Court Report - Guildford - Another UKCPM Claim Bites The Dust

Case No.: E4GF9T29 – UK Car Park Management Ltd. -v- Miss C, before District Judge Trigg

Claimant represented by Mr Ajike, solicitors’ agent
Defendant attended in person, with lay representative Mr Bargepole

Order: Claim dismissed, Claimant to pay Defendant’s witness costs of £105.40 within 21 days.

---

Miss C had been a leaseholder of the flat at New Central, Woking, since 2011, and UKCPM were brought in to operate a permit scheme in 2013. The underground car park can only be accessed by means of a key fob, issued to all residents. Some spaces are numbered, and allocated to specific flats, while the rest are unmarked, and available on a first come, first served basis. She had parked in one of these.

Her lease grants her a right to park, subject to vehicles being taxed and roadworthy, with no commercial vehicles, caravans or trailers permitted.

The Claimant’s case was that, because the lease has a clause saying that the landlord, or managing agent, can impose regulations for the efficient management of the estate, this entitled the Claimant to rely upon that, and the terms of its signage.

Our case was that any such regulations had to be consistent with the lease terms, and this was not, it would have required a properly executed variation of lease. We relied on Jopson, Noor, and Parkinson. Alternatively, the Claimant’s signage stated ‘Authorised Vehicles Only’, and she was de facto authorised by virtue of possessing a key fob.

The DJ was well up to speed on all these issues, having heard many similar cases previously, and she ruled that any regulations imposed must be reasonable. It was not reasonable to attempt to penalise a leaseholder who was parking in accordance with the terms of her lease. If she had been parking in someone else’s marked bay, or blocking an exit, the Claimant may have an arguable case, but in this case they didn’t. The sign also did not create any contractual liability, so the claim must fail.

For Mr Deep's benefit, we did apply for further costs for unreasonable behaviour, but the DJ ruled that was a high threshold which had not been met in this case, although she did comment that the WS filed by Gladstones was 'very poor'.