DCB Legal - Response to first email

Snayl86

1505grandad said:

@B789 -  as your posts are seen and answered (mine are not) would you mind posting and ask the OP who the ?#*k the (and the same cowboy parking lot) are?. After 4 requests the answer may be useful as to the way forward, if only to know which AoS member they are. Thanks.

I missed the post where you asked this, apologies. It's Secure-A-Space. 

B789

Snayl86 said:
I'm having to tread carefully as they are the same property management co I have for my current property (and the same cowboy parking lot)

Why? They are contracted to manage the property. You pay your management fees and they do what they are contracted to do. Do you fear that they may try and make your life difficult because you are making waves? If they are stupid enough to try that then you have plenty of recourse to make them think twice.

You really must show them that you are not some gullible, meek wallflower. You have a lease/AST (contract) that supersedes anything that the management company try to foist on your rights in that contract. Read what your lease/AST says about parking. Does it say you must show a valid permit to park in your own space? What it doesn't say about parking is equally important.

I don't know what is wrong with people not standing up for their rights.

Snayl86

B789 said:

Snayl86 said:
I'm having to tread carefully as they are the same property management co I have for my current property (and the same cowboy parking lot)

Why? They are contracted to manage the property. You pay your management fees and they do what they are contracted to do. Do you fear that they may try and make your life difficult because you are making waves? If they are stupid enough to try that then you have plenty of recourse to make them think twice.

You really must show them that you are not some gullible, meek wallflower. You have a lease/AST (contract) that supersedes anything that the management company try to foist on your rights in that contract. Read what your lease/AST says about parking. Does it say you must show a valid permit to park in your own space? What it doesn't say about parking is equally important.

I don't know what is wrong with people not standing up for their rights.

I'm being completely selfish here as I've got them pushing a different letting agent for some remedial work that needs doing after a leak. They have been known to mess around others who have rocked the boat as it were, but I hear what you're saying. I've gone back to them so will see IF they respond. I very much doubt it.

B789

Snayl86 said:
I'm being completely selfish here as I've got them pushing a different letting agent for some remedial work that needs doing after a leak. They have been known to mess around others who have rocked the boat as it were, but I hear what you're saying. I've gone back to them so will see IF they respond. I very much doubt it.

In exactly the same circumstances as your alleged breach of contract with the PPC, you have a contract with the management company and I'm sure that if you read the terms of that contract, you will find clauses that protect your rights and can be used against them if they are trying to bully you by not adhering to the terms of their contract.

Snayl86

Three days later from DCBL legal. Bless their hearts

You'd have thought they would have (or 'of' if you're the paralegal) uniformed the formatting.

Dear XXXX,

We write in response to your email dated 6th June 2023.

When parking on private land, the contractual terms of the site are set out on the signs. You are entering a contract and agreeing to the terms by parking and staying on the site. Parking in breach of the terms as stipulated on the signage means that you are then breaking the terms of the contract. By parking and subsequently exiting your vehicle, it is reasonable to assume you have agreed to the terms and conditions on the land.

The signs at the location state “additional charges may be incurred for late payment after 28 days”. Therefore, contractual costs have been added as per the term and conditions of parking. A copy of a sign at the location is attached for your reference.

In accordance with the appeal decision made on 29th July 2020 in Britannia Parking Group Ltd v Semark-Julien [2020] EW Mis 12 (CC), it is not correct to propose this claim should be struck out as an ‘abuse of process’ due to the contractual costs claimed. You may wish to seek independent legal advice to access up to date information.

Kindly note, we will not continue to engage in conversations regarding matters that have previously been discussed.

Kind Regards,

Coupon-mad

They really aren't worthy of a reply, are they?!

IMHO a useless aggressive bulk litigator who are about to be cut down to size by the DLUHC, I hope.

Snayl86

Coupon-mad said:

They really aren't worthy of a reply, are they?!

IMHO a useless aggressive bulk litigator who are about to be cut down to size by the DLUHC, I hope.

I'm not in the least bit surprised, but at the same time - my goodness...

I believe the code of practice has now been withdrawn pending review?

Coupon-mad

That's very old news. It was temporarily withdrawn about a year ago.

Lots of work has continued in the past few months (after the Liz Truss distraction and interruption!) and I'm on the Government Steering Group, so I can tell you that this statutory Code hasn't died and the final process will be resurrected within weeks.

We need you - as a genuine PPC victim of aggression, sharp practice and an 'extortion' attempt to add £70 - to respond robustly to the Public Consultation on the level of parking charges and banning of the false added DRA 'fee' that too many honest motorists currently fall victim to.

It will need consumer input (powerful voices) but change is afoot. It's taken about 5 years to get to this stage:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6333036/breaking-news-government-has-announced-the-statutory-code-of-practice-and-enforcement-framework/p1

And then the industry threw victims' money at it and blocked and delayed it - explained here:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79310609/#Comment_79310609

Please now Bookmark BOTH threads and set up email alerts on your posting profile, so that you get an email alert when we post there, as we will, once the Public Consultation opens.

...anticipated in a few weeks...July we think.

We need people like you and your driving family & friends to respond in high numbers!

You have a personal story to tell about the culture of greed that inflates parking charges to line the pockets of roboclaim bullyboy 'legal' firms, and incentivises court as a cheaper form of debt collection than the PPC making proper efforts to engage with the consumer,

I am sure you want your voice heard to stop this happening again.

Snayl86

Coupon-mad said:

That's very old news. It was temporarily withdrawn about a year ago.

Lots of work has continued in the past few months (after the Liz Truss distraction and interruption!) and I'm on the Government Steering Group, so I can tell you that this statutory Code hasn't died and the final process will be resurrected within weeks.

We need you - as a genuine PPC victim of aggression, sharp practice and an 'extortion' attempt to add £70 - to respond robustly to the Public Consultation on the level of parking charges and banning of the false added DRA 'fee' that too many honest motorists currently fall victim to.

It will need consumer input (powerful voices) but change is afoot. It's taken about 5 years to get to this stage:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6333036/breaking-news-government-has-announced-the-statutory-code-of-practice-and-enforcement-framework/p1

And then the industry threw victims' money at it and blocked and delayed it - explained here:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79310609/#Comment_79310609

Please now Bookmark BOTH threads and set up email alerts on your posting profile, so that you get an email alert when we post there, as we will, once the Public Consultation opens.

...anticipated in a few weeks...July we think.

We need people like you and your driving family & friends to respond in high numbers!

You have a personal story to tell about the culture of greed that inflates parking charges to line the pockets of roboclaim thug 'legal' firms, and incentivises court as a cheaper form of debt collection than the PPC making proper efforts to engage with the consumer,

I am sure you want your voice heard to stop this happening again.

Thank you for this, on it right now

Snayl86

Hello wonderfully knowledgable people in my computer.

Writing out my defence currently. I'll not bother posting all of it from the template, but is there anything else here that you would add/remove? To reiterate, my STA with my landlord stated I had the right to park in an allocated parking space with no mention of having to display a permit:

The facts known to the Defendant:

2.1 It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle XXXXXXX which is the subject of these proceedings.

3.1 The Defendant was a resident of a block of flats (XXXXXXXX) pursuant to an Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreement dated 30th September 2017 (hereafter referred to as the "Lease"). Under the Lease the Defendant is granted the right "To park private vehicle(s) only in the space allocated to the premises, in a roadworthy condition and fully taxed.” The Lease contains no clause requiring a permit to park, nor any clause requiring the tenant to make payments to any third party.

 

3.2 The Defendant’s vehicle was parked in said designated parking space on the material date in accordance with the terms of the Lease.

 

3.3 There are no terms within the Lease requiring the lessee to display a parking permit, or to pay penalties to third parties, such as the Claimant, for non-display of same.

 

3.4 The Defendant avers that the Claimant, who is a third party to the Lease, cannot unilaterally vary its terms.

 

3.  The Defendant will rely upon PACE v Mr (N Redacted), case C6GF14F0 in Croydon county court where the case was heard by District Judge Coonan. The Judge in that case found that the parking company could not amend the terms of the tenancy agreement to bind a tenant, but rather that it would have to be the other party to the contract. In summing up he stated " I have before me a tenancy agreement which gives Mr [N. redacted] the right to park on the estate and it does not say “on condition that you display a permit”. It does not say that, so he has that right. What Pace Recovery is seeking to do is, unilaterally outside the contract, restrict that right to only when a permit is displayed. Pace Recovery cannot do that."

 

3.6 The defendant will also rely upon Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016] in Wrexham county court where the case was hear by District Deputy Judge Metcalf. The judge in this case also found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.

 

3.7 The presence of the Claimant's signage, and the purported contractual terms conveyed therein, are thus 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.