Link Parking Claim

Savosmee · 29 June 2024 at 1:09PM

Hi all, I have received the witness statement from BW legal just now and they have made a very lengthy reply about all the aspects of the Defence. They know that I have downloaded it from moneysavingexpert.com and basically responding to all the points made. I do not have enough knowledge to follow all their arguments and also I am due to respond by Tuesday so I am stressing out a bit...

I will try to post pictures of their arguments here about all the case law they are supplying to contradict all the arguments in the Defence if I am allowed to upload these.

In respect to my own facts they claim that:

- I did not have a unfettered right to park as the parking bay was "solely for the use of visitors" in the conditions of my lease, although at no point did I say that I was the driver nor who the driver was and I tell them that I was lending my car to other people which is true and that the car was used by my visitors as I would lend it to family from time to time when they visit

- as a reminder in my lease it says that it is "solely for the use of visitors" and that the only condition is not to "remain parked for longer than 24 consecutive hours", which the car did not.
On their signage they have added the condition of no return within 48 hours which is not in my lease. they say also that there was a letter sent to resident from Link parking that set out that additional condition of no return of 48 hours. They attach a copy of that letter but I do not remember that letter it could have been opened by someone else as it is addressed to "resident". In any case I did not agree to that and my lease makes no mention of that but they seem to claim that they are allowed to add these additional conditions of no return within 48 hours in order to regulate the parking

- my argument which is true is that the car stopped briefly on the parking bay on day 1 and then on the next day parked briefly there for less than a couple of hours maybe even less, it is supported by their evidence, the picture of the car of day 1 there is just one distant picture of the car at 08:59 on the parking spot from the back with no additional pictures from the front so we can't even see if someone is in the car. on day 2 there are more pictures from every angle that shows the car there for 1 minute and 15 seconds, from around 10:14 however the car is parked completely differently on the bay which shows it did not remain parked throughout. I have said that in my defence but they do not address that at all and say the car was parked for 25 hours and 15 minutes....

LDast · 29 June 2024 at 2:35PM

Sending a letter or an email to residents does not and cannot override the terms of a lease. Link are not a party to the lease and cannot change, alter or override the terms in the lease no matter what they claim.

Like all scammers, they will rely on their bottom-dwelling solicitors to try and bamboozle the defendant with irrelevant and mendacious facts in an attempt to prey on any gullibility.

Coupon-mad · 29 June 2024 at 8:25PM

Savosmee said:

Hi all, I have received the witness statement from BW legal just now and they have made a very lengthy reply about all the aspects of the Defence. They know that I have downloaded it from moneysavingexpert.com and basically responding to all the points made.

No they haven't.

Search the forum for a sentence from it...