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
    • Tentatively
    • By Tentatively 17th Nov 18, 8:31 PM
    • 26Posts
    • 38Thanks
    Tentatively
    District Enforcement - Chancers!
    • #1
    • 17th Nov 18, 8:31 PM
    District Enforcement - Chancers! 17th Nov 18 at 8:31 PM
    Hi all,

    Not really looking for advice on this one, just posting so you all can follow. Just won my first POPLA appeal here this week:
    https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5864814&page=2#topofpage

    So, I received an Ntk last week stating I owe £60 to District Enforcement Limited. They were telling me I had to pay because I had parked in "contravention of the rules" in my own car parking space. Couldn't help but let out a chuckle.

    I live in an apartment that is owned by my family and therefore I have access to the exact wording of the leasehold. Nowhere in said leasehold does it state anything about parking rules, enforcement or paying any charges.

    Here's the kicker, I'd actually displayed their poxy parking pass in my windscreen when they gave it to me and have done ever since for about the last year. So I log on to their portal to see their evidence photos and to my amazement, this is what I found.

    https://i.imgur.com/1sGP7ab.jpg

    Note that the flash is reflecting off the condensation, making it even harder to see.



    The thing I have highlighted in red is the parking permit, obscured by condensation at nearly 6am.
    I can't wait to hear their excuse for this one.
    Last edited by Tentatively; 17-11-2018 at 8:41 PM.
Page 1
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 17th Nov 18, 8:33 PM
    • 39,157 Posts
    • 87,444 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    • #2
    • 17th Nov 18, 8:33 PM
    • #2
    • 17th Nov 18, 8:33 PM
    I think you should warn anyone that if they click on the Next Post button whilst viewing your PCN picture on the imgur site, they might want to have a box of hankies ready.
    Fair play in her date for sticking with her.

    Meanwhile, do the scammers really think you can control the weather? I would think they should be worried about you sending a flood of biblical proportions their way in that case.
    Last edited by Fruitcake; 17-11-2018 at 8:37 PM.
    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
    • Tentatively
    • By Tentatively 12th Jan 19, 8:46 PM
    • 26 Posts
    • 38 Thanks
    Tentatively
    • #3
    • 12th Jan 19, 8:46 PM
    • #3
    • 12th Jan 19, 8:46 PM
    Update on this:

    After "appealing" directly to District they had the nerve to respond with this:

    After reviewing the photographic evidence from our records
    we can confirm that there was no permit displayed in the vehicle at the time of the occurrence. The
    charge was therefore correctly issued.
    We are confident that you have been given the same opportunities to accept the conditions of use, and
    indeed dispute the issue of the charge, as every other user. It would be a gross injustice if we were not to
    apply the same criteria to yourself as we have done for the other motorists subject to the charges.
    For the sake of consistency we must apply the law uniformly and therefore the charge must stand.
    I was bored one afternoon so I decided to see what the blind moron's of District would say if I phoned them demanding they review the evidence on the phone and stating the legalities of the lease, it's covenants etc.

    As expected, the idiot on the other end of the phone thought he knew it all and was adamant that a head lease existed and that superceded my lease. I'd had enough of debating the legalities to the moron so hung up mid sentence and called the Management Agent.

    The MA responsible for the properties was dismissive at first, stating they don't get involved with parking and any appeals had to be with the PPC.

    He wasn't so dismissive when he received a letter in writing informing him of primacy of contract and the other legalities, namely the breach of the Landlord Covenant of the right to peaceful enjoyment of the property.

    Received a phone call from the MA this week. Apologising profusely and stating that he'd had the PPC cancel the charge and then put me in touch with the head of customer service when I stated I wanted further action taken against District.

    I'll be writing to them in the coming days stating I want District removed from the site and the fob activated barrier, which is already installed and has been for a while, put back into use.

    Again, the posts in this forum have been invaluable. Many thanks all.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Jan 19, 8:51 PM
    • 68,799 Posts
    • 81,034 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #4
    • 12th Jan 19, 8:51 PM
    • #4
    • 12th Jan 19, 8:51 PM
    He wasn't so dismissive when he received a letter in writing informing him of primacy of contract and the other legalities, namely the breach of the Landlord Covenant of the right to peaceful enjoyment of the property.

    Received a phone call from the MA this week. Apologising profusely and stating that he'd had the PPC cancel the charge and then put me in touch with the head of customer service when I stated I wanted further action taken against District.

    I'll be writing to them in the coming days stating I want District removed from the site and the fob activated barrier, which is already installed and has been for a while, put back into use.
    Love it!

    If that doesn't happen, take a look at the new idea in the Deep's thread at the top right now, and report them to whatever the LVT is called now (tribunal about unfair lease charges).
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 12th Jan 19, 9:04 PM
    • 22,595 Posts
    • 35,578 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #5
    • 12th Jan 19, 9:04 PM
    • #5
    • 12th Jan 19, 9:04 PM
    Great FightBack. Keep at them!
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day;
    show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Jan 19, 9:15 PM
    • 68,799 Posts
    • 81,034 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #6
    • 12th Jan 19, 9:15 PM
    • #6
    • 12th Jan 19, 9:15 PM
    Dyl Kurpil will be spitting feathers.

    DE is run by ex-Police who seem to be aggressive but entitled individuals, with delusions of grandeur. They even used to mimic Police NIP wording in their NTKs a few years back.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • Tentatively
    • By Tentatively 12th Jan 19, 10:59 PM
    • 26 Posts
    • 38 Thanks
    Tentatively
    • #7
    • 12th Jan 19, 10:59 PM
    • #7
    • 12th Jan 19, 10:59 PM
    He'll be spitting feathers all right.

    The signage that was in the car park has mysteriously disappeared
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 12th Jan 19, 11:05 PM
    • 68,799 Posts
    • 81,034 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #8
    • 12th Jan 19, 11:05 PM
    • #8
    • 12th Jan 19, 11:05 PM
    So happy to hear that!
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 12th Jan 19, 11:59 PM
    • 22,595 Posts
    • 35,578 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    • #9
    • 12th Jan 19, 11:59 PM
    • #9
    • 12th Jan 19, 11:59 PM
    It's great to see someone come out their corner actually snarling and fighting, smashing in to them. An extremely refreshing change from reading the frequent snowflake response from most we get here.

    Keep us up to speed on developments @Tentatively (you're far from 'Tentative' fella )
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day;
    show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Tentatively
    • By Tentatively 13th Jan 19, 8:56 PM
    • 26 Posts
    • 38 Thanks
    Tentatively
    Here's the letter I've sent to the MA.


    Dear XXX,
    In order to fully explain the complaint, I’ll provide you with a detailed account of the events over
    the last four months.


    On the 22nd October 2018, I received a Parking Charge Notice to Keeper, demanding that I pay
    £60 for not displaying a permit. If the payment was not made, the letter threatened legal action
    and a County Court Judgement.


    District Enforcement provided pictures of the supposed parking infraction. As you saw, there is a
    small white square under the A pillar of the vehicle, hidden under condensation. This is the
    permit provided by District Enforcement. I called XXX shortly after receiving this the Parking Charge Notice through the post and was finally transferred through to I believe <MA>, the Property
    Manager for the property. I explained the situation and the fact that I had displayed the permit
    but was told that “We don't involve oursevles with residents parking issues and I should
    appeal to District Enforcement directly”.


    I appealed to District Enforcement on the 29th October, highlighting the fact that I had in fact
    displayed a permit in my windscreen and that the parking warden must have made a mistake. I
    received a reply to that appeal on the 21st November 2018. Their response was as follows and
    I’ve attached the full response in Appendix A.


    “After reviewing the photographic evidence from our records we can confirm that there
    was no permit displayed in the vehicle at the time of the occurrence. The charge was
    therefore correctly issued.”



    In an effort to resolve the matter over the phone, I phoned District Enforcement and asked the
    person that answered to review the appeal decision and again review the photographic evidence.
    I was met with contempt, demands of payment and a threat of court action.


    I believe that highlights the fact that District Enforcement is employing severely incompetent
    staff, or they are lying in an effort to extort residents out of their money. I personally believe it’s
    the latter. How can three separate individuals miss the fact that there is clearly a permit displayed
    in the windscreen of the car?

    I requested <FAMILY MEMBER> write the letter that you have read in an effort to get the fraudulent ticket cancelled. I contacted MA again just before Christmas and was put through to XXX, MA's
    assistant.

    On the 8th January I finally received word that MA had reviewed the letter, agreed that there
    was definitely a permit of some sort displayed in the windscreen of my car and had instructed
    District to cancel the ticket.



    The complaints I have are:

    1. Why was I told that MA does not deal with residents parking issues when it is clearly within your remit to do so, as employers of District Enforcement?


    2. The only legal document that governs the usage of the demised property is the lease that
    Leaseholder entered into with the Freeholder. Both parties agreed to abide by the
    specified covenants set out in the lease; none of these covenants stipulate any displaying
    of a permit or charges resulting from not displaying a permit. This lease was signed
    before the parking enforcement contract was agreed with District Enforcement. To the
    best of my knowledge, no alteration to the Lease has been made and therefore Primacy of
    Contract is in place, rendering the enforcement of parking in the parking space illegal.


    3. In Part 1 of Schedule 6 titled ‘Landlord Covenants’, the tenant is granted the right of
    quiet enjoyment of the property without any interruption from the Landlord or any person
    claiming under the landlord except otherwise permitted by the lease. As the enforcement
    of parking and harassing demands for payment are not permitted in the lease, the actions
    of District have put the Freeholder in breach of the quiet enjoyment covenant.


    How I would like it to be put right:

    1. I would kindly request that you terminate the contract with District Enforcement with immediate
    effect and the barrier fob system which is already in place be put into use to prevent
    unauthorised parking. This was promised when the apartment was being purchased and
    never materialised.


    2. If the contract with District Enforcement cannot be terminated, instruct them to not issue
    any tickets on my apartment's parking space. Any further demands for payment will force me to initiate County Court proceedings against them claiming damages for a breach of Data Protection for unlawfully requesting my details from the DVLA and an injunction to prevent further harassment, along with costs.



    3. Please could you let me know the details of the arrangement between District
    Enforcement and MA. Specifically if District Enforcement are paid through the Service Charge and do they keep all proceeds from the Parking Charge Notices?

    Sincerely,
    Tentatively

    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Jan 19, 1:09 AM
    • 68,799 Posts
    • 81,034 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Love it!

    No-one needs DE anywhere near their home/car. Completely unnecessary regime.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • Tentatively
    • By Tentatively 18th Jan 19, 9:08 PM
    • 26 Posts
    • 38 Thanks
    Tentatively
    Reply is as follows, thoughts on how to proceed?
    I would advise that I have investigated the points noted and provide a summary response as follows:
    1. Parking enforcement at property was required due to local businesses and visitors. I can confirm we hold no affiliation with District Enforcement, other than as a third-
    party service provider. We do not enforce parking nor receive any fees from District Enforcement for
    provision of their services. However, as a gesture of goodwill I can confirm that Property
    Manager, made contact on your behalf to request consideration for charges to be waived on this occasion.
    This was agreed, and the parking fine has therefore been rescinded.
    In relation to parking enforcement services, as managing agents we ensure the provider; deals with issuing
    all permits, that signs are clearly displayed, photographs are taken of vehicles which are not displaying
    permits and that there is an appeals process in place. We have therefore upheld our management
    obligations.
    2. Primacy of contract is a moot point regarding the provision of parking enforcement. I would refer you to
    1.1.14 of Schedule 7 : Part 1 of the lease which states as follows in relation to services which may be
    provided by the Landlord:
    1.1.14 any other service or amenity that the Landlord may in its reasonable discretion (acting in
    accordance with the principles of good estate management) provide for the benefit of the tenants
    and occupiers of the Building.
    3. Virtually every lease contains a quiet enjoyment clause. It is a promise by a landlord to allow a tenant to
    use a space for the purpose for which it was leased and to not substantially interfere with that use. Your
    claim that enforcement of parking is a breach of this clause is incorrect.
    Last edited by Tentatively; 18-01-2019 at 9:10 PM.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 18th Jan 19, 9:15 PM
    • 13,722 Posts
    • 15,028 Thanks
    KeithP
    1.1.14 any other service or amenity that the Landlord may in its reasonable discretion (acting in accordance with the principles of good estate management) provide for the benefit of the tenants and occupiers of the Building.
    I wonder how slapping a £60 charge on them is "for the benefit of the tenants and occupiers of the Building"?
    .
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 18th Jan 19, 9:27 PM
    • 68,799 Posts
    • 81,034 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Parking enforcement at property was required due to local businesses and visitors.
    No, the key fob gated system would deal with that, and allow residents to have the peaceful enjoyment without harassment, that is already granted in their leases.

    I can confirm we hold no affiliation with District Enforcement, other than as a third-party service provider.
    Why did you believe their spiel and not Google them first? The rudeness on the phone and aggression that I have documented, typifies their behaviour, as is repeatedly reported online. And when I say 'Google' I don't mean to read their own website. Even if they were friendly, they still sue people - do you honestly think that is acceptable?

    Why did you not undertake a questionnaire and vote from all residents in advance, to see if there was the required consensus to vary the lease and impose charges and restrictions where there were none before? The Landlord and Tenant Act sets out the simple requirements for landowners and Managing Agents, and you ignore that at your peril.

    Where was your due diligence to protect residents from these predators?

    Primacy of contract is a moot point regarding the provision of parking enforcement.
    No, it most certainly is not. Imposing a hated parking firm to sue us, is not 'providing for the benefit of the tenants and occupiers of the Building.'

    This is a derogation from grant, and you are liable for your conduct and that of your agent, in riding roughshod over the rights and interests of your residents. Transcripts attached here may help you understand you error, which will now result in a complaint to an appropriate lease tribunal (please provide me with the required ADR details):

    http://www.parking-prankster.com/case-law.html

    ( click on, save and attach the bottom 5 cases there - don't show them the Parking Prankster link!).


    Kindly call your dogs off.

    Should DE ever ticket cars in my space again, and/or obtain my (or my visitors') data from the DVLA, I will sue the MA and DE jointly for harassment and data misuse, as there is no legitimate interest in charging residents, and you are guilty of a derogation from grant.

    You have the option to put in the key fob system, as promised. I suggest you do so, and kick DE out forthwith/give notice for them to quit the site and inform them that my vehicles and space are exempt from their little game.

    If you remain unsure of your position, I suggest you seek legal advice but you have already been informed that my space is lawfully opted out of any 'parking scheme' you think you can impose on me, contrary to the rights and easements I already enjoy.
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 18-01-2019 at 9:31 PM.
    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • Tentatively
    • By Tentatively 18th Jan 19, 9:33 PM
    • 26 Posts
    • 38 Thanks
    Tentatively
    Cheers both!

    I'm away from home and my laptop right now so I'll action this when I return home.
    • Tentatively
    • By Tentatively 22nd Jan 19, 9:43 PM
    • 26 Posts
    • 38 Thanks
    Tentatively
    Here's the reply I've drafted, once again
    Tentatviely
    ADDRESS

    Tuesday 22nd January 2019

    MA

    MA ADDRESS

    Dear MA,

    I write to you in response to your reply dated 18 January 2019. I have read your response and my response is as follows.

    Your point referring me to 1.1.14 of Schedule 7 is extremely helpful. Could you please inform me what the principles of good estate management are and who they were set out by?

    The clause states that the service or amenity provided is ‘for the benefit of the tenants and occupiers of the Building’ and that the Landlord must use ‘reasonable discretion’. The parking conditions displayed on the signs allow for charging of residents if they do not display a permit, even if they have a right to park there. How is that for the benefit of myself and other residents who have the right to park?

    You cannot provide a service to me which restricts my right to park only when a permit is displayed. It is not a service, but a penalty. This is not in the interest of residents who rightfully park.

    I would refer you to case law from the Croydon County Court, specifically
    CS034 PACE v Mr N C6GF14F0.

    I invite you to read the opening paragraph, which is a near identical situation to the one we find ourselves in. In brief, it was found that in order to impose parking restrictions on residents the Lessee must amend the terms of the Lease to restrict the right to park. The Landlord and Tenants Act stipulates that they must apply for a variation of the Lease and reach a consensus to do so. No such variation has been made.

    I also note that no official communication has been received from MA regarding any enforcement of parking, only a letter from District Enforcement, which I can provide if requested. Please advise me if this is incorrect and the date of any correspondence relating to parking enforcement restrictions from MA.

    I put it to you that you have not used reasonable and sound judgement in selecting a parking enforcement company whose terms allow for charging and pursuing legal action against tenants who have the right to park.

    Your point stating virtually every lease contains a quiet enjoyment clause is correct and they do so for good reason. If I were to lose or have my permit stolen, I would be required to pay for a new one, would I not? And without a permit I would be indiscriminately charged and threatened with legal action for parking in my rightful space, would I not? Please tell me how that would not constitute substantial interference with using my parking space.

    Again, I request you instruct District Enforcement Ltd to cease and desist from enforcing unlawful parking terms on my parking space.

    I hereby put you on notice that should District Enforcement ever ticket cars in my space again, and/or obtain my (or my visitors') data from the DVLA, I will sue MA and District Enforcement jointly for harassment and data misuse, as there is no legitimate interest in charging residents who have the right to park, and you are guilty of a derogation from grant.

    If you remain unsure of your position, I suggest you seek legal advice, but you have already been informed that my space is lawfully opted out of any 'parking scheme' you think you can impose on me, contrary to the rights and easements I already enjoy.

    Sincerely,
    Tentatively

    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 22nd Jan 19, 9:48 PM
    • 68,799 Posts
    • 81,034 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Brilliant!

    You might want to send a pm to safarmuk and read his thread from today.

    He is a regular poster who went off forum for a while, during which hiatus he took 2 years or more to successfully get his fellow residents to rise up and get a PPC removed and the MA changed!

    PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT UNLESS IN SCOTLAND OR NI
    TWO Clicks needed Look up, top of the page:
    Main site>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 22nd Jan 19, 10:07 PM
    • 22,595 Posts
    • 35,578 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Super job Tentatively. Do please let us know how it progresses.
    Please note, we are not a legal, residential or credit advice forum, rather one that helps motorists fight private parking charges, primarily at the 'front-end' of the process.
    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day;
    show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • Tentatively
    • By Tentatively 5th Feb 19, 10:35 AM
    • 26 Posts
    • 38 Thanks
    Tentatively
    The mind boggles.

    1) Your point referring me to 1.1.14 of Schedule 7 is extremely helpful. Could you please inform me what the principles of good estate management are and who they were set out by?

    Response:
    As voluntary members of ARMA (Association of Residential Managing Agents) and RICS (Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, both of whom are regulatory bodies for the industry, we adhere to their Codes of Practice. These documents included good estate management and are available for review online.


    2) The clause states that the service or amenity provided is 'for the benefit of the tenants and occupiers of the Building' and that the Landlord must use 'reasonable discretion'. The parking conditions displayed on the signs allow for charging of residents if they do not display a permit, even if they have a right to park there. How is that for the benefit of myself and other residents who have the right to park? You cannot provide a service to me which restricts my right to park only when a permit is displayed. It is not a service, but a penalty. This is not in the interest of residents who rightfully park.

    Response:
    If a valid permit is on display, residents do not receive a parking fine. Those who have parked illegally i.e. non-residents, are provided with a ticket. The property had ongoing issues with commercial parking and parking by those utilising the commercial unit. We therefore strongly dispute the services provided, by use of a parking enforcement company, are not beneficial to residents.

    3) I would refer you to case law from the Croydon County Court, specifically CS034 PACE v Mr N COGF14F0.

    Response: The caselaw referenced is specific to a tenancy agreement, not a lease and is therefore not applicable to your complaint.

    4) I invite you to read the opening paragraph, which is a near identical situation to the one we find ourselves
    in. In brief, it was found that in order to impose parking restrictions on residents the Lessee must amend the terms of the Lease to restrict the right to park. The Landlord and Tenants Act stipulates that they must apply for a variation of the Lease and reach a consensus to do so. No such variation has been made. I also note that no official communication has been received from IPM regarding any enforcement of parking, only a letter from District Enforcement, which I can provide if requested. Please advise me if this is incorrect and the date of any correspondence relating to parking enforcement restrictions from IPM.

    Response: Your statement is incorrect. The County Court have no powers in relation to a leasehold dispute. This would have been held by The First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). I would again refer you to clause 1.1.14 of Schedule 7 as noted within Wendy's original complaint response. Clauses of this nature are known as a Sweep Clause or Sweeping Clause as it implies the clause will "sweep in" or "collect" any items that may have otherwise been missed; consequently, the sweeping clause is a clause wide in range or effect that collects what might otherwise be missed. A letter was issued by the Property Manager on 13 August 2018, which I have attached for your records. This was sent to owners and subtenants, where known. Your statement is therefore incorrect.

    (They didn't attach the letter and we received no letter)

    5) I put it to you that you have not used reasonable and sound judgement in selecting a parking enforcement
    company whose terms allow for charging and pursuing legal action against tenants who have the right to park.

    Response: Your statement is disputed due to the information we have provided.

    6) Your point stating virtually every lease contains a quiet enjoyment clause is correct and they do so for good reason. If I were to lose or have my permit stolen, I would be required to pay for a new one, would I not? And without a permit I would be indiscriminately charged and threatened with legal action for parking in my rightful space, would I not? Please tell me how that would not constitute substantial interference with using my parking space.

    Response: I confirm you would be required to obtain a replacement permit should yours become lost or stolen. This would be the same situation should you have an entrance fob to a car park with a gate/barrier, which are also a preventative measure to assist residents in relation to illegal parking on site.

    7) Again, I request you instruct District Enforcement Ltd to cease and desist from enforcing unlawful parking
    terms on my parking space.

    Response: The parking enforcement will remain in operation at the property. Should you fail to display a valid parking permit you will be treated as per any other resident and receive a parking enforcement notice. Your statement in relation to enforcing unlawful parking terms is incorrect.

    8) I hereby put you on notice that should District Enforcement ever ticket cars in my space again, and/or
    obtain my (or my visitors') data from the DVLA, I will sue IPM and District Enforcement jointly for harassment and data misuse, as there is no legitimate interest in charging residents who have the right to park, and you are guilty of a derogation from grant.

    Response: A derogation from grant is an implied term within a lease and therefore open to interpretation. It is the general legal principle that if the landlord agrees to give a benefit to the leaseholder, then the landlord should not proceed to do something that substantially deprives the leaseholder of the enjoyment of that benefit. I would that reiterate that parking enforcement was put in place due to illegal parking by those who did not reside at the development. The landlord thereby provided parking enforcement for the benefit of the residents to prevent use of their spaces by others.


    There is no misuse of data despite your assertions to the contrary. However, should you wish to escalate this I would propose you liaise with the Information Commissioners Office who will be able to provide clarity.

    9) If you remain unsure of your position, I suggest you seek legal advice, but you have already been informed that my space is lawfully opted out of any 'parking scheme' you think you can impose on me, contrary to the rights and easements I already enjoy.

    Response: I assure you we are fully aware of our legal position. Furthermore I would confirm you are unable to opt out of a parking enforcement scheme adopted by our client at their development.
    What'd you reckon? LBA & First Tier Tribunal? Property Ombudsman for financial compensation relating to shoddy Customer Service?


    Not really excited to drop £200 to take it to the FTT...
    Last edited by Tentatively; 05-02-2019 at 12:32 PM.
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 5th Feb 19, 12:12 PM
    • 5,007 Posts
    • 6,118 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    LBA
    Injunction preventingthem from interrfering with your quiet enjoyment.
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

549Posts Today

6,448Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Early days but with 5,000 votes in... 28% think the PM should still be in role by April's end, 72% she shouldn't.? https://t.co/YXMthdN9tq

  • Today's Twitter Poll: Should Theresa May still be Prime Minster at the end of April, and will she be?

  • It's Friday, it's five to five and it's time for.... (not crackerjack). Me to sign off social media for the weeken? https://t.co/26qXQjBHfL

  • Follow Martin