PCC in leasehold space [court claim started against MC & PPC]

Castle

According to Companies House, Fresh PM Ltd, (Co Reg 11455736), was dissolved in October 2019; so, I suspect that "Fresh PM" is just a trading name belonging to some other company.

I was going to suggest you check out Fresh Property Management Ltd (Co Reg 07022738) but they were dissolved in December 2025.

h2g2

Fresh PM is now a trading name of Trust Property Management PLC Ltd: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/05591526

The identity of the management company is neither a mystery nor is it a point. I get e-mails from them every week telling people to stop overfilling the recycling bins. Any contract between PCM and Fresh PM will have transferred to Trust PM, who bought out Fresh PM back in 2023.

h2g2

Update: We're going to appeal it for three reasons.

1. If we don't the management company would be able to simply appoint a new PPC, so we gain very little.
2. It's the proper thing to do. The court moving forward on the misapprehension that the management company are not involved will just get confusing if the current PPC do show a chain of authority back to the management company. (How would we answer if the judge asks "why didn't you appeal that decision then?")
3. The management company were awarded £3500 of costs from me!

h2g2

Popcorn time.

The appeal was put in yesterday, which was the deadline to submit the appeal by. I heard nothing from JY until calling him late in the day to get confirmation, so spent the whole day nervous we might miss the deadline.

I am preparing a first draft of a witness statement. Fee has been paid. We've also ordered a transcript.

However, and really get a handful of your popcorn here, I have been sent the management company's skeleton argument and it is incredible. I really, really wish I had taken a day off to attend because I could have asked some very difficult questions of the opposing counsel and hopefully convinced the DJ at the time.

The (mis)management company have claimed to have been operating as managing agents to the original developers, who sold the freehold in 2021 or 2022 or so. They have sought multiple times to push blame onto the former freeholder, who was at all material times a stranger to the land. And claimed to be their "managing agent"! I am really curious how they will justify misidentifying their own apparent client.

That's before you even get to the fact that an RTM Company is never a managing agent for the freeholder, but necessarily is independent of them, and that is the entire point of a tripartite leasehold anyway.

They've also got some other blunders, like claiming to be entitled to issue "fines for non-compliance"(!) and referring to them as "penalty charge notices". (By the way @Coupon-mad , with apologies for tagging you, you may be specifically interested in this. The skeleton was drafted by a fully qualified barrister with several years experience, and even they confused a PCN (parking charge notice) for PCN (penalty charge notice). If you ever need evidence that that PPC's need to be forbidden from using the PCN abbreviation, this is surely it.)

Coupon-mad

JY had half an eye on the Mazur appeal last week I expect. I am glad you appealed this.

h2g2

We are still waiting for the transcript (ordered at the end of February!) from the first hearing.

Meanwhile one of my co-claimants got on LBC on three of the tickets we're claiming trespass for (£510), after having received many many texts from Moorside, and has now said she wants to just pay and avoid the hassle. :-( :-(

Coupon-mad

and has now said she wants to just pay and avoid the hassle. :-( :-(

Noooooo!! People are so easily spooked.

h2g2

She's paid and asked if I can have part of the claim (for harassment and misuse of personal data) discontinued.

I'm trying to convince her not to leave the case.

However, I'm pretty sure that there's some CPR and/or SRA breach by Moorside for pursuing her over tickets while we already have a claim to have those tickets declared invalid.

Does anyone know what I'd want to put into a WS to support that?

Coupon-mad

I don't know if there is case law.

@Johnersh may know.

Johnersh

Not sure there is specifically, since clearly court proceedings have been started (so no point threatening that) and they are absolutely not entitled to enforce (since they don't have judgment). Clearly if the debt never existed this could be used as prima facie evidence of harassment since they must know that no payment will be proffered until conclusion.

Additionally if the defendant has representation one might argue that it is a breach for the claimant to be communicating with Mr Yambas client directly, rather than with nominated solicitors. That potentially prejudices the conduct of the litigation if the claimants lawyers are not aware of the communication (and if they are aware, then then one can question whether that gives rise to a regulatory issue/seeks to take advantage by bypassing Ds representation).

Incidentally of the £3,500 adverse costs awarded,

1. if any element of that pertains to costs thrown away at the preceding hearing (where the advocate didn't turn up, despite having one job), that should be for the advocate to pay not the defendant. If s/he had a transport disaster they needed to liaise with the court or send someone else, not drop the o/p in it.

2. The advocate should have made submissions on costs to have those pared back. If they did not, that too is a failure.

Any claim to recover the costs of a hearing should be set out in advance in writing in a schedule to permit assessment/negotiation for the purposes of assessment and extempore judgment.