CPM / Gladstone - now got a court date

KingsArms

@KoalaMSEF

Thanks, they must all go to the same school !!

There is no wording in relation to permits anywhere, but you are spot on regarding a vague clause which they are now referencing in their supplementary WS which says :

"The Company may at it's absolute discretion provide maintain or install in or about the Estate any services for the comfort and convenience of the lessees and other occupiers of the Estate"

No reference to permit in the lease or indeed the sales pack when we bought the property. What the lease does say in relation to residents parking obligation is "not to park or permit to be parked any vehicle on any parking space within the Estate other then the that parking space forming part of the property".

KoalaMSEF

Yes, the key here is - is this "for the comfort and convenience of the lessees'? It's just the opposite - stress, injustice, and endless harassment. 

The complication in these issues is - essentially, leaseholder have NO relationship with PPC. leaseholder park according to their lease. lease trumps any other third party commercial contract.  The commercial relationship is between PPC and MA. With the current lease, the leaseholder cannot be forced into a commercial contract with an unrelated third party, unless the freeholder alter the lease, which they don't. 

If you went through IAS, they would also tell you, yes, you have your lease but your have to adhere to the landowner's T&C, that is completely BS. Our freeholder denies so, because if their signage represents freeholder's T&C, that is a huge breach of contract if freeholder do not alter the lease to reflect this new T&C. 

The murky ground is where PPC scam operates. 

KingsArms

@KoalaMSEF

That's exactly what I will tell the judge next week. This forum and the guidance given by folks on here has been invaluable but I've spent considerable time preparing for this along with the stress and hassle. At the end of the day PPC and their appointed solicitors apply the scare tactics which probably work in a lot of cases. Unfortunately for them I'm up for the fight and look forward to my day in court.

Assume you won your case ??

1505grandad

"The murky ground is where PPC scam operates. "

FYI  -  even the latest unregulated single CoP (soon to be replaced by a proper regulated PPCoP by the Government) recognise/acknowledge this scam (page 27):-
https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/NEW Redesigned Documents/sectorsingleCodeofPractice.pdf

THE SINGLE CODE OF PRACTICE14Relationship with landowner 

NOTE 3: Particular care is needed to establish appropriate contractual terms, including the application of parking terms and conditions, in respect of controlled land where leaseholders may have rights that cannot be qualified or overruled e.g. by imposing a requirement on the resident of an apartment block to display a permit to park in contravention of their rights under their lease, or to ensure that free parking periods do not breach planning consents.

KoalaMSEF

KingsArms said:

@KoalaMSEF

That's exactly what I will tell the judge next week. This forum and the guidance given by folks on here has been invaluable but I've spent considerable time preparing for this along with the stress and hassle. At the end of the day PPC and their appointed solicitors apply the scare tactics which probably work in a lot of cases. Unfortunately for them I'm up for the fight and look forward to my day in court.

Assume you won your case ??

I am with you and properly enraged by this scam. 

We never reached the court stage. I wrote a LBC to the freeholder for their liabilities while debt collector was chasing us. The freeholder pressurised the MA to go to the PPC and cancel all the charges and discontinued all the legal actions.

We have also opted out of the whole scheme. In particular, we ask for a written confirmation from the PPC through the MA and warned the MA that (a) we have no obligation to speak to PPC ever again because they are unrelated third party and (2) any problem we will have re. parking will be kicked back to the MA and if MA ignored us, they will be back to the freeholder and the freeholder will face our claim because everything MA has done so far is in the name of the freeholder/landowner. Remind them that we have no contractual relationship with any parking company. 

When you are done with the court, give the MA and freeholder some kicks. They are the part of the problem (of course, some people park inconsiderably, they also enable the MA to hire PPC in the false illusion that they will have one less thing to worry about/manage).

KingsArms

@KoalaMSEF

Issue is the MA at the time of the PCN's was replaced and the new MA promptly kicked out the PPC due to "issues" and replaced them with a new PPC who promptly put up more prominent signage and issued resident permits.

Coupon-mad

I'd opt out of the new scheme asap if the bay is assigned or demised to you.  You do not need permits. No PPC that operates in residential car parks is worth any respect and you certainly don't want to risk this again.

When you move house, NEVER even look at properties with a parking scheme.

KoalaMSEF

KingsArms said:

@KoalaMSEF

Issue is the MA at the time of the PCN's was replaced and the new MA promptly kicked out the PPC due to "issues" and replaced them with a new PPC who promptly put up more prominent signage and issued resident permits.

As much as MA wants to stay away, they should be in the centre of all the mess. 

If you feel overwhelmed at the moment, you may want to wait until you are done with the court. If you need to shout at somebody now, pick MA (or freeholder) to shout. But it is necessary to get MA/freeholder involved. 

New MA and freeholder (if you are leaseholder) need to be reminded of their covenant. They need to know their incompetence. They need to know that they can be held liable for their contractor's behaviour and you could have a claim against MA/freeholder. 

We did not initially opt out but as I battled through this, I realise that, opt out is the best way to prevent any further entanglement with PPC. What they are doing now is a playbook. They won't change. It's a script and people in that system are just key-clicking, copy-and-paste machines. If the permit falls off or there is a courtesy car for instance in the future, charges will still be sent to you and you will go through this battle again (There are actually quite a few media reports on this). 

If you opt out, make sure you have written confirmation. MA and freeholder need to be involved. MA will have loads of BS to say to you that they have nothing to do with it (they have everything to do with it, they are the principal to the PPC as the agency). There may be a lot of back and forth, a lot of shouting, and a lot of hassle, but MA needs to know their lazy act to install a PPC won't save them from complaints and they are potentially facing lawsuits for breach of contract, i.e., lease. 

KingsArms

Update from this morning's hearing. Well good news is I won !

In summary the Judge was unhappy that no one turned up for the claimant. I knew the claimant was not appearing but expected their legal representative. Judge's exact words regarding no show was "disgraceful....".

The case took 4 minutes more or less as he had looked at the lease and said "no idea why this claim has been filed.."

The Judge awarded me costs and said they would be paid directly to me within 14 days. If not paid, "send in the bailiffs..."

So another success but you have to wonder how much court time is being wasted, there were 4 cases regarding parking today at this particular court based on the board at the court.

Many many thanks for everyone's comments but especially @Coupon-madwhose guidance was invaluable.

I will monitor this forum and if I can use my experience today and throughout this process I will add comments.

 

Le_Kirk

Well done and what a good judge!