Double Court Claim for residently Parking ( own space ) vs Moorside Legal

MThomas95

New Primary points added as per advice: 

1.     It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle registration marked “---------”.

2.     It is admitted that on the 11/04/2022 the vehicle was parked in the bay (278) ----------.

3.     Quoted from the tenancy agreement, The Defendant had the right to “quietly hold and enjoy the Premises during the Tenancy without any unlawful interruption by the Landlord or any person rightfully claiming under, through or in trust for the Landlord.” This was breached.

4.     The Defendant had the right to access and move freely on the property. Quoted from the Superior lease “The right for the Tenant and all persons authorised by him (in common with all other persons entitled  to  the  right)  at  all  times  for  reasonable  purposes  connected  with  the  residential  use and  occupation  of  the  Property  and  the  Parking  Space  only  to  go  pass  and  repass  with  or without  vehicles  (as  appropriate)  over  and  along  the  Buildings  Internal  Common  Parts  and Estate  Common Parts  over  which  the  Tenant  requires  rights  in  connection  with  the  use  and enjoyment of the Property and Parking Space which are contained within the Estate.”

5.     Under the Tenancy Agreement the Defendant’s contractual rights and obligations are with the landowner and no other party.

6.     PCM Ltd obtain no contractual rights to enforce any terms stated within the tenancy agreement, quoted “This Agreement shall not operate to confer any rights on any third party. A person who is not a party to this Agreement shall not have any rights under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 to enforce any term of this Agreement. 

7.     The Defendants actions to display a parking permit were done out of courtesy, not an obligation to PCM Ltd and does not in any way mean the Defendant agreed to variation of their unfettered rights to park in their own bay nor their right to quiet enjoyment.

8.     The Tenancy Agreement & the Superior Lease clearly state the bay (278) which the Defendant had the right to park in without any requirements.

B789

For your defence, you just need the legal "hooks" that you will later rely on in your witness statement. Your defence should not be War & Peace but a short, punchy list of the points you will be relying on. For example, you would only need to state that you will be relying on Primacy of Contract. You don't have to give the whole story in your Defence. The fact you have mentioned it will be enough. You can't later introduce things that were not mentioned in your Defence. Just keep that in mind.

MThomas95

B789 said:

For your defence, you just need the legal "hooks" that you will later rely on in your witness statement. Your defence should not be War & Peace but a short, punchy list of the points you will be relying on. For example, you would only need to state that you will be relying on Primacy of Contract. You don't have to give the whole story in your Defence. The fact you have mentioned it will be enough. You can't later introduce things that were not mentioned in your Defence. Just keep that in mind.

Thank you for that advice, i have removed the quotes to the tenancy agreement / superior lease. My primary angle is that i have the right to be there, i have not signed anything with the third party, they have no rights over my tenancy agreement. All about Poc, Poor signage, POFA & CRA breaches are also stated in the defence.

MThomas95

I am going to submit this on Monday, but i want to be sure i have covered myself, like you said to expand on the points in my WS. Do you feel that what i've mentioned is a strong enough case ?

MThomas95

Sorry to keep bombarding with changes, have made alterations in the wording for my points:

3.     The Defendant was entitled to possess and enjoy the premises peacefully and quietly.

4.     The Defendant possessed the lawful right to access and move about the premises without hindrance.

5.     A contractual relationship exists solely between the Defendant and the landlord under the terms of the Tenancy Agreement, and no other party has any rights or obligations arising from that agreement.

 6.     PCM Ltd does not possess any contractual authority to enforce the provisions outlined within the Tenancy Agreement.

7.     The Defendant replies on the principle of Primacy of Contract.

8.     The Defendant did not sign any contract agreeing to the terms imposed by PCM Ltd.   

9.     The signage present on the estate is ambiguous and potentially misleading for users of the property, rendering any purported rules and regulations lacking in legitimacy and practical applicability.

10.  The Defendant’s decision to display a parking permit were done out of courtesy, not an obligation to PCM Ltd and does not in any way mean the Defendant agreed to variation of their unfettered rights to park in their own bay nor their right to quiet enjoyment. 

11.  It is evident from both the Tenancy Agreement and the Superior Lease that the Defendant possessed an unencumbered right to park within the designated bay (278) without being subject to any additional conditions or restrictions.

B789

Maybe consolidate all those paragraphs into something like this (adapt as necessary):

1. PCM Ltd is not a party to the Tenancy Agreement/Lease between the Defendant and their landlord. As a result, PCM Ltd cannot impose any restrictions or limitations on the Defendant's rights under their Tenancy Agreement/Lease. The Tenancy Agreement/Lease does not obligate the Defendant to display any permits, nor does it grant any third party the right to issue parking charges for using their own designated space.

2. The Defendant's decision to display a parking permit was purely a courtesy and not an obligation to PCM Ltd. It does not imply any agreement by the Defendant to relinquish their unrestricted rights to park in their designated bay or their right to quiet enjoyment of the property.

3. The Tenancy Agreement/Lease clearly establishes that Defendant possesses an unencumbered right to park within their designated bay without being subjected to additional conditions or restrictions. The Defendant's rights are protected by these agreements.

4. The signage erected by PCM Ltd on the estate is ambiguous and potentially misleading to property users. As a result, any terms or conditions purportedly imposed by PCM Ltd lack legitimacy and practical applicability. The Defendant contests the validity of such terms based on the unclear and misleading nature of the signage.

Coupon-mad

I liked your penultimate one with the quotes from the lease.  Very good version.

MThomas95

Coupon-mad said:

I liked your penultimate one with the quotes from the lease.  Very good version.

So do you recommend that I do have quotes within my defence ?

Boat_to_Bolivia

MThomas95 said:

Coupon-mad said:

I liked your penultimate one with the quotes from the lease.  Very good version.

So do you recommend that I do have quotes within my defence ?

That is how I read @Coupon-mad's post.

No doubt she'll be around later, buzzing from another epic win today (although why they couldn't do that against Everton, at home, last week, is anyone's guess!) 

Coupon-mad

Yep, buzzing!  Last week was a blip.  

Yes that is what I meant. The defence wording with quotes was compelling.