DCB Legal Court Date March Resident

Coupon-mad

Does para 6 make sense?

It needs editing if this is your home car park, because para 6 was written for a case where the driver was a visitor and it talks twice about 'having permission from the leaseholder'. 

Typo here:

"only residents have access too."

I'd remove this sentence:

"At some point, the managing agents contracted with the Claimant company to enforce parking conditions at the estate."

Colonizemars

Fruitcake said:

I would amend your para 11,

11. The Claimant, and/or Managing Agent, in order to establish a right to impose unilateral terms which vary the terms of the lease, must make an application to vary the lease  have such variation which must be approved by at least 75% of the landlords and leaseholders, pursuant to s Section 37 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1987. and the Defendant is unaware of any such vote No such application having been passed was ever made or approved and by the residents. The claimant is put to strict proof that the contrary is true.

perfect I have now amended para 11 as suggested 

KeithP said:

Isn't the claimant Secure a Space Ltd?

 

Yes the claimant is secure a space 

Colonizemars

Coupon-mad said:

Does para 6 make sense?

It needs editing if this is your home car park, because para 6 was written for a case where the driver was a visitor and it talks twice about 'having permission from the leaseholder'. 

Typo here:

"only residents have access too."

I'd remove this sentence:

"At some point, the managing agents contracted with the Claimant company to enforce parking conditions at the estate."

I have amended para 6 to the following 

6. It is denied that the Defendant were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier of [address], whose tenancy agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the tenancy agreement, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The tenancy terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant parking area, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle. A copy of the tenancy agreement will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given.

KeithP

Colonizemars said:

KeithP said:

Isn't the claimant Secure a Space Ltd? 

Yes the claimant is secure a space 

No. The claimant is Secure a Space Ltd.

Coupon-mad

Colonizemars said:

Coupon-mad said:

Does para 6 make sense?

It needs editing if this is your home car park, because para 6 was written for a case where the driver was a visitor and it talks twice about 'having permission from the leaseholder'. 

Typo here:

"only residents have access too."

I'd remove this sentence:

"At some point, the managing agents contracted with the Claimant company to enforce parking conditions at the estate."

I have amended para 6 to the following 

6. It is denied that the Defendant were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier of [address], whose tenancy agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the tenancy agreement, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The tenancy terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant parking area, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle. A copy of the tenancy agreement will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given

So the D was driving and was a visitor?

Have you sorted out the typo and the other sentence I suggested you remove?


This is wrong:

6. It is denied that the Defendant were

should be:
 
6. It is denied that the Defendant was

Colonizemars

Coupon-mad said:

Colonizemars said:

Coupon-mad said:

Does para 6 make sense?

It needs editing if this is your home car park, because para 6 was written for a case where the driver was a visitor and it talks twice about 'having permission from the leaseholder'. 

Typo here:

"only residents have access too."

I'd remove this sentence:

"At some point, the managing agents contracted with the Claimant company to enforce parking conditions at the estate."

I have amended para 6 to the following 

6. It is denied that the Defendant were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier of [address], whose tenancy agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the tenancy agreement, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The tenancy terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant parking area, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle. A copy of the tenancy agreement will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given

So the D was driving and was a visitor?

Have you sorted out the typo and the otger sentence I suggested you remove?


This is wrong:

6. It is denied that the Defendant were

should be:
 
6. It is denied that the Defendant was

6. Okay will change to was - also yes changed everything else you suggested to amend or remove and no I was a tenant at the property. My tenancy agreement stated the right to park 

I’ve amended para 6 I can’t see where in new para it says I’m a visitor ? I need to submit this today 13th 4pm is the deadline panicking now. 

Also secure a space ltd been applied to claimant section thank you for pointer 

Coupon-mad

This bit makes no sense as YOU are the tenant and occupier.  You didn't give yourself permission:

"..permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier of [address], whose tenancy agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land."

Colonizemars

Coupon-mad said:

This bit makes no sense as YOU are the tenant and occupier.  You didn't give yourself permission:

"..permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier of [address], whose tenancy agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land."

Good morning 

how do you suggest I reword it as I can’t see how it doesn’t make sense as I’ve mentioned the word tenant and tenancy agreement 

would appreciate your help 

Coupon-mad

You didn't give yourself permission.  It makes no sense as it is but you can easily edit it.

Colonizemars

Coupon-mad said:

You didn't give yourself permission.  It makes no sense as it is but you can easily edit it.

I’ve edited it to the following, does this make sense 

6. It is denied that the Defendant was in breach of any parking conditions or was not permitted to park. The defendants tenancy agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the tenancy agreement, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The tenancy terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant parking area, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle. A copy of the tenancy agreement will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given.