Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I'm afraid I think I would blitz it so as well as emailing the people you have just messaged, I would send messages out to everyone else. Part of the point is to engage in a campaign say that you disturb everyone. As the landlord has given a "care of" address, I think you could reasonably use that the service of proceedings if you need to. However I suggest that you check on the land registry web search and you may get more information. I'm quite sure that your tenancy agreement entitles you to peaceable enjoyment of your property and so from that point of view – yes there's probably breach. Also, do you have gas central heating and is there a gas safety certificate? Is there an electrical safety certificate? Are there smoke alarms? I think you should start going through the Internet and see what are the obligations of a commercial landlord in the circumstances and get a checklist and see what's missing. Now the time to cause trouble. However, don't forget that this will put you in conflict with your landlord and I expect there will be looking to get you out. When you moved in did you take pictures of the condition of the property? I should start taking pictures now – because if you do end up moving out either because he says you notice or else because you simply decide to up sticks, I can imagine that with this kind of attitude they may be some conflict over the condition of the property and therefore some conflict in respect of obtaining the return of your deposit or at least being refunded all of it. I'm afraid that you need to gear up here.
    • Y daughter just told me she’s been paying off a fine for £600    a bailiff called at her next doors ,  whist there they clocked her car in the drive way , not scorn not taxed off the raid ... I know i know  broken waiting money spending on it [ Ford]  turns out the DVKA took her to court in Bristol long waynaways because she hadn’t told the DVLA she’d moved and BENETTS  bought the debt , and chased her up at the new address to collect the payments ... how horrid is that? 
    • Hi BankFodder,        Thank you for your quick reply,  we feel a bit vulnerable living here with our two very little girls,   your reply is very much appreciated.   The Letting agent is Space4Living,  they say they wont do anything about it,   they only say it is a civil matter.   The landlord's name is on the Tenancy Agreement,   with the letting agent as a 'Care of' Address.   I have just sent an email to the local Environmental Health about everything,     and we will see what they say about it all.   Because the landlord seems not to be bothered about it,    if he does nothing or very little about it,    would he be in breach of our tenancy agreement ?   Cheers,    KFC  
    • Please advise if the following is ok to use?   I will say as follows:   It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of xxxxxxxx With recent dismissed claims such as claim no. Xxxxxxx it has come to light that the contract with the landowner stipulates 2 hours free parking at the Berkeley Centre car park and thus this case should also be dismissed not wasting valuable court time as the vehicle in question was parked for less than 2 hours.  The claimant in this case is not the proper claimant. As can be seen in their "contract". If there is a valid claimant at all it should be Excel Parking Services and not Vehicle Control Services.   Therefore, if any contract exists at all, the Landowner gave Excel Parking Services that contract. That contract is highly unlikely (although it cannot be proven as the claimant has not produced it) to give Excel Parking Services the right to assume the rights of the landowner and assign rights to another party.   While both Vehicle Control Services (Company number 02498820) and Excel Parking Services (Company number 02878122) have the same 'controlling minds',  & they are run as completely separate companies and cannot assign rights to one another on a whim and/or without the express permission of the landowner and even then, those rights can only be rightfully assigned by the landowner themselves and as that has not been produced as part of their witness statement one can only draw the conclusion that this is because that right (by way of contract of assignment) does not exist.   Further, while dealing with the so called "contract", it is not valid now and was not valid on the day that the event that brings us here today took place. As can be seen clearly on the contract, the contract was made for a FIXED PERIOD of 36 months from 25th November 2010. This means that this contract expired on or around 25th November 2010. As no renewed "contract" has been provided, again one can only assume that on the balance of probability, it does not exist.   In either case, as has been shown, Vehicle Control Services are not the proper claimant therefore there can be no cause of action as Vehicle Control Services has no Locus Standi to make or bring a claim and waste the valuable time of this court. If a contract existed at all (and there was a subsequent breach) it would either be between myself/driver and Excel Parking Services or myself/driver and the landowner. Vehicle Control Services are merely a third party and do not (as they have shown themselves in their own evidence) have a valid contract in place to manage the car park.   There is nothing said in the evidence to assert that Vehicle Control Services are acting as an agency on behalf of the actual contract holder therefore Vehicle Control Services cannot (and indeed do not claim to) have privity of contract. Dunlop Tyre Co v Selfridge [1915] AC 847, in which the action failed because although there was a contract, the plaintiffs were not a party to it and "only a person who is a party to a contract can sue on it," (per Lord Haldane).     This position (Vehicle Control Services being the wrong claimant) is backed up by their own evidence bundle. I refer you to photograph 28, 29 and 30 in the claimant’s bundle which clearly shows a 'Car Park' sign. The logo in the bottom and top right of the signs is for Excel Parking Services and not Vehicle Control Services who are making the claim in this case.   Vehicle Control Services know this to be the case as there have been many dismissed cases and discontinued claims.   Vehicle Control Services -v- Ms A. C6DP7P37 at Birmingham County Court. Dismissed. Wrong Claimant. Vehicle Control Services -v- Unknown. C1DP3H5V at Birmingham County Court. Discontinued. Wrong claimant.   As well as all of the following Discontinued claims. A8QZ6666, 3QZ53955, C8DP9D8C, C2DP0H7C, C1DP3H5V and C8DP37CH et al, all discontinued when it was pointed out to BW Legal that VCS had no right to pursue the matter as they were not the rightful claimant.   It is denied that the Claimant has complied with Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012; see paragraph 5.1a (enclosed). The car park signs are owned by Excel Parking, see claimants bundle 28, 29, 30 photographs and I have not entered into a contract with VCS. Following receipt of parking charge notices and letter before claim, I wrote to the Claimant stating that the Berkeley Centre pay and display car park is not managed by the Claimant but rather another party and invited the Claimant to drop their claim. Upon receipt of County court claim form Under CPR 31.14 on 14th August 2019 I requested evidence of the Claimant’s contract between VCS and the landowner that assigns the right to enter into contracts with the public and make claims in their own name, and proof of planning permission granted for signage etc under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007.  The Claimant refused to comply with this request and have provided no evidence of their connection to Excel Parking. I have yet to receive any evidence of myself the Defendant entering into a contract with the Claimant (Vehicle Control Services) nor any evidence of planning permission granted for signage. It is denied that the Claimant entered into a contract with the Defendant. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. ‘VCS had no right to claim damages in trespass against motorists…and that the penalty charges did not constitute, in VCS’s hands, such damages (and) that there was no contract between VCS and the motorist.’ The Claimant did not evidence any contract by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the carpark is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.   Thanks  
    • Latest info      Creditor Claims Of £535,636,017  This is the extent of the damage Wonga has caused... I hope this serves as a lesson to everyone. Please steer clear of PDLs.
  • Our picks

blankwall

CPM Private Parking Ticket where I am the Leasholder!

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 987 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hello. I really appreciate that this forum exists and I hope someone can give me some advice on how to proceed in this situation.

 

I recently received a CPM Parking ticket for the car park of the flat where I am a leaseholder. I was away at the time and the building management company had told me (in writing) that they would inform me (and all lease holders) when a new parking management company took over the car park.

 

Needless to say they didn't. They are also saying that the parking company did a mail drop explaining the new system. Apparently they did but I didn't see it, I have seen another copy and it was addressed to the occupier not the leaseholder.

 

I called the parking company and they said they had a video of someone putting something through the door which they would email to me. This still hasn't happened but I imagine it just proves they put something through the door?

 

My building management company say they will not get involved in any disputes with the parking company - I imagine this is part of the contract they have with them as in the copy of the circular that was put around the block and it says that the landowners will not get involved in any tickets. If that even legal? My lease also says nothing about parking permits. As far as I can see there must be some kind of deal where the parking company get anything they can take and the management company will now not get involved.

 

Please can I have some advice about what to do next? Has anyone been in a similar situation please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to fully read your lease in regard to parking rights. If they confirm that you have allocated parking righrs without any conditions, then if the landowner wants to change this, then they have to go through a legal process.

 

Have you spoken to other residents about this ?


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the lease for your flat mention anything about inclusion of a parking space as part of the unit?

Chances are, your lease will have supremacy of contract over any contract between the management company and CPM.

 

 

Experts here will be able to advise, but the Parking Prankster's blog has a lot of stuff on how to defend claims exactly like this. Worth a look!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there - thanks for your reply. The lease is over 10 years old from a time before the car park had any management / permits so it's very unlikely there was any restriction on parking rights. I'm working away at the moment but I will check with it and the other residents when I get back

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can't just change that willy-nilly, as UB says; they have to go through a process

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. I'll check out the Parking Prankster. Never heard of him before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's fine to link to the Prankster, Oddfellow. :)

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the usual thing is that the parking co appraoches the managing agents for the site and gives them a brown envelope in echange for thei right to manage the parking, promising they can cure every bit of trespass etc. As they dont charge a fee for their services they have to make money by finding reasons to ticket people and collect the money fro "breach of contract" matters. the problem is that most of the popel they ticket for not displaying a opermit are residents who dont have to display a permit because they own the space thy are parked in. The claim is then disputed but he parking co quotes it terms and conditions, which is all well and good apart from they dont apply to the residents. As the parking co cant make money legitimately they then continue to pursue these spurious claims to the bitter end. another reality si that they have no contract to manage because they signed up the managing agents, who dot have the authority to let them anywhere near the place but ignorance and greed overcome the law as far as they are both concerned.

However, ther have been court decisions where the judge has accepted a contract with a managing agent without question becasue "the freeholder must ahve given them the powers to delegate" when it hadnt been shown that was true at all so that is why it is strongly recommended that you consult your lease to make sure that you havethis absolutely bolted down. The parking co will fail in any claim for other reasons, one of thsoe being that BEAVIS doesnt apply so the parking co has to show a loss and as they dont pay to "manage" they cant.

Also, you need to get all of the leasholders together for a meeting and tell the MA to kick the parking bandits out if that is the general feeling and if they dont sack the MA's themselves The MA's are on a sticy wicket because they can be sued along with the parking co for their part in the harassment and breach of the DPA. Generally the freeholder doesnt want to get involved because they might end up being sued as well so they are happly to let the MA be the lightning rod for this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

when you can tell us abotu the ticket, the date, time, what theys ay the claim is for etc. Also have they sent you a NTK through the post yet? if so what is the issue date, when did it arrive and we would like to see it to see if it is compliant with the POFA to create a keeper liability anyway. Chances are it wont and that will be another stick to beat them with

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still no NTK yet.

 

I finally went through the lease - this is the only reference to anything that could be the car park:

 

"The common parts: Means all (...) access yards, roads footpaths storage areas and other areas and things (if any) included in the Estate provided by the Lessor fr the common use of Residents and their visitors and not subject to any lease or tenancy of any of the flats on the Estate."

 

Very vague and no one has an assigned space...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so tell us about the ticket and the NTK when it arrives. We need to see it really, hide the personla stuff like name and vehicle details. WE need to see the date and time though.

The wording of the lease is probably good enough to stop anyone interfereing with that condition as they are for RESIDENTS and visitors, not some bandit with a brown envelope.

However, this will not be a quick result for you so expect to get a load of rubbish through the post from them and various ambulance chasers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so tell us about the ticket and the NTK when it arrives. We need to see it really, hide the personla stuff like name and vehicle details. WE need to see the date and time though.

The wording of the lease is probably good enough to stop anyone interfereing with that condition as they are for RESIDENTS and visitors, not some bandit with a brown envelope.

However, this will not be a quick result for you so expect to get a load of rubbish through the post from them and various ambulance chasers.

 

 

Still no NTK.

I haven't contacted them at all, should I be writing to them?

 

I can't post the image of my ticket yet I haven't posted enough!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No you dont contact them. You probably will never contact them directly.

Who are the managing agent and who appointed them? Landowner, residents assoc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The management company is Gateway, they weren't the original managers and took over a while ago.

They were appointed by the freeholder of the block of flats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so the chances are that they have no right to sign up a parking co that gives away the rights of the freeholder. This means that the parking co cant make county court claims as they have no interest in the land. However, that doesnt stop many of them because most people dont know that the claims, if defended on this point is doomed to fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK pictures of the signage, pictures of the entrance to the land from the public highway etc. You should read a number of similar threads to get a feel for what happens and in what order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you mean gives away the rights of the leaseholders? I would imagine the freeholders in far, far away in a tax haven company structure and has no idea they even own the building.

(I do think you probably know what you are talking about, and I am very grateful for the advice, I don't want to come across as rude)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the leaseholders own the bits inside their front door, the rest is used by them subject to the conditions expressed and by the need to access their properties.

 

Now like all things you can rent out or lend things to people and that includes land so if the owner signed a suitable managemnt contract with whoever their agents are they can create a righ for the agents to do whatever they want, including creating contracts with a bunch of chancers.

 

However, most landowners dont do that as they want to keep all maony making schemes close to themselves and dont want to create a problem that lands on their doormat so they limit the extent of the managaing agents freedoms.

 

Now, you dont have to prove that the freeholder hasnt allowed them to take root here, they have to prove there is an unbroken chain of authority and that cannot be supposed ( although some judges will believe any old nonsense trotted out by the parking co's as they have no evidence to the contrary) so that means the contract agreed with the managing agents must allow the parking co to enter into contracts and make claims in their own name.

 

This last bit is the difficult bit for the aprking co as they will ahve to prove that the managing agents have the authority themselves to sign the deal. If the agents dont have that authority then they( the parking co) cannot perform their side of thee bargain -ie they have nothing to offer for consideration. A bit like me selling you thei eiffel Tower. I can offer it to you and you may accept my offer but I cant actually hand over the deeds becuase I dont ahve the authority to do so.

 

It makes the failure of the contract a bit long winded but that is the nature of contract law, you can agree to anything but only when it is doen will you find out that it wasnt binding. That also makes the title "a professional hitman" impossible becuse you cannot enter into a contract that is based upon illegality so you can hire a hitman but they wont have any liability insurance and you wont be able to sue them when thy take your money and dont bump off your rich uncle

Edited by honeybee13
Paras.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I forgot to say - they have been very liberal with the signage. There are signs on all the walls, on the way in to the car park and also on the sides of people's flats which I myself wouldn't be very happy about...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, they need planning permision for them and they wont have it. If there was a sign on my building it would be removed and the damage brought to the attention of the freeholder as an attack on my right to quiet enjoyment of my property. Again, it is unlikely the agents have the authority to allow someone to trash the fabric of the building

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're really good at this!

There is even a large free standing sign that has been put up in the car park.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we are agog wating for you to show us these lovely signs. Stop teasing us and reveal them. Dont mention the planning permission requirement to anyone yet, we like to hit companies with this only after they have started civil proceedings as it is then too late to apply for PP and have any claim made retrospective

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll have to wait until the weekend unfortunately.

Sorry to keep the excitement up until then...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...