valuable information to help out.

Here is the story so far-

My mother lives in a flat on a residential private estate. In 2017 the managing agent brought in a parking company, then UKPC/SCS law. We did not opt in to their vile scheme, and refused to purchase visitor scratchcards from them, as when my mother bought the property and signed the lease there was no charge for parking and no parking company.

UKPC then took my mother to court for parking on her own estate. I wrote her defence and we won in court and my mother won costs. The judge said that as the parking contract was with the managing agent the contract cannot supercede the lease, which allows parking to visitor spaces on a first come first served basis.

 The parking company then changed to PPM, which i'm pretty sure was a direct result of UKPC being banned by the DVLA at the time.

PPM/Gladstones then took me court for parking in a visitors space 'without a permit'. I won in court and won costs. The judge said PPM could not impose a scheme which punished people for opting out. After the hearing the Claimant's rep, David Blake verbally agreed to me that the company would not monitor my car on the estate any more. He told me to e-mail in, so I did. I did not receive a reply.

A few months later another parking ticket, this time PPM/BW Legal. In the meantime my MP contacted these vile thieves (they didnt reply) and I managed to get some exposure last week in the Guardian newspaper. I just had the dispute resolution hearing today and the case is moving to a final hearing, I questioned why PPM were allowed to submit an identical claim through the courts, the Judge said that they could have 'another bite' if they wanted. Disgraceful. He seemed satisfied that this time PPM are trying another angle which is relying on a clause in the lease which essentially says the manager has the authority to vary estate regulations. They are also denying David Blake's verbal agreement saying there is no proof. The judge did say I could ask the judge for vexatious litigation at the final hearing.

Any help to break this case would be much appreciated. Can supply more info if needed.

Many thanks,

Ben.

Coupon-mad

Hi Ben - welcome!

The clause in the lease will no doubt say the agent may introduce 'reasonable' regulations for the good of the running of the estate. We've seen this before.  Clearly that does not include UNreasonable regulations that attempt to create new terms and charges on more onerous terms than the resident enjoys in her lease. She has primacy of contract. She has never agreed to a variation.

The agents are trying to interfere with her lease - variation by stealth - and that breaches the Landlord & Tenant Act.

@bargepole has a judgment against a different company (UKCPM) that sets out that position and you should add that case as an exhibit - the Dropbox link is around here somewhere - along with other cases, such as Pace v Noor and Link v Parkinson (both found in the Parking Prankster's case law).

Also Jopson v HomeGuard (a persuasive appeal).  

And you will need to properly cite the Landlord & Tenant Act about variation of leases.

I questioned why PPM were allowed to submit an identical claim through the courts, the Judge said that they could have 'another bite' if they wanted.

He's wrong. Look at the Henderson v Henderson case and 'cause of action estoppel' mentioned on here a lot.

You are going to need a supplementary WS. 

patient_dream

Could you please show the link you refer to

As you are new, you cannot display a link so type it as 

REAL LINK
http://guardian.co.uk/xxx/xxx

YOU TYPE
http // ... guardian .. .co uk / xxx.xxx

And the judge ????     there are still a few futile judges around

GeorgeFormby

I imagine it's:-

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2022/jul/23/driver-parking-fines-code

Good luck Ben.

Coupon-mad

Ben, read the (just updated with outcome) thread by @eagle5

DownwithPPCs

Coupon-mad said:

Hi Ben - welcome!

The clause in the lease will no doubt say the agent may introduce 'reasonable' regulations for the good of the running of the estate. We've seen this before.  Clearly that does not include UNreasonable regulations that attempt to create new terms and charges on more onerous terms than the resident enjoys in her lease. She has primacy of contract. She has never agreed to a variation.

The agents are trying to interfere with her lease - variation by stealth - and that breaches the Landlord & Tenant Act.

@bargepole has a judgment against a different company (UKCPM) that sets out that position and you should add that case as an exhibit - the Dropbox link is around here somewhere - along with other cases, such as Pace v Noor and Link v Parkinson (both found in the Parking Prankster's case law).

Also Jopson v HomeGuard (a persuasive appeal).  

And you will need to properly cite the Landlord & Tenant Act about variation of leases.

I questioned why PPM were allowed to submit an identical claim through the courts, the Judge said that they could have 'another bite' if they wanted.

He's wrong. Look at the Henderson v Henderson case and 'cause of action estoppel' mentioned on here a lot.

You are going to need a supplementary WS. 

Hi Coupon-mad,

Firstly, I just want to thank you for all your amazing posts. Your knowledge has been highly useful. You are an inspiration to fighting these vile people. 

Thank you for your information. You are absolutely right. The clause in the lease states the following:

'Acting reasonably at all times the manager shall have authority to make and at any time vary such estate regulations as it may think fit for the preservation of the amenities of the estate or for the general convenience of the occupiers of the dwellings.'

My argument against that is that paying £365 per year for visitor scratchcards was not something we agreed to or signed in the lease. However, the judge seemed satisfied today that the clause would need to be interpreted further at the final hearing. And of course the predatory nature of these disgusting human beings is far from being a 'convenience'. Still, that will be down to the interpretation of the judge I presume.

Of course I also have the verbal agreement from the Claimant's last rep who said he owned the company. They are denying this though and saying he is a former employee.

I will include the information you put forward, although I think I already did reference Jopson vs Homeguard and the Link case also. I will have a read of the Henderson case also.

The other clause in the lease which caught my eye is-

'A person (a third party) who is not a party to this lease has no right under the Contracts (rights of third parties) Act 1999 to enforce any term of this Lease notwithstanding that any such term may purport to confer or may be construed as conferring a benefit on such third party PROVIDED THAT this does not affect any right or remedy of such third party which exists or is available apart from that act.

Is this something I can use against them?

Many thanks again.

Ben.

DownwithPPCs

GeorgeFormby, yes that is the correct article. Many thanks. 
Ben.

DownwithPPCs

patient_dream said:

And the judge ????     there are still a few futile judges around

I believe the judge was Deputy District Judge O'Malley at Chelmsford. That's what it said on the order, pretty sure it was the same one.

DownwithPPCs

The hearing today was a complete waste of time. The Judge hadn't even read my witness statement.

DownwithPPCs

Coupon-mad said:

Ben, read the (just updated with outcome) thread by @eagle5

Will have a read now, thanks!

Coupon-mad

Who are the parties to the lease?  Not the managing agent who contracted with the scammers, I bet?!

Here is the UKCPM case I was thinking of and the short written judgment that @bargepole obtained and redacted:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/scou8k818p2x3lo/Residential Judgment UKCPM.pdf?dl=0

You can use that one.  Alongside other similar cases and certainly Jopson (because it is an appeal to a higher Circuit Judge and is persuasive, particularly if you were loading or unloading that day).

The other clause in the lease which caught my eye is-

'A person (a third party) who is not a party to this lease has no right under the Contracts (rights of third parties) Act 1999 to enforce any term of this Lease notwithstanding that any such term may purport to confer or may be construed as conferring a benefit on such third party PROVIDED THAT this does not affect any right or remedy of such third party which exists or is available apart from that act.

Is this something I can use against them?

I think so, yes.