CCBC Claim OWN PARKING SPACE KBT CORNWALL/BWLEGAL

Coupon-mad

There's already a good example of a 'I had a keyfob' residential defence wording to add to the template defence. It's the residential example shown in the NEWBIES thread 2nd post.

You can certainly use primacy of contract. A verbal contract from the leasehold owner means you were de facto authorised.

Can you get an email for later (not needed till WS stage) from the landlord, stating that you were given express permission and a keyfob to use that bay in the car park throughout your tenancy because the family owns both flats and has the exclusive rights to that bay.  Also, the landlord never agreed for a third party parking firm to run a business that interferes with his family's lease rights by effectively hawking out that bay to complete strangers (any driver who can get in) under a completely unsolicited '£100 per day' contract.  

madmati

Trainerman said:

You say that your landlord gave you a permit. Did you always display it, and if so why not on these two occasions?

The permit is a sticker. It has been peeled off a few times before and had to come off, when I was away.

Trainerman said:

What do the actual signs say on the car park?

Trainerman said:

Generally, will landlord and father help you ?

They should be fine, never have problem with them, but they extremely busy guys, and I'm afraid if I have enough time to get anything from them.

Trainerman said:

Would the Landlord's father who allowed you a space give a letter under statement of truth?

Should I ask him if he will do this form me? Sorry, English isn't my first language.

Trainerman said:

does HE have primacy of contract?

The landlord's father said there is a car park assigned to his flat, so my guess is that he has a primacy of contract.

Trainerman said:

Which PPC?

KBT Cornwall Limited aka Armtrac Security, they use BwLegla against me.

Coupon-mad

Like I said, you don't need a WS from him yet. You need it for later stages and I set out above what it needs to say.

I also pointed you to wording to copy about keyfob cases.

madmati

Thank you very much, I will follow your advice. My access is not via keyfob, not sure if that makes any difference?

Coupon-mad

Yes. Just change the wording as best you can and show us. We know English isn't your first language and we will help you.

DownwithPPCs

@madmati who contracts the PPC? Your landlord should be able to contact the freeholder/managing agent who if decent should be able to cancel ticket for you before it even gets to court stage. That's the first step you should take. Phone your landlord and see if he can help you out. Don't worry about how busy he is, you pay him rent and he has a responsibility to help you, especially as he has agreed to you using that Parking space.

 Parking companies don't give a toss about anyone, all they care about is how much money they can steal from you so going through them is pointless. Go straight to the source. But you still need to show you've appealed, written to them etc, which is good for your paper trail if you end up in court.

In the meantime, I can't stress this enough- get a hold of your lease, you are going to need it if you do go to court and for writing your defence and WS.

Mouse007

DownwithPPCs said:

In the meantime, I can't stress this enough- get a hold of your lease, you are going to need it if you do go to court and for writing your defence and WS.

Mouse007 said:

madmati said:

There is no mention of parking in our tenancy agreement,

What does your lease say about use of common areas? What was mentioned in the property listing which advertised the flat?

This - this is the most important point

madmati

Hello, this is my defence for your review. Thank you!

2.  It is admitted that the Defendant was/is the registered keeper of the vehicle but liability is denied. The Defendant does not know who drove the vehicle when it was parked. Defendant is a driver for a large taxi company. He often has to swap cars with other drivers and it is very difficult to determine who might have been parking there at the time.

3.  The Particulars refer to the material location as "LOCATION'. The Defendant has, since 26 November 2018, held legal title under the terms of a lease, to Flat No. XX at that location. At some point, the managing agents contracted with the Claimant company to enforce parking conditions at the estate.

4. When purchasing the leasehold for the property in 26/11/2018, the Defendant was also granted permission for unlimited access to a parking space throughout his tenancy from landlord’s father, because the family owns both flats and has the exclusive rights to that bay.

5. The parking company started operating the car park a few years after Defendant moved in. Despite this, the terms of its lease have not changed. Therefore, any claimant's claims are unreasonable

5. There are no terms within the lease requiring lessees to display parking permits, or to pay penalties to third parties, such as the Claimant, for non-display of same.

6.  The Defendant, at all material times, parked in accordance with the terms granted by the lease. The erection of the Claimant's signage, and the purported contractual terms conveyed therein, are incapable of binding the Defendant in any way, and their existence does not constitute a legally valid variation of the terms of the lease. Accordingly, the Defendant denies having breached any contractual terms whether express, implied, or by conduct.

7.  The Claimant, or Managing Agent, in order to establish a right to impose unilateral terms which vary the terms of the lease, must have such variation approved by at least 75% of the leaseholders, pursuant to s37 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1987, and the Defendant is unaware of any such vote having been passed by the residents.

8.  The Defendant's vehicle clearly was 'authorised' as per the lease and the Defendant relies on primacy of contract and avers that the Claimant's conduct in aggressive ticketing is in fact a matter of tortious interference, being a private nuisance to residents.

9.  In this case the Claimant has taken over the location and runs a business as if the site were a public car park, offering terms with £100 penalty on the same basis to residents, as is on offer to the general public and trespassers. However, residents are granted a right to park/rights of way and to peaceful enjoyment, and parking terms under a new and onerous 'permit/licence' cannot be re-offered as a contract by a third party. This interferes with the terms of leases and tenancy agreements, none of which is this parking firm a party to, and neither have they bothered to check for any rights or easements that their regime will interfere with (the Claimant is put to strict proof). This causes a substantial and unreasonable interference with the Defendant's land/property, or his/her use or enjoyment of that land/property.

10. The permit is in the form of a sticker and, after one use, it is not suitable to stick again. The parking company does not issue new permits and all enquiries are ignored. All this leads to a situation where permits peel off and fall off the windscreen.

Fruitcake

Para 5 should refer to charges not penalties.

Para 7 should read Section 37 of Part IV of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. Delete the comment about being unaware of a ballot and instead state that no such ballot ever took place, and the claimant is put to strict proof the contrary is true, and put to strict proof that they have a right to vary the defendant's lease, or words to that effect.

Coupon-mad

I don't think this argument is likely to win any favours with the Judge. Clearly on the balance of probabilities your parked the car.  It is surely incompatible with a ticket at your own home:

The Defendant does not know who drove the vehicle when it was parked. Defendant is a driver for a large taxi company. He often has to swap cars with other drivers and it is very difficult to determine who might have been parking there at the time.