Residential Parking Fine Help

Skibidi20

Hi everyone,

Just need a little guidance please and thank you. I've been following the suggestions in the Newbies thread and have already been to court but the case was adjourned as they said the claimant's solicitor was unprepared. They have asked us to return on a future date that has not been scheduled but prior to that, they would like us to send the cases we intend to depend on for our defense. I am arguing primacy of contract so was wondering if I only need to send 

Pace v Mr N C6GF14F0 [2016] & Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016]

I was also not the driver of the car but they're chasing me as keeper. I already told the judge I was not the driver and the driver is a vulnerable person and did not want to provide their details because of GDPR for vulnerable persons. Is there a case for that or should I just stick to primacy of contract?

Also the judge seemed irritated that the case had been brought to court as he said the claim was small and court time is 'precious'. The claimant's solicitor kept pressing me to settle and the judge even suggested that as well.

Coupon-mad

I detest the propensity of Judges to suggest the easiest way to resolve a parking claim is for the victim Defendant to roll over and settle!

Show us the Notice to Keeper. Both sides.

And the Particulars of Claim, minus the VRM

There's more case law available to you. 

LDast

Do you mean that councel for the Claimant was unprepared? That is unreasonable behaviour and you should make sure that you claim costs if you win and are not liable for theirs if you lose.

Are you likely to have same judge at your next hearing? Hopefully not. 

Skibidi20

@LDast so he was quoting clauses he said was in my lease that he said stated that the management company could employ 3rd parties as they saw fit to manage the estate but the paragraph he kept referring the judge to didn't exist in my document. (we had 2 judges on the day) The 1st judge then dismissed us - i did like that particular judge - then we had to wait to be 'seen' by another judge who seemed more willing to entertain the claimant's solicitor as they seemed to know each other from working other cases.
Unfortunately he says he will be at the next hearing with the same solicitor

Skibidi20

@Coupon-mad can you see the images I posted?

Coupon-mad

You need to exhibit your full tenancy agreement or lease, and these transcripts:


- Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions (Plymouth Court, on appeal to HHJ Mitchel) ref H6DP632H, 21/8/2023 (no period of parking on a NTK that followed a windscreen PCN)

I am on my phone tonight and would need to create a Dropbox link for that, unless @bargepole or @ParkingMad beat me to it...



- Jopson v HomeGuard (Oxford Court, on appeal to HHJ Harris QC) ref
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ayt0unruylk8yc96qs1ku/JOPSON-V-HOMEGUARD-2906J-Approved.pdf?rlkey=s3bbv5ajumsw6m54zoj16sbom&e=1&dl=0

and:

Excel v Smith

VCS v Edward

Civil Enforcement v Chan

Excel v Wilkinson

Link v Parkinson

Pace v Noor

(Search the forum for those)

Skibidi20

@Coupon-mad Thank you!!
The court and parking company’s solicitor already have my lease docs.
Does a generic clause in the lease saying the management company can engage 3rd parties to manage the estate, have any validity?
This was their argument when I asserted primacy of contract.

Skibidi20

@Coupon-mad  
Where can I find the transcripts please as I need to send by tomorrow at the latest.
some links are ‘broken’

h2g2

> Does a generic clause in the lease saying the management company can engage 3rd parties to manage the estate, have any validity?

Can a lawyer confirm whether this might be a reasonable approach:

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Section 18 defines a service charge as:

(18) ... an amount payable by a tenant of a dwelling as part of or in addition to the rent—
(a)which is payable, directly or indirectly, for services, repairs, maintenance, improvements or insurance or the landlord’s costs of management

I've highlighted a couple of words here: in my situation the view of the PPC and the MA is that they have hired contractors to provide the <sarcasm_quotes>service</sarcasm_quotes> to tenants of managing the car park.

QUESTION: Would that make any supposed parking charge levied against a tenant a service charge under the definition of this act? (Honestly, this feels like a stretch, but I'm not sure why it would be - it may force the landlord/managing agent to admit that they're trying to bind the tenants to a new contract in order to enjoy the benefits granted to them in the lease).

If so does Section 20 of the same act apply? This places a requirement to do a consultation in certain circumstances.

It defines a "qualifying long term agreement in 20ZA (2) & (3):

“qualifying long term agreement” means (subject to subsection (3)) an agreement entered into, by or on behalf of the landlord or a superior landlord, for a term of more than twelve months.

(With subsection (3) giving the Secretary of State power to define certain circumstances as not qualifying - those are defined in Section 3 of The Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) Regulations 2003)

QUESTION: Would a contract with a PPC be a "qualifying long term agreement" if the term is 12 months or greater?

If the answer to both those questions is "Yes" (and - to be clear - I'm not a lawyer and I don't know the answer to that) then Section 4 of The Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 makes the requirement for a consultation applicable if the the cost to any leaseholder shall exceed £100 in any 12 month accounting period. A charge of £100/24 hour period (which is normal for these companies) amounts to £36500, so if this is argued successfully could a case be made that the landlord was legally required to have a formal consultation with tenants before introducing a PPC.

Coupon-mad

I only gave you one link.  Nothing is broken. You need to search the forum for those cases, except Brennan which I have but not on dropbox yet.

LDast

Sending a letter to all the residents asking them if they should introduce or keep the existing PPC is not fulfilling the requirements of the LaT Act. A ballot of the leaseholders is undertaken at a Tribunal and not some unregulated poll by email or letter.

So, again, what does your lease say about parking? What doesn't it say about permits or third parties being able to invoice you for £100 a time?