parking ticket in own apartment space

[surveyor]

WCZ said:

still awaiting the result from my POPLA appeal.

was talking to someone else in the building today who is appealing it and he said the management company is amendment the lease states that the leaseholder will allow the management company to do whatever it deems fit in a broad sense?

I looked through it again today and spotted this:



Could I be defeated here?

I think this could be key.

If the definition of Estate within the particular (first part of the lease) includes your parking space (very likely), then I think they have you on Point 2, which is a point I made many moons ago I believe......

[bad company]

surveyor said:

I think this could be key.

If the definition of Estate within the particular (first part of the lease) includes your parking space (very likely), then I think they have you on Point 2, which is a point I made many moons ago I believe......

Depends if a Court would regard charging for parking in a space the op effectively owns via a lease as reasonable. Doubtful IMO and very risky for the landlord and/or parking firm.

[surveyor]

bad company said:

surveyor said:

I think this could be key.

If the definition of Estate within the particular (first part of the lease) includes your parking space (very likely), then I think they have you on Point 2, which is a point I made many moons ago I believe......

Depends if a Court would regard charging for parking in a space the op effectively owns via a lease as reasonable. Doubtful IMO and very risky for the landlord and/or parking firm.

Can I ask if your familiar with property law? These kind of peaking control agreements are in place all over the country to control parking for leaseholders. . I think it's reasonable, although a discount for leaseholders would be fairer

The courts would look at the alternative imo. Which would be a free for all.

[bad company]

surveyor said:

bad company said:

surveyor said:

I think this could be key.

If the definition of Estate within the particular (first part of the lease) includes your parking space (very likely), then I think they have you on Point 2, which is a point I made many moons ago I believe......

Depends if a Court would regard charging for parking in a space the op effectively owns via a lease as reasonable. Doubtful IMO and very risky for the landlord and/or parking firm.

Can I ask if your familiar with property law? These kind of peaking control agreements are in place all over the country to control parking for leaseholders. . I think it's reasonable, although a discount for leaseholders would be fairer

The courts would look at the alternative imo. Which would be a free for all.

I don't know what you mean by 'a discount for leaseholders'? As I understand it the op has already paid for the space.

This reminds me of my leasehold offices before I sold up. The landlord issued us all with parking tickets to be displayed in our windscreens. One of the tenants, a firm of solicitors refused to comply as there was nothing about displaying parking tickets in the lease. The landlord backed down.

[surveyor]

bad company said:

surveyor said:

bad company said:

surveyor said:

I think this could be key.

If the definition of Estate within the particular (first part of the lease) includes your parking space (very likely), then I think they have you on Point 2, which is a point I made many moons ago I believe......

Depends if a Court would regard charging for parking in a space the op effectively owns via a lease as reasonable. Doubtful IMO and very risky for the landlord and/or parking firm.

Can I ask if your familiar with property law? These kind of peaking control agreements are in place all over the country to control parking for leaseholders. . I think it's reasonable, although a discount for leaseholders would be fairer

The courts would look at the alternative imo. Which would be a free for all.

I don't know what you mean by 'a discount for leaseholders'? As I understand it the op has already paid for the space.

This reminds me of my leasehold offices before I sold up. The landlord issued us all with parking tickets to be displayed in our windscreens. One of the tenants, a firm of solicitors refused to comply as there was nothing about displaying parking tickets in the lease. The landlord backed down.

I'm familiar with Leases. The clause posted above gives the LL the right, provided that that space falls within the definition of Estate. I mean that when I've arranged these sort of contracts in the past if a Tenant was the offender they got a discount rather than paying the full fine.

Funnily enough I've also come across these in my line of work. Clampers in those days. One of the offenders parked without showing a permit, and got clamped. Normally we'd take a soft line and got it removed. However these chancers (a firm of solicitors) were the one's who campaigned for control, and they proceeded to lie about the permit (it was in the window) - photo - not it wasn't etc. They threatened to sue, but realised that they had no angle to sue on.

Equally I've had to have clients pay these, when they were in the wrong under the terms of the lease.

Now the OP might be able to rely on parking socialists to get him out of this, but the lease is clear, and as long as the space falls within the 'Estate' the landlord is entitled to bring in control under the clauses (Esp. 2) above.

[bad company]

surveyor said:

I'm familiar with Leases. The clause posted above gives the LL the right, provided that that space falls within the definition of Estate. I mean that when I've arranged these sort of contracts in the past if a Tenant was the offender they got a discount rather than paying the full fine.

Funnily enough I've also come across these in my line of work. Clampers in those days. One of the offenders parked without showing a permit, and got clamped. Normally we'd take a soft line and got it removed. However these chancers (a firm of solicitors) were the one's who campaigned for control, and they proceeded to lie about the permit (it was in the window) - photo - not it wasn't etc. They threatened to sue, but realised that they had no angle to sue on.

Equally I've had to have clients pay these, when they were in the wrong under the terms of the lease.

Now the OP might be able to rely on parking socialists to get him out of this, but the lease is clear, and as long as the space falls within the 'Estate' the landlord is entitled to bring in control under the clauses (Esp. 2) above.

I understand your point which may be factually correct as per the lease. I still have doubts that a Court would consider any fine/charge reasonable tho. Especially as the LL has not suffered a loss,

[surveyor]

bad company said:

I understand your point which may be factually correct as per the lease. I still have doubts that a Court would consider any fine/charge reasonable tho. Especially as the LL has not suffered a loss,

Dammed if they do dammed if they don't. The OP will be the first person whining if someone else is parked in his space. How else are they supposed to make sure tenants can get into their space?

Don't forget these are contractors who need paying in some way.

[bad company]

surveyor said:

bad company said:

I understand your point which may be factually correct as per the lease. I still have doubts that a Court would consider any fine/charge reasonable tho. Especially as the LL has not suffered a loss,

Dammed if they do dammed if they don't. The OP will be the first person whining if someone else is parked in his space. How else are they supposed to make sure tenants can get into their space?

Don't forget these are contractors who need paying in some way.

I see your point completely BUT in the op's position I would never have involved POPLA. I would have told them to bog off and sue me if they want. I don't think they would.

[nikaiyo2]

surveyor said:

Can I ask if your familiar with property law? These kind of peaking control agreements are in place all over the country to control parking for leaseholders. . I think it's reasonable, although a discount for leaseholders would be fairer

The courts would look at the alternative imo. Which would be a free for all.

How does it get round the "Qualifying long-term agreements" part of Section 20 Consultation? If this process has not been followed then the OP can never be liable for more than £100INC VAT in any 12 month period.

I also think the 1st Tier Tribunal might take issue with your interpretation of what that lease clause allows the managing agent to do & charge for. On common areas yes you have a point, however on a demised parking space?
Then what is there to stop the managing agent employing bouncers and charging £100 for anyone using the front door who is not dressed in a manner they approve of?

Like I said OP google the case I mentioned, where a parking company was issuing tickets on a demised space, it ended up costing UKPC a few £££ as they were trespassing.

If this does go to court OP and you loose I would be contacting a guy called Bernie Wales, who specializes in long lease hold disputes, he is very very good.

[surveyor]

nikaiyo2 said:

Then what is there to stop the managing agent employing bouncers and charging £100 for anyone using the front door who is not dressed in a manner they approve of?

Reasonable.

Staying out of the rest as my other than plans, I stick to commercial who get no such protection.

[nikaiyo2]

surveyor said:

Reasonable.

Staying out of the rest as my other than plans, I stick to commercial who get no such protection.

Cool I can understand/ respect that.

[WCZ]

p.s I won the POPLA appeal (took them several months to have a think about it though)

[S11Steve]

Excellent news, now remind everyone else in your block that they should not take any crap from these cowboys.

I've recently had two court claims withdrawn after they decided it wasn't worth pursuing. My defence statement has now been passed around all 128 occupants of said apartment block, along with a step by step guide to appealing them.
The managing agent of said apartment block is unfortunately tied into what transpires to be a worthless contract with the parking sharks, and is facing a barrage of calls from angry residents, some of whom have already paid up, some of whom are facing similar actions as I did.

The crucial aspect is that all of them have a right to parking space stated in their lease, whether they own the property, or rent it.

It's become something of a sport of mine getting one over on these charlatans. And the idiots who have just withdrawn their claims are supposedly the legal experts in parking enforcement.

[bad company]

Great result, well done op.

[Funk]

Indeed, good to hear an update on the result!

[tony wright]

Can the residents who payed up in the past seek recompense from either the management or parking company?

[surveyor_101]

WCZ said:

p.s I won the POPLA appeal (took them several months to have a think about it though)

Interesting I am in one now and two weeks so far and ppc havent submitted evidence. I can't find anywhere a limit so this could drag on for months.

[surveyor_101]

tony wright said:

Can the residents who payed up in the past seek recompense from either the management or parking company?

You can't normally as payment is normally an admission of breach.

Popla won't hear anything of you pay.

[S11Steve]

tony wright said:

Can the residents who payed up in the past seek recompense from either the management or parking company?

In theory, yes, but in practice it's quite a laborious process and the PPC will ignore requests. I know a few people are issuing claims against the PPC to reclaim it, but again that could drag on if contested by the parking company.