Rights of Third Parties Act?

my-goodness · 16 April 2018 at 4:50PM

Hello guys,

I've tried searching the forum for mention of the Rights of Third Parties Act and haven't come up with much. Huge apologies if this has already been covered!

I'm currently being pursued by UKCPS for not displaying a permit in my own residential space. I'm currently at debt collector stage but want to be prepared should they take me to court.

Now, the lease between me, the landowner and the management company has a clause giving me the right to exclusive use of my parking space, with nothing mentioned about permits. But then there's the following clause elsewhere in the lease, which I can't make sense of:
"A person who is not a party to this Lease has no right under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 to enforce any term of this Lease but this does not affect any right or remedy of a third party which exists or is available apart from that Act."

Can anybody help me to decode this? Is this good/bad/neither for my case?

Thank you!

Coupon-mad · 16 April 2018 at 5:18PM

"A person who is not a party to this Lease has no right under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 to enforce any term of this Lease but this does not affect any right or remedy of a third party which exists or is available apart from that Act."

Johnersh, IamEmanresu, bargepole or LOC123 might explain it better, and I may be wrong, but my interpretation is:

Third parties have no rights under the lease but they still (of course) have their normal statutory and civil rights (e.g. Equality Act, or say, negligence for if a visitor falls down the stairs due to a damaged step, etc).

I think it is not something to worry about. More important is to look for any clause that gives the landlord or MA (who?) the right to 'make regulations' for the convenience of the residents or smooth running of the site.

See Link v Blaney:

https://padi.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/115004207805-Tenants-Link-v-Blaney-C9GF03Q9

Compare it to Link v Parkinson:

https://padi.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/115003357965-Freeholders-Link-Parking-v-Parkinson

And this is very useful info:

https://padi.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/212308165-Leasehold-Parking-Management-Contract

''If you want to see what arrangements your Managing Agent has made with the parking company and for what purpose send a "S.20 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985" notice to the Agent asking for details of the "Long Term Service Contract" they have made with the parking company. They have 21 days to reply.''

''If the site is considering using a parking company, you have a right to be consulted under S.20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 which means you should receive information before the contract is signed''.

Here's a recent residential defence mentioning the fact that consensus of at least 75% of leaseholders must be achieved before significant changes:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=74118000#post74118000

Are you the leasehold owner with a demised space, marked in your lease?

Or a tenant?

Allocated space but not in fact owned/demised to you?

I say you need to tell the MA that you opt out an DO NOT accept and never have been subject to any 'regulations' let alone an onerous and damaging 'contract' imposed by ex-clampers UKCPS, even if the MA let them, because you have primacy of contract and nothing lets a MA impose this 'nuisance' on residents.

Use that word nuisance, and tell them they have failed to uphold your right to peaceful enjoyment of your property, and say that it is a derogation from grant (they cannot take away with one hand, what was already given/granted with the other). You have the right to park, and do not accept any permit scheme. Try to get other residents to join you in this refusal and uprising! ALL OF YOU, CALL AN EGM OF THE RESIDENTS AND REJECT THE PERMIT SCHEME.

Read the threads by:

Daniel san

and

hairray

Go and look them up in the members' list and click on their stats to find their threads, and settle down & read them.

The_Deep · 16 April 2018 at 5:36PM

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

System · 16 April 2018 at 5:36PM

Third parties have no rights under the lease but they still (of course) have their normal statutory and civil rights (e.g. Equality Act, or say, negligence for if a visitor falls down the stairs due to a damaged step, etc).

+1. A contract cannot deny or override a statutory obligation/right. So it is the killer point for you.

my-goodness · 17 April 2018 at 8:52AM

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I think it is not something to worry about. More important is to look for any clause that gives the landlord or MA (who?) the right to 'make regulations' for the convenience of the residents or smooth running of the site.

Thanks so much for your post, there's lots of useful information here! Unfortunately, there is such a clause in the lease. I requested the MA to intervene with UKCPS yesterday, and they came back with the following clause from my lease:
To comply with, and ensure that the owners and drivers or all cars using the Car Park under its authority, comply with all reasonable regulations made by the Landlord of the Management Company at any time for their running or management.

Would there be grounds to argue that a mandatory fining system isn't reasonable? Is it still worth playing the 'nuisance' card with the MA? Or is this a hopeless case?

To answer your other questions, I'm the leasehold owner with an allocated space, i.e. the space itself isn't my property, but I have the right to use it.

my-goodness · 17 April 2018 at 8:57AM

Another point (under the reasonable measures argument) is that I wasn't given a permit by the previous owners/estate agent when I moved in, nor was I told about the permit scheme by anyone. I moved in on a Friday after work, so the concierge office (where you buy permits) was either closed or possibly half an hour away from closing - not sure on the exact times. I was fined on the Friday evening. Surely it can't be reasonable to only be able to buy permits during office hours for a 24hr residential car park..?

Fruitcake · 17 April 2018 at 8:57AM

"Landlord of the management company" doesn't make sense. It's either "Landlord" or it's "Management Company."

Penalising residents for using their own space isn't reasonable.

Is the permit system in the lease, and is the ability of a third party to charge residents and take them to court in the lease? Does the lease say that permits must be purchased? I doubt it.

It's not a fine. Being unable to obtain a permit outside office hours is an unreasonable term, and also frustration of contract.

System · 17 April 2018 at 9:10AM

Have had some second thoughts on this one. Since the OP is a resident and not a leaseholder then "Contract Rights", in theory, should apply to the OP too.

In other words does the contract between the OP and the Leaseholder bind the Head Leaseholder.

Hmmm.....This property law is a bit of a b**ger

my-goodness · 17 April 2018 at 9:16AM

Fruitcake wrote: »

"Landlord of the management company" doesn't make sense. It's either "Landlord" or it's "Management Company."

Penalising residents for using their own space isn't reasonable.

Is the permit system in the lease, and is the ability of a third party to charge residents and take them to court in the lease? Does the lease say that permits must be purchased? I doubt it.

It's not a fine. Being unable to obtain a permit outside office hours is an unreasonable term, and also frustration of contract.

Sorry, typo - it's Landlord OR Management Company.

Nothing in the lease about permits, just the 'reasonable regulations' clause

my-goodness · 17 April 2018 at 9:19AM

IamEmanresu wrote: »

Have had some second thoughts on this one. Since the OP is a resident and not a leaseholder then "Contract Rights", in theory, should apply to the OP too.

In other words does the contract between the OP and the Leaseholder bind the Head Leaseholder.

Hmmm.....This property law is a bit of a b**ger

Sorry, should have been clearer. 'Landlord' in the lease refers to the landowner - I'm the leaseholder

System · 17 April 2018 at 9:20AM

Sorry, should have been clearer. 'Landlord' in the lease refers to the landowner - I'm the leaseholder

You're sorted then.

Rights of Third Parties Act?

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free