IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.
One Parking Solution - Rejected Appeal for parking in my own space
Options
Comments
-
I think the point is that, ( from what Coupon Mad is saying) to bring in the PPC in the first place 75% of the leaseholders would have had to agree. They were asking if this happened.
I am aware of the 75% rule but, I must admit I don't know how it applies to parking companies. When we were thinking of a PPC we didn't actually get that far along the way
I found this
http://www.lease-assn.org/members/leasehold-information-sheets/lease-variations.php
I must admit I'd be interested in the answer, too0 -
-
They will be charged for the signs and probably if the PPC have to cancel any tickets; so new expenditure.
Peanuts. Please refer me to the specific wording where the 75% consultation would apply. You can not apply it to every single item of expenditure included in service charges or maintenance and running a management company would cease to be possible.
Read here https://www.lease-advice.org/advice-guide/section-20-consultation-private-landlords-resident-management-companies-agents/0 -
Peanuts. Please refer me to the specific wording where the 75% consultation would apply. You can not apply it to every single item of expenditure included in service charges or maintenance and running a management company would cease to be possible.
Read here https://www.lease-advice.org/advice-guide/section-20-consultation-private-landlords-resident-management-companies-agents/
Good points.
Having had a closer look at the links (including the one I posted) it's hard to see where bringing in a parking company would fit.
There are much more experienced people than me on this forum when it comes to the PPCs. It would certainly be helpful to know, going forward, what references/cases are available to support the assertion that the introduction of parking companies to an estate has to be voted on by lessees under the the Landlord and Tenant Act.0 -
A transcript has been ordered for this case, which might help in future:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5723306
Bargepole's report:Case No. D4GF99EJ – UKCPM -v- Miss D, before District Judge Dodsworth.
Mrs Cross (Elms Legal) for Claimant. I was the Lay Rep for the Defendant.
I prepared the WS, highlighting the key arguments of primacy of contract of the lease, and appending judgments from Jopson, Noor, and Parkinson, as well as forbidding signage as per Bull and Masterson.
The Claimant’s WS, signed by Sophie Fenn, was the usual Gladstones template, and didn’t even address the issue of the lease.
The DJ’s opening remarks were “Mrs Cross, you may have some difficulty with this. The Defendant has a lease which grants her a right to park. I will hear any submission you wish to make on whether that term has been varied”.
Mrs Cross took the Judge to clause 21 of Schedule 3, which said that the Managing Agents could introduce regulations for the benefit of the efficient running of the estate. But when asked if she had a copy of such regulations, she did not. As she said afterwards, you’re only as good as your bundle.
I was asked if I wished to add anything, and I said that as the Judge was leaning heavily in our direction, I wasn’t about to persuade him otherwise, but did point out that any variation of lease had to be approved by at least 75% of the leaseholders, pursuant to s37 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1987, and there was no evidence of that in the Claimant’s bundle either.
The DJ then gave Judgment, dismissing the claim for that reason.
The only disappointing bit was that he didn’t award Miss D her loss of earnings/leave, because she hadn’t brought anything to prove her salary. So she just got £3 for her bus fare.
She is applying for a transcript of the Approved Judgment, which will be useful for her husband’s, and other future cases.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Thanks Coupon Mad. Much appreciated.
The transcript will be interesting - sounds like the right to park was the main issue and there was no section 37 varying that. Or that is what the DJ is saying. Whether that would apply to a PPC being introduced may be different (or, indeed, may not!)
I am assuming that this is the first such case re parking and S37?0 -
IMHO it's no different from any other one where any Defendant with primacy of contract as a resident, argued 'a grantor shall not derogate from his grant':
https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/3-107-6097?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&bhcp=1
We've had loads of cases like this.
It just happens bargepole threw in the comment about the L&T Act at the end as it's something we recently unearthed. But I don't get the impression that made any difference, it's more about the word grant:
Primacy of contract, same as loads of cases. The MA can't derogate from grant.Defendant has a lease which grants her a right to park.
L&T Act is just the icing on the top.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Sorry, just to be clear as I am getting a bit lost here (not difficult!).
Specifically, there are cases where the L and T Act has been cited in terms of bringing in parking companies. And judges have said that a vote has to be taken on it by lessees/tenants.
Is that right?0 -
Sorry, just to be clear as I am getting a bit lost here (not difficult!).
Specifically, there are cases where the L and T Act has been cited in terms of bringing in parking companies. And judges have said that a vote has to be taken on it by lessees/tenants.
That would be great if you could point us to them. I may appear to being negative about the L and T act, but I am wanting to find out how it would apply to parking companies being brought in with no significant affect to service charges. It would be a brilliant aid to our cause, but so far I have been unable to find any wording in the Act that is relevant.
Examples of where a court has accepted the 75% point would be brilliant. I would further add that I have the utmost respect for Bargepole who has significant legal training and if he is citing the 75% reference in court, then I feel I must have missed something in the Act. It's just that I can't find it and as Bargepole can't be in on every case, it would be of tremendous help on all of these "parking in your own space" cases.
What we don't want is a "you dirty rat" or "play it again Sam" situations where the actual words were never in the script yet they gained universal acceptance because of constant repetition.0 -
Are you sure that you didn't imply that you were the driver? e.g. "I parked" instead of "the driver parked"
The identity of the driver hardly matters in own space claims. It is better that the resident represents themselves in court i.m.o.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards