Contest in court OR accept landlord's offer to pay PCN? (District Enforcement/Residential Parking)

PrezvanRat26

Hello,

Not an ideal update but in for a penny, in for a pound with defending these rogue charges at this point so...

I now have an LBC from the Solicitors - who I shan't name but are one of the ones where it is recommended I send them an email (letter dated 25th June 2024, I supposedly have until the 25th July to reply).

(Quick note: I have since received a second charge as I didn't have the permit showing - but I guess that doesn't change anything - both PCNs are included in the claim from the Solicitors.)

I have gone through the Newbies thread and understand the two steps are: complain to the Block Management Company again (especially as I've now been made aware they sorted out a PCN for another resident who was an acquaintance of the Block Management Company Secretary), and then send the Solicitors an email using the template email in the Newbies thread.

However, within that thread, it says to list the reasons why I'm challenging it. I suppose in my original post, I listed the 3 things I was set to base any defence on, but haven't had too much clarification on what is/isn't relevant, so, before I fire the email off, just looking to check whether the following are worth including:


1. Primacy of Contract: I am a Tenant so haven't seen the landlord's actual lease (and I feel getting hold of this is going to be important). However, on a noticeboard/in a tenant's Welcome Pack there is a set of Rules and Regulations - which seem to be the closest thing to 'official' rules. They say:

Each leaseholder is bound by the "fifth schedule referred to regulations as to user" which is detailed below. When purchasing a property the lawyer acting for the purchaser should inform the purchaser as to his or her obligations under the leasehold. It has become clear in some cases that the purchaser has not read the lease or been informed of their obligations under lease by their lawyer. This has lead to difficulties with some leaseholders confused as to what their situation is under the lease. The following are the relevant rules embodied within the lease.

Within the following rules and bylaws, there is no mention of a requirement for permits/District Enforcement patrolling, etc.

2. Signage: As per my original post, I believe there are elements with the signage which don't comply with IPC guidelines

3. Commercial Justification: I probably don't know enough about any of this but this line I saw somewhere else caught my eye:

In Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E it was established that ParkingEye vs Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 does not apply to residential parking, and this will therefore bring the penalty doctrine back in play. The charge will therefore likely be a penalty and unfair consumer charge unless it is found the charge is a pre-estimate of loss or there is commercial justification.

This is a residential case. I was parked outside my own garage. Nobody anywhere is £200 down because of my actions. Although, I imagine at this stage this one is irrelevant...

4. No Permit: For the first of the two charges, I was technically still awaiting my permit.

My concern with making them aware of my reasons for challenging as that I wouldn't want to 'tip my hand' to people with, in theory despite this being what they do for a living, a lot more legal nous...


Finally, for now, we have a shiny new local MP who may be looking to show willing for their new constituents, would it be worth me bringing this to the attention of their office?

-----

As ever, all assistance in this matter is appreciated!

Thanks!

Coupon-mad

Yes tell the MP to back the statutory Code of Practice which sits with Angela Rayner's Dept and ask them why residents are not being protected from £100 rip off charges.

And yes, do this: 

complain to the Block Management Company again (especially as I've now been made aware they sorted out a PCN for another resident who was an acquaintance of the Block Management Company Secretary), and then send the Solicitors an email using the template email in the Newbies thread.

I'd keep the response to the solicitor as is (the template) apart from one or two extra lines, saying that their clients know full well the Defendant is a permit holder, so Beavis is fully distinguished and these charges are not saved from falling foul of the penalty rule. Clearly there's no commercial justification nor legitimate interest in penalising residents and imposing rules that interfere with rights and easements already offered and enjoyed under the lease, of which DE is not a party.

Attach a copy of the permit again to your reply and finish by telling them to tell Mr Kurpil to cease and desist with this harassment of a known resident.  State that you intend to counterclaim for not less than £600 if they proceed.

PrezvanRat26

Great, thanks.

I shall get those elements added to the template and sent off. Although I'm still concerned at not having seen the landlord's full lease in case there is something related to DE and permits in there...

Thanks!

PrezvanRat26

Hypothetical follow up question:

Would I be able to include the Residential Management Company in any potential counterclaim, and would it be worthwhile?

Just as I may mention doing so in this next complaint to them. I was beyond livid when I found out they'd sorted someone else's PCN after they repeatedly told me they can't get involved...

Fruitcake

PrezvanRat26 said:

Hypothetical follow up question:

Would I be able to include the Residential Management Company in any potential counterclaim, and would it be worthwhile?

Just as I may mention doing so in this next complaint to them. I was beyond livid when I found out they'd sorted someone else's PCN after they repeatedly told me they can't get involved...

If the RMC employed the PPC, then they are the principle (the organ grinder), and DE is their agent (the monkey), so yes, you can and should include them in the counterclaim. You should warn them beforehand of your intent asap, and suggest that they seek legal advice, then warn them about the consequences of getting a CCJ. Use the exact words that the PPC used in this regard.

Coupon-mad

You could not add them to a counterclaim because you can only counterclaim against the Claimant. But...

...but ... here's an idea:

...a really proactive thing you could do is send a LBC to the RTM & DE (to both. Not the solicitor) and then if they fail to back down within say, 21 days, bung in a claim quicker than DE can, for a few hundred (max for a £35 fee) for damages for distress, pursuant to both the Data Protection Act 2018 & UK GDPR, and the Protection from Harassment Act.

If you do that LBC first, next week, and completely separately, deliberately hold off replying to the solicitor's LBC until day 30, asking for a further 30 day hold for debt advice and NOT MENTIONING the separate LBC until after your claim is in, you can beat them to litigation - naming two Defendants -  and blow the whole thing wide open.

Puts you in the driving seat. Worth thinking about. More people should try this.  We have a thread where a poster is about to sue a RTM company and PPC using Contestor Legal to do it for them. Read that thread. Search for it. And search the forum for Jackson Yamba. Power to his elbow.

LDast

If the RMC contracted DE then they are jointly and severally liable for the actions of their agent. You should let them know that if their agent serves a claim on you, your Part 20 counterclaim will include the RMC as one of the parties to the counterclaim.

You can also let them know that they will be required to provide strict proof that they have a contract with the landowner that gives them the right to contract a third party that can fetter the rights you have in your lease. They will be put to strict proof that they have followed the required process to vary the lease according to the requirements as set out in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, section 37. 

Coupon-mad

LDast said:

If the RMC contracted DE then they are jointly and severally liable for the actions of their agent. You should let them know that if their agent serves a claim on you, your Part 20 counterclaim will include the RMC as one of the parties to the counterclaim.

Yes but far easier to sue both, with the OP as the Claimant (see above thoughts).

PrezvanRat26

Ok, thanks for all of this extra info. It is appreciated. As intriguing as it is, my ultimate thoughts are that I've only really got the time to deal with just defending the PCNs as opposed to pursuing separate claims of my own.

I suppose the only other aim I would have is to be able to defend this action successfully and then let other residents know about the situation so that more can put pressure on the company to get rid of DE instead of just myself.

To that end, I will still add those extra bits to the email as directed (including the counter claim stuff).

In the meantime, I will just complain to the Resident Management Company again to see if they can get it sorted and inform them that if I get taken to court and win then their whole parking scheme will be jeopardised. I'll also be in touch with my new MP.

Again, the main thing holding me back is that I've not seen the Landlord's actual lease so don't know what that contains re: parking. I feel like I need to see that to really see where I stand.

Also, with sending this email should I wait until the end of the 30-day window I have to reply before sending it, just to string things out even further?

prowla

I'm curious as to why the landlord would offer to pay the charge - surely the parking company is their agent (direct or by proxy) and so subject to their instruction?