Parking in Own Space

Fruitcake

davids612lj said:

Thanks Coupon-mad. I'll redo my WS with the updated examples.

Have read the interesting VCS v Burzynski case notes. Would love to include this, however it looks like VCS may have changed their 'privacy notice'.

The notice to driver must contain details of the vehicle, Land on which parked, period of parking and charges.   Burzynski's notice included a website address and a ref. number to check these details. Now there is nothing on the notice except the website address of their privacy policy. So I'm thinking it would be too difficult to argue that these privacy notices are in fact a notice to driver.

It would be reasonable to assume that on the balance of probabilities, a notice left on the windscreen of a vehicle is intended for the driver to see, so by definition it must be a notice to driver.

davids612lj

Fruitcake said:

It would be reasonable to assume that on the balance of probabilities, a notice left on the windscreen of a vehicle is intended for the driver to see, so by definition it must be a notice to driver.

Thank you, I love that. It's definitely going in my WS

davids612lj

I'd be grateful for some further advice.

As mentioned previously, there are 2 separate claims against me issued on the same day for two separate alleged parking contraventions on two consecutive days.

Despite asking the CCBC to consolidate the cases (twice) and making the same point in my defence the cases remain separate.
I spoke to my local Court office today.  One case is awaiting listing, directions were issued and my WS has to be filed by 17/02/2023. (I have sent in an N159 form to say no to being heard on the papers).  The other case is apparently still awaiting a Judge to issue directions.  All very strange to me as both claims have the same date.

The lady in the Court office suggested sending a form N244 to apply for consolidation of the two cases. Is this correct?  I ask because, although very helpful, she didn't seem to have had much experience of the correct procedures. 

Coupon-mad

No.  Send another email.

davids612lj

Another update and I'd be grateful for some advice again please.

A date in May has been set for a hearing in person for one of the cases although the court office haven't responded to emails regarding consolidating the two cases.

I've sent my evidence bundle and WS. 

They are saying that 'as two separate contracts are involved the Claimant was not obliged to issue a single claim.'

They are also arguing that, as leaseholder, my parking space is an easement and that I do not have exclusive possession of the parking space. They make reference to Kettel v Bloomfield 2012. 

Is it worth a written response and is this anything I should be worried about?

Many thanks.

Coupon-mad

Show us that!  Normally it's defendants who use Kettel v Bloomfold to demonstrate that a managing agent cannot move the goalposts and remove or adversely change the arrangements (or charge money for) an easement already granted.

Galloglass

I live in an apartment with an allocated parking space. My lease clearly grants the exclusive right to park in this space.

They are also arguing that, as leaseholder, my parking space is an easement and that I do not have exclusive possession of the parking space.

At their heart, most of these parking issues on residential sites are property disputes. Similar to where a fence should be (which gets a lot of people hot under the collar just like parking)

It should be simple to check your lease to see if what they are saying is correct. Bizarrely on a property I have, the garage is owned/demised but the parking space in front of it, is an easement. They wouldn't sell me the space in front of my garage for some reason.

If you are still able to contact the conveyancing solicitor you used, they will confirm an easement or owned/demised. Or you could check your title deeds. Or you could pay Land Registry £3 to get the site plan.

If you think parking companies are sharks, check out housebuilders.

Have a read of the explanation of Kettel v Bloomfold Ltd for a chuckle.

https://www.isurv.com/directory_record/3449/kettel_v_bloomfold_ltd

davids612lj

Coupon-mad said:

Show us that!  Normally it's defendants who use Kettel v Bloomfold to demonstrate that a managing agent cannot move the goalposts and remove or adversely change the arrangements (or charge money for) an easement already granted.

 Here is an extract from their WS

davids612lj

Galloglass said:

I live in an apartment with an allocated parking space. My lease clearly grants the exclusive right to park in this space.

They are also arguing that, as leaseholder, my parking space is an easement and that I do not have exclusive possession of the parking space.

At their heart, most of these parking issues on residential sites are property disputes. Similar to where a fence should be (which gets a lot of people hot under the collar just like parking)

It should be simple to check your lease to see if what they are saying is correct. Bizarrely on a property I have, the garage is owned/demised but the parking space in front of it, is an easement. They wouldn't sell me the space in front of my garage for some reason.

If you are still able to contact the conveyancing solicitor you used, they will confirm an easement or owned/demised. Or you could check your title deeds. Or you could pay Land Registry £3 to get the site plan.

If you think parking companies are sharks, check out housebuilders.

Have a read of the explanation of Kettel v Bloomfold Ltd for a chuckle.

https://www.isurv.com/directory_record/3449/kettel_v_bloomfold_ltd

I have read the lease and only the flat is described as 'Demised Premises'.

Under a section headed 'Rights granted to the tenant':
'The exclusive right to park a private motor vehicle in the Allocated Car Parking Space.'

The title deeds are equally confusing:

5 08.12.2009 (REDACTED) Apartments (first 25.11.2009 SYK572722

1 (part of) floor ) 125 years from

1.7.2009

NOTE: This lease grants the exclusive use of the parking space edged

and numbered 5 in brown on the title plan

Galloglass

The essence of Kettel is the same for any contract. You can't have a one-sided change to a contract. 

The other side are essentially bluffing by suggesting the easement has a variation clause in it that would allow changes. You'll need to supply a copy to a judge to allow him/her to read it - or get the other side to point out which clause their client relies on to shoehorn their [secondary] contract into a pre-existing one i.e. your lease.