Link Parking Claim

LDast

Gr1pr said:

Just bear in mind that some courts have size limits or page limits, typically say 50 pages 

If it goes over their limits, print it out and hand deliver to the local court, email should be ok to the legal company 

Just to clarify that point... it's 25 pages or 50 sides of A4. 

Savosmee

Thank you all. I have sent my documents already.
However I was just re reading the evidence and witness statements from BW Legal I am wondering whether I will lose.

Basically they are referring to certain terms in the lease that says that "any resident or visitors need to comply with estate regulations in force". Then they go on saying that estate regulations is defined as regulations made by the management company. and then they provide a letter in their evidence (although with no date or address) that appear to come from our management company which says that now to park in the visitor parking bay we have to display a permit and also not return within 72 hours. 

So would that suffice as evidence that the management company has first altered the regulations and that I must have been aware of it?

Also would the management company be able to alter the terms of the lease with this letter only, as in my lease there are no such conditions, and also this letter not even addressed to myself or my address?

Thanks to anyone who would have any input...

Savosmee

Just to be clear the estate regulations is defined in my lease as "any regulations made from time to time by the Landlord or Management Company for the Propert management and use of the Maintained Property notified to the Tenant in writing"

But then there is no details on what the "Estate Regulations" would be and in another part of my lease other than I must comply with them under my obligations.

Then in the section about my rights in the lease there is this right to use the visitor parking bay which is not subject to any Estate Regulations and there is no mention this can be altered by the Management Company within their Estate Regulations and there is no other obligation than not to park longer than 24 hours. No mention of no return.

Le_Kirk

Have you asked the management company or their agents WHEN, not if, a ballot of leaseholders/freeholders/tenants was carried out and was the result 75% in favour with no more than 10% against?

Savosmee

No I have not, I will email them now.

I have read the lease again and again since yesterday and it seems that the Management Company is entitled to make "Estate Regulations" in relation to the "Maintained Property" the only requirement being that Leaseholder be notified in writing.

However then it gets confusing as to what is the maintained property and whether this includes the parking as the parking spaces are not included in the definition of "Maintained Property" in the lease and rather the "allocated parking spaces" and "visitor's car parking spaces" hold their own distinct definitions.

But the "Maintained Property" makes references to Estate Communal area which themselves mention many things but do not mention the parking although they refer to "other external communal area" which it self is not defined. The visitor's car parking spaces are external, but the allocated parking spaces are not and within a closed underground parking and therefore do not qualify as external for that purposes.  But the issue is that they get a distinct definition in the lease, similarly there are a few clauses elsewhere in the lease that make mention to the Estate Communal area distinctively to the car parking spaces so for example a clause would read something like "not to park on the Estate Communal area or the Car parking spaces other than..." or when there is a mention of "not to obstruct ... the Estate Communal Area or Car parking spaces ..." so it seems distinct in the lease.

Also, in respect to the rights of the leaseholder the use of the visitor car parking space or the resident's car parking space is not subject to compliance to the estate regulations specifically although the clause right before which relate to the gym or the clause that relate to a communal area they specifically mention that their use IS subject to compliance with Estate Regulations...

So to me, Parking spaces visitors or not, are not subject to these Estate Regulations and the Lease did not intend to provide the Management Company rights to manage the parking differently as set out in the Lease but I am not an expert nor a solicitor so I am unsure, so would you generally agree with that or not?
What could I do to convince a judge in that direction?

Savosmee

Hi all,
So I've received another letter from the court BW Legal has issued another claim against myself, same car park same Defendant, me, but another car and in relation to my own parking bay. I wonder whether they shouldn't have issued the claim together with the current one? as it is the same car park and same defendant and same claimant? the car is different though so maybe it's okay. Shall I mention that in my Defence or preferable not? 

The other thing I'm worried about is that they have purposefully waited for the holiday period to issue this claim and that they may issue another one in relation to another car I had temporarily and I know there was a PCN one day on that car when it was parked in my own bay, which I told Link at the time that it was my own bay, but I never heard back.
The reason why I think they would send it now is because in my n180 questionnaire for the current original claim they have done against me I mention that we will be away during the coming weeks and I'm worried I might miss the letter from the Court if it comes during the time we're away. Since they got my n180 questionnaire where I said I was away during that period I think they're purposefully issuing the claims now so I miss the deadline to reply...
Anything I could do to protect myself against that? Or if it does happen that they issue another Claim whilst I'm away could I do something about it by proving that they knew from my n180 questionnaire that I was going to be away?
Of course there is always this issue of issuing different claims against the same defendant and same cause of action, although different cars...

Thanks in advance

Gr1pr

Yes, all claims should be under just one MCOL claim, not multiple claims 

Look up estoppel, Henderson and Henderson 

You would be following the same procedures but adding in that they should be combined into one single case, estoppel and Henderson will be added etc, even if you use the same defence as before, but with these extra additions 

There Will be a dozen or more similar cases on here, its happened a lot, search out some recent cases to study 

LDast

Is this "new" letter from BW Legal a Letter of Claim or are you saying that you have now received a new claim N1SDT form from the CNBC?

Don't imagine for a minute that anyone at the PPC or BW Legal has the intellectual nourishment to try and "get you" by filing a claim based on dates you put in your other N180 DQ. It is just the way it has happened.

So, is it an LoC? If so, you can wait until day 29 and send them a "seeking debt advice" additional 30 day hold response to delay anything. Do you have anyone who can check your mail while you are away? How long are you going to be away for?

You also need to search the forum for cause action estoppel for why they must combine all claims into a single claim. They cannot make a claim and then keep repeating that claim if it is essentially the same as the previous one.

Savosmee

Yes it is a new Claim from CNBC with a new Claim number different from the Claim number I have for the first Claim.

Their PoC are slightly different as the breach here is: not displaying a valid permit.

I will look for cause action estoppel thanks and add that in my Defence for the new claim. The rest of the Defence is going to be basically the same, the only difference is the vehicle reg and the fact that I was parked on my own bay, in the previous one it was the visitor's bay, but in the same car park. Shall I prepare like a supplementary document for my hearing about the initial claim as I did not mention that cause action estoppel at the time in my Defence? The deadline has passed and all evidence was submitted, but this arrived afterwards. Also again the breach claimed in the PoC is different...

Unfortunately I need to go abroad to take care of my elderly mother who will have an operation for at least 3 or 4 weeks so yeah if they issue another claim separately again I will miss that... I was thinking of doing a Subject Access Request to BW Legal now and as I leave in a week then maybe they will respond maximum 3weeks after we left, maybe less, and this should include information about another issued claim if they had issued one during those 2/3 weeks?

Gr1pr

For claim number 1 , what stage is it at. ? With your local court. ? Ws stage. ?  Or has everything been sent. ?

With claim number 2 , post the issue date and the redacted POC picture of the claim form, preferably in a new thread, but link this thread as claim number 1 adding that the second claim is a new identical claim, with identical features, if true 

So each claim has its own thread, but linked 

I wouldn't be doing any SAR