Lease agreement/tenancy agreement

[squire1234]

Hi,
I am not sure that this is the right section but here goes. Just a bit of background: the driver of my vehicle was issued with 3 parking tickets across the period of 4 months whilst renting privately (AST) in a residential estate as they were forced to park outside of the allocated bay. The parking on this land is supposedly regulated by a company called Linkparking - they have signs up on the estate that form contracts with drivers who choose to park there. I, as keeper, chose to fight the parking charges and was contacted by the company's hired solicitors with an LBCC. As part of my response, I was advised by someone to see if the company has a legal right to operate on the land and, thereby, to form contracts with drivers. The solicitors have refused to provide any such evidence. I was also told to refer to the lease agreement that my landlord signed to see if there was any mention of a third party regulating the parking in the estate and if any charges would be incurred for failure to park properly - there doesn't seem to be.

My question regarding the above is, what are my rights to the above contract as a tenant at the property and not the landlord who signed the lease agreement? Am I still privy to it? Can I reference the lease agreement for primacy of contract? Unfortunately, my tenancy agreement does not mention anything about parking and I am unsure currently if I can use any of the above as a backbone to my defence. Any help or clarity would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!

[charitynjw]

Does the tenancy agreement mention 'quiet enjoyment of the premises'? (Or similar wording.)

Does it mention anything about access/usage of the common parts of the premises?

Or anything about 'demised premises'?

It is difficult to answer your question re the lease contract without sight of it.


Link often mess up on their notices (windscreen & notice to keeper) & signage.
Could you post up pics of them? (Obviously redact personal info, but leave times & dates visible.)

Their sols (Gladrags?.....name changed to protect the guilty ) should have sent you a hard copy pre-action protocol pack,, not just a letter before claim.
The onus is on them to send it, not for you to ask for it.
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pr...s/debt-pap.pdf

As for your query about whether they (Link) have the necessary permission to operate on the land; you have every right to that info.
The relevant legislation [Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, s5(1)(a)] says


Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4


5(1)The first condition is that the creditor—

(a) has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the unpaid parking charges

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...dule/4/enacted

It follows, therefore, that they must be able to evidence the 'right to enforce' if challenged.

Link & their sols regularly capitulate when faced with a robust defence.
Ie https://legalbeagles.info/forums/for...claim-recieved

Btw, did you go through the Link & IAS appeal procedures?

[squire1234]

Thanks for your response! So looking at my personal AST agreement, I note the following relevant clauses:

10.1. To allow the Tenant to quietly hold and enjoy the Premises during the tenancy without any unlawful interruption by the Landlord or any person rightfully claiming under, through or in trust for the Landlord.

13.1 If the Premises comprises part only of a building the letting shall include the use (in common with others) of access ways to and from the Premises inside the building.

13.7. Where the Landlord’s own title to the Premises is leasehold and not freehold, the Landlord may themselves be a tenant under a superior lease. The Tenant agrees to perform and observe at all times during the Term the conditions and stipulations contained in the superior lease that were notified to the Tenant prior to the commencement of the tenancy.

The latter (13.7) seems to imply that the lease agreement and wording within applies to me if I'm not mistaken? There is no mention of a parking space specifically but 13.1 mentions access to the Premises. Can I use this for a solid defence?

The solicitor is indeed Gladrags (name changed) and I am currently at the stage where I have received an LBCC for all of the tickets and have now been sent court papers for one of these. I did appeal the tickets through LinkParking, which was rejected, but I did not use the IAS appeals process (I hope this will not reflect badly on me ?!)

I have asked them repeatedly for evidence regarding their client's permission to operate, as the lease agreement does not mention having to pay any third party, but they have told me that if the court asks for it then they will provide. They, of course, did not send me a hard copy of the Pre-Action Protocol and I also mentioned this to them - they then sent me an electronic copy.

This is a link to the image of the ticket that they are taking me to court over:

https://imgur.com/a/PzZQln0

. And this is a link to the signs on the estate:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiJmsewsN_gAhVRyRoKHYCTAxYQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Flegalbeagles.info%2Fforums%2Fforum%2Flegal-forums%2Fmotoring-parking%2Fppc-s-parking-charge-notices%2Fparking-live-court-claims%2F86586-gladstones-solicitors-ipc-link-parking&psig=AOvVaw0QzkQjdkBa3T92ewdpMAzf&ust=1551475931808918

You can see that they are not very upfront with the charge (tiny print). There is also no sign that on entrance to the estate and signs throughout the estate are not well visible. Also, for a car parked outside of a bay does the sign not imply there is no offer of contract (forbidding)?

I have done a lot of reading and know I have a case here but I just don't know how to turn it into a defence as a newbie!

[charitynjw]

Are you aware of
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co...-kangaroo.html

The details have changed slightly over the years, but the business model lives on, allegedly.

Certainly my own experience of them leaves much to be desired.

The HTML link for the sign isn't working. (the other one works fine, though)
Could you upload using 'share photo'? (Camera symbol, top l/h/s of the reply box.)
I had my wrist slapped recently by admin for using the HTML function, lol. Who knew?
Link quite often use 'forbidding' signage, but without sight of the one(s) used, it is a bit difficult for me to comment.

Have you received the postal notice to keeper?
If so, could you post that up as well? (again, redact including number plate on any pictures, but leave times/dates visible.)

From post #1
I chose to fight the parking charges......
Did you state who actually parked? (ie 'I had to park the car....' or similar.)

There is/are possible defence(s) re the windscreen PCN, but your answer to the above paragraph may have a bearing on this.

[squire1234]

Yep had a read of that and it was the reason why I didn't bother appealing through them!

Image uploaded:


I did receive the NTK, for each of the tickets. Uploaded below:



I have never admitted or implied who the driver is - is there a defence here?

[charitynjw]

Ok

That postal notice to keeper.
Sent (earliest) 13th June 2018
Allow 2 days for posting, so deemed received by you 15th June 2018
Windscreen PCN issued 14th April 2018
So I make that 62 days from date of windscreen PCN to receipt of postal PCN.
(16 + 31 +15 days)

Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Sch 4, 8(4) & (5)

(4) The notice must be given by—

(a ) handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or

(b ) sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.

(5) The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 28 days following the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given


So the latest it can be received via post by you is 28 +28 = 56 days.

That by itself is enough to wreck Link's claim.
The legislation states 'MUST be given by......'
End of.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...dule/4/enacted
.

[ostell]

Is the timing the same on all the PCNs? This will only owrk if the driver at the time has not been identified. I hope it hasn't

If your own allocated space was not available then Link have failed in their job to ensure correct parking in the area and are responsible for your loss and should pay for those losses. Tongue in cheek, but true

[squire1234]

Ah thanks for this! Is this the only defence that I really need then? I'm going to look over my correspondence and make sure that I haven't implied who the driver is but I am 99% sure. Need to check with the other tickets too.

Should I forget the lease defence then?

[charitynjw]

Is the timing the same on all the PCNs? This will only owrk if the driver at the time has not been identified. I hope it hasn't
If your own allocated space was not available then Link have failed in their job to ensure correct parking in the area and are responsible for your loss and should pay for those losses. Tongue in cheek, but true

Because there was a windscreen PCN, 28 days (from the day after issue) is allowed for the driver to pay it.
If not paid the postal PCN is sent out no sooner than 29 days

[charitynjw]

Ah thanks for this! Is this the only defence that I really need then? I'm going to look over my correspondence and make sure that I haven't implied who the driver is but I am 99% sure. Need to check with the other tickets too.

Should I forget the lease defence then?

I'm assuming that there were windscreen PCN's.
If not, & the PCN's were sent by post as being the first PCN notification, they are still time-defective, but for slightly different reasons.

Do you have copies of all 3 windscreen & (first) postal PCN's?
If not, you can obtain them easily enough.

To begin with you don't need the lease agreement defence; just keep that one in your back pocket for later if necessary.

Time-defective PCN's should be enough for now.

[squire1234]

They were all windscreen PCNs indeed.
I have copies of two of them but not the third - looking at the dates for the other one that I have, the ticket was issued on 22/05/18 and NTK on 26/06/18 (I make that only 35 days). I will need to obtain the other one, I previously asked for the evidence upon which they are making claims against me but they have not provided me with any.

Just a side question - these tickets are from a year ago and have still not been dealt with, I presume that there is no timeframe in which proceedings must be issued, but is there anything that I can claim in terms of costs? Their replies have come 2 months after my correspondence at times and all they say is "we are sorry but hope you agree that you have suffered no prejudice as a result". Can someone explain what prejudice in this context means? Thanks again guys!

[charitynjw]

Example letter for obtaining info.
Keep copy & send to the parking co (I'd suggest SignedFor tracked post)
You should then have your info within 30 days.

I'll take a look back on the thread re '*prejudice' etc..

*harm or injury that results or may result from some action or judgement.

[charitynjw]

Ok, no significant prejudice, really.

If they had tied up all the paperwork properly, they would have had up to 6 years from the 'cause of action' in which to bring action. (.Limitation Act 1980 s5.)

But they didn't. (Defective notice.)

So they can't!

Ain't life grand!

Btw, have a trawl through your posts & edit any reference which might identify the driver. (ie to - the driver parked, the registered keeper received [xxx]).
Parking co's regularly look at these forums.
No point in giving them a heads-up.

[squire1234]

Amazing!
What about the second ticket though, that one was issued within the correct amount of time...I need a new defence I reckon

[charitynjw]

Post them up, front & back (suitably redacted) & we'll have a look.

If they are substantially the same as posts #3 & #5, what is the date of issue of the windscreen ticket & the date om the top of the postal one?