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

Fruitcake

IANAL

My interpretation is this: -

The PPC is a third party, and the MA is possibly a third party as well if it is not mentioned in the lease, and the lease is between the landowner or landlord and the tenant.

If there is no parking enforcement clause in the lease to start with, then even if a third party had a right to enforce something, there is nothing in the lease (permits, PCNs, paying a PPC, court claims etcetera) for them to enforce in the first place. The PPC, and possibly the MA, is a "stranger to the lease".

"Notwithstanding means", "it is true in spite of something else".
In other words, even if there was a parking enforcement clause in the lease, that Act says a third party, in this case the PPC, and possibly the MA, cannot enforce it even if it appears the contract gives them the right to benefit from it, unless there is "something else" that allows them to do it.

"Something else" would be a variation of the lease, but that can only happen if there has been a ballot in accordance with the L & T Act 1987, or another contract conforming to the strict requirements of the Companies Act Sections 43 and/or 44. "Another contract" would have to be between the leaseholder and the PPC in my opinion.

DownwithPPCs

Fruitcake said:

IANAL

My interpretation is this: -

The PPC is a third party, and the MA is possibly a third party as well if it is not mentioned in the lease, and the lease is between the landowner or landlord and the tenant.

If there is no parking enforcement clause in the lease to start with, then even if a third party had a right to enforce something, there is nothing in the lease (permits, PCNs, paying a PPC, court claims etcetera) for them to enforce in the first place. The PPC, and possibly the MA, is a "stranger to the lease".

"Notwithstanding means", "it is true in spite of something else".
In other words, even if there was a parking enforcement clause in the lease, that Act says a third party, in this case the PPC, and possibly the MA, cannot enforce it even if it appears the contract gives them the right to benefit from it, unless there is "something else" that allows them to do it.

"Something else" would be a variation of the lease, but that can only happen if there has been a ballot in accordance with the L & T Act 1987, or another contract conforming to the strict requirements of the Companies Act Sections 43 and/or 44. "Another contract" would have to be between the leaseholder and the PPC in my opinion.

Thanks @fruitcake. That's how I interpreted it as well.

The MA is party to the lease in this case but the PPC are most definitely not.

The lease explicitly states I have a right to visitors bay on a first come first served basis. no mentions of schemes, permits, penalties etc. Mentioned all that in my WS.

I just don't understand how this has been allowed to proceed given the past claims etc. You'd think the judges would be sick of them by now and throw their vexatious claims out. Ridiculous.

DownwithPPCs

Mouse007 said:

It may for example be a condition of your mother's lease that she pays her Council Tax or utility bills. That clause prevents the local council or utility providers form using her lease to make a claim against her. They have to rely upon their own contract or legal position with your mother.

If for example the electricity supply to the whole building was via a single metered supply with sub meters (I have that in my office) then the landlord could seek to enforce the condition to pay to protect the supply to other tenants. The third party electricity company would however have to seek recovery using their own contract.

This might help

https://www.simmons-simmons.com/en/publications/ck0af4xrinal00b33gjidsg3b/290419-developments-in-contract-rights-of-third-parties

"The obvious lesson from Chudley, as clearly noted by the Court, is to incorporate a clause excluding the application of the 1999 Act wherever it is not intended to confer a benefit on a third party. Should a need arise to grant a third party enforceable rights, then that can be done by means of a specific clause that is without prejudice to the general exclusion."

Thanks @mouse. Do you agree that extends to the PPC as well?

Thanks,

Ben.

Half_way

While going due the parking company is one thing, the real villians in all of this are those who allow parking companies to operate on/ in a certain area , such as management companies big landowners etc and at the other end the DVLA.

There is some action ongoing against the DVLA , however little seems to take place against those who allow PPCs onto a car park .
The principal, in this case the management company is jointly and severally liable for the actions of its agents, the parking company.
 If the principal can be stung over allowing a PPC onto an area of land, then we may see some positive action. Otherwise it will just be a case of one parking company being replaced with another.

Plus not to mention possible data protection breaches for accessing someone's data without just cause (ie they have a pre existing right to park/  use the space) add that to the principal is joint liable, plus the personal liability part of GDPR and who ever signed the contract with the PPC could face difficulties. thoughts on this?

Mouse007

DownwithPPCs said:

Thanks @mouse. Do you agree that extends to the PPC as well?

Thanks,

Ben.

Very much so, the clause clearly states no third parties will have any rights to enforce any term of the lease. It is there to prevent any claims being made under the Contracts (rights of third parties) Act 1999.

There would need to be a specific clause (without prejudice to this general exclusion) allowing them to.

This clause is a protective clause to block anyone looking at your mothers lease and pointing to a term or condition and claiming that gives them some right which they can sue for.

D_P_Dance

Have you read CR27.14(2)(g)?

DownwithPPCs

Half_way said:

While going due the parking company is one thing, the real villians in all of this are those who allow parking companies to operate on/ in a certain area , such as management companies big landowners etc and at the other end the DVLA.

There is some action ongoing against the DVLA , however little seems to take place against those who allow PPCs onto a car park .
The principal, in this case the management company is jointly and severally liable for the actions of its agents, the parking company.
 If the principal can be stung over allowing a PPC onto an area of land, then we may see some positive action. Otherwise it will just be a case of one parking company being replaced with another.

Plus not to mention possible data protection breaches for accessing someone's data without just cause (ie they have a pre existing right to park/  use the space) add that to the principal is joint liable, plus the personal liability part of GDPR and who ever signed the contract with the PPC could face difficulties. thoughts on this?

The problem is the MA don't bring the claim. I tried the DPA route at another hearing which I won, but the judge wasn't interested in the DPA stuff.

You would have to bring your own claim against the MA, and prove outright they have breached your lease. Not easy considering cost and fact you are the claimant. I don't think it would work through small claims track either.

But, you are absolutely right about the MA. Same as my case, my mother and myself have been taken to court by multiple PPCs but same MA whole way through.

Ben.

DownwithPPCs

Mouse007 said:

DownwithPPCs said:

Thanks @mouse. Do you agree that extends to the PPC as well?

Thanks,

Ben.

Very much so, the clause clearly states no third parties will have any rights to enforce any term of the lease. It is there to prevent any claims being made under the Contracts (rights of third parties) Act 1999.

There would need to be a specific clause (without prejudice to this general exclusion) allowing them to.

This clause is a protective clause to block anyone looking at your mothers lease and pointing to a term or condition and claiming that gives them some right which they can sue for.

Surely that breaks the case? Although I know they will argue the clause that says the MA can change estate regs, enforce rules etc but clause doesn't say they can change the lease! Don't know how judge allowed this to continue.

DownwithPPCs

D_P_Dance said:

Have you read CR27.14(2)(g)?

No, where do I find this?

Mouse007

I don't know if you have seen these

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/residential-parking.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/06/residential-ticket-only-cancelled-after.html

Therein you will find links to lots of relevant cases and some excellent comments which may answer your questions