Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • my-goodness
    • By my-goodness 16th Apr 18, 4:50 PM
    • 8Posts
    • 5Thanks
    my-goodness
    Rights of Third Parties Act?
    • #1
    • 16th Apr 18, 4:50 PM
    Rights of Third Parties Act? 16th Apr 18 at 4:50 PM
    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!
Page 1
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 16th Apr 18, 5:18 PM
    • 56,189 Posts
    • 69,856 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #2
    • 16th Apr 18, 5:18 PM
    • #2
    • 16th Apr 18, 5:18 PM
    "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.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 16-04-2018 at 5:23 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 16th Apr 18, 5:36 PM
    • 9,053 Posts
    • 8,738 Thanks
    The Deep
    • #3
    • 16th Apr 18, 5:36 PM
    • #3
    • 16th Apr 18, 5:36 PM
    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.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 16th Apr 18, 5:36 PM
    • 2,260 Posts
    • 4,002 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    • #4
    • 16th Apr 18, 5:36 PM
    • #4
    • 16th Apr 18, 5:36 PM
    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.
    Idiots please note: If you intend NOT to read the information on the Notice of Allocation and hand a simple win to the knuckle dragging ex-clampers, then don't waste people's time with questions on a claim you'll not defend.
    • my-goodness
    • By my-goodness 17th Apr 18, 8:52 AM
    • 8 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    my-goodness
    • #5
    • 17th Apr 18, 8:52 AM
    • #5
    • 17th Apr 18, 8:52 AM

    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.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    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
    • By my-goodness 17th Apr 18, 8:57 AM
    • 8 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    my-goodness
    • #6
    • 17th Apr 18, 8:57 AM
    • #6
    • 17th Apr 18, 8:57 AM
    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
    • By Fruitcake 17th Apr 18, 8:57 AM
    • 36,564 Posts
    • 82,825 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    • #7
    • 17th Apr 18, 8:57 AM
    • #7
    • 17th Apr 18, 8:57 AM
    "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.
    Last edited by Fruitcake; 17-04-2018 at 9:02 AM.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 17th Apr 18, 9:10 AM
    • 2,260 Posts
    • 4,002 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    • #8
    • 17th Apr 18, 9:10 AM
    • #8
    • 17th Apr 18, 9:10 AM
    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
    Idiots please note: If you intend NOT to read the information on the Notice of Allocation and hand a simple win to the knuckle dragging ex-clampers, then don't waste people's time with questions on a claim you'll not defend.
    • my-goodness
    • By my-goodness 17th Apr 18, 9:16 AM
    • 8 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    my-goodness
    • #9
    • 17th Apr 18, 9:16 AM
    • #9
    • 17th Apr 18, 9:16 AM
    "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.
    Originally posted by Fruitcake
    Sorry, typo - it's Landlord OR Management Company.

    Nothing in the lease about permits, just the 'reasonable regulations' clause
    • my-goodness
    • By my-goodness 17th Apr 18, 9:19 AM
    • 8 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    my-goodness
    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
    Originally posted by IamEmanresu
    Sorry, should have been clearer. 'Landlord' in the lease refers to the landowner - I'm the leaseholder
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 17th Apr 18, 9:20 AM
    • 2,260 Posts
    • 4,002 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    Sorry, should have been clearer. 'Landlord' in the lease refers to the landowner - I'm the leaseholder
    You're sorted then.
    Idiots please note: If you intend NOT to read the information on the Notice of Allocation and hand a simple win to the knuckle dragging ex-clampers, then don't waste people's time with questions on a claim you'll not defend.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 17th Apr 18, 10:55 AM
    • 2,270 Posts
    • 2,702 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    How can something that tries to REMOVE YOUR RIGHT TO PARK unless you CONTRACT with a complete stranger to the lease be at all reasonable?

    TELL the MA to cancel it, otherwise the injunciton that follows their Agent will be their costs to bear.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th Apr 18, 11:18 AM
    • 56,189 Posts
    • 69,856 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Is this in your actual lease, the document you have re your ownership of the flat?

    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.
    You're sorted then.
    Is he/she, with that clause, IamEmanresu? Link v Blaney wasn't.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 17th Apr 18, 11:27 AM
    • 2,260 Posts
    • 4,002 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    What's Link v Blaney got to do with the subject at hand, which is the Contract Rights of 3rd Parties (Link) and a lease that excludes these?
    Idiots please note: If you intend NOT to read the information on the Notice of Allocation and hand a simple win to the knuckle dragging ex-clampers, then don't waste people's time with questions on a claim you'll not defend.
    • my-goodness
    • By my-goodness 17th Apr 18, 11:27 AM
    • 8 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    my-goodness
    Is this in your actual lease, the document you have re your ownership of the flat?





    Is he/she, with that clause, IamEmanresu? Link v Blaney wasn't.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Yes, unfortunately it's in the lease...
    • IamEmanresu
    • By IamEmanresu 17th Apr 18, 11:46 AM
    • 2,260 Posts
    • 4,002 Thanks
    IamEmanresu
    @my-goodness.

    You have been granted exclusive use of the space (without preconditions). Your lease also excludes others not party to the lease the right to "enforce any term". The Beavis case was all about 3rd parties enforcing terms between two parties under a core contract.

    Your lease would exclude the application of Beavis.
    Idiots please note: If you intend NOT to read the information on the Notice of Allocation and hand a simple win to the knuckle dragging ex-clampers, then don't waste people's time with questions on a claim you'll not defend.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 17th Apr 18, 11:56 AM
    • 56,189 Posts
    • 69,856 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    What's Link v Blaney got to do with the subject at hand, which is the Contract Rights of 3rd Parties (Link) and a lease that excludes these?
    Originally posted by IamEmanresu
    Dunno, if property law confuses you, then it certainly confuses me!

    The clauses seem to contradict each other. I see what you are saying though, I think! That ParkingEye was all about PE being the offerer of the contract in their own right. And in this case, a third party cannot do that.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • my-goodness
    • By my-goodness 17th Apr 18, 2:28 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    my-goodness
    @my-goodness.

    You have been granted exclusive use of the space (without preconditions). Your lease also excludes others not party to the lease the right to "enforce any term". The Beavis case was all about 3rd parties enforcing terms between two parties under a core contract.

    Your lease would exclude the application of Beavis.
    Originally posted by IamEmanresu
    Thanks for this. So the third party clause would mean that ONLY the MA could enforce car parking rules, not a third party?
    • my-goodness
    • By my-goodness 19th Apr 18, 2:30 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    my-goodness
    I’ve found another clause in the lease saying that the Landlord reserves the right to make rules and regulations as the Landlord may deem necessary for the management of the estate, so I think this might rule out my ‘reasonable regulations’ argument as there’s nothing in this clause saying they have to be reasonable. However, if the Third Parties act clause means no third party can enforce these regulations, then I still have a case for breach of contract - right? Would really appreciate some help on this thanks!
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

879Posts Today

6,595Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Today's twitter poll: have you ever seen a ghost?

  • RT @JohnnyMercerUK: Another important day ahead in achieving parity of esteem between mental and physical health: the breathing space schem?

  • RT @mmhpi: Third time lucky? After being delayed twice, tomorrow MPs are due to debate our #RecoverySpace proposals in parliament. @helen_u?

  • Follow Martin