Court Report - High Wycombe - Gladstones Trounced (again)

bargepole

Case Nos. H7GF8M63 and H3GF6K25 – Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd -v- Mr. A, before Deputy District Judge Hayes

Claimant represented by solicitors’ agent from Elms Legal.

This case had originally been listed for hearing in February, but had been vacated at short notice due to lack of Judicial resources. Today was a rare in person hearing, and the first time I had crossed the threshold of High Wycombe County Court for over 2 years. On the way in, we bumped into an associate of mine who had been assisting as a Lay Rep in the 10:00 hearing, and he reported win against Parking & Property Management, before the same DDJ, so a good omen.

The two conjoined claims, totalling around £800, were for failing to display a permit in Mr A’s allocated residential space at Chequers Avenue, High Wycombe, a notorious zone of entrapment where I have successfully helped residents to defend around a dozen previous cases. On two occasions, his permit had slipped off the dashboard, and in the other, he had a courtesy car while his was in for repair, and his permit was with his own car at the garage. On all three occasions, he was correctly parked in his allocated space, as proved by the Claimant’s evidence photos.

The main defence argument was that his Lease set out the terms and conditions of parking – must be in allocated space, taxed and roadworthy, no commercial vehicles – and said nothing at all about displaying permits, or paying penalties for non-display. Therefore, primacy of contract applied, and Mr A’s WS included transcripts of Judgments from previous cases where that principle had been upheld. It also challenged the fake £60 add-on per PCN, for which the Claimant had adduced no evidence that they had incurred

The Claimant’s advocate relied upon a clause in the Lease, which said that the landlord may make additional regulations relating to the common parts. There was some back and forth with the Judge as to the definition of ‘common parts’, and he eventually concluded that this could not be taken to mean Mr A’s allocated space, as nobody else had a right to use it.

 So in his Judgment, the DDJ found that the Lease demised a specific numbered bay to Mr A, and as long as he complied with the terms of the Lease, the parking operator could not determine what he could and could not do with it. Their signage dis not constitute a variation, and therefore the claims must fail.

Claims dismissed, no order for costs as Mr A was a self-employed engineer, and had not provided any evidence of lost earnings.

Le_Kirk

Nice one @bargepole.  Well done the judge for using the law correctly; I am sure the judge knew that the landlord would have to comply with the Landlord & Tenant Act and carry out a consultation and vote before attempting to vary any conditions of the lease, whether common land or demised space.

Coupon-mad

That court is your second home, @bargepole !

fisherjim

Great news, I know that road well It is a fairly new estate and I used to work part time for a  neighbour that installed blinds. Obviously there was a lot of work on a new development like this, but there was nowhere at all to park a commercial vehicle while working on site according to the signage which just had no leeway built in to the rules (I wonder why).

The residents hated the parking rules and many had been caught out, we were lucky and never got caught, I saw the Muppet warden a couple of times we were there on his moped but he never dared come near a big ugly mug like me with a large hammer in hand.

Also interesting as this site from being built and certainly up to 2020 was infested by UKPC who seem to have fallen out of favour here and at the trading estate just down the road.

Snakes_Belly

Well done . Sounds like the judge was fair and correctly decided that the common area and allocated spaces are not one and the same. 

patient_dream

Great result ....... two head bangers V the brick wall

PLANET DRONGO at it's best