Re: PCNs imposed on a legally parked leaseholder
Think that could be stretching the meaning of trespass a bit too far Trespass to goods would fall under wrongful interference of goods and not trespass to land if there is no specifically allocated parking space. I don't think there is any case law on what is the criteria but I also don't think in this day and age it you could successfull claim for trespass to goods for putting a PCN on a windscreen unless it caused damage in doing so.
@johnnic
(a) + (c) correct, you cold say that any contractual arrangement between the management company and the parking company does not override your right to park in said parking space. The right to park is an exlcusive one so I would say that is licence and not an easement, but in any event I preseume the lease will say no variation wihtout consent of the landlord - if that's the case just refer to that point also as they are effectively varying the licence under the lease which no authority to do so.
(b) Genuine pre-estimate is out of the window now with Parking v Beavis 2015 (Supreme Court decision) and the question now is whether it is unconscionable and/or extravagent (one and the same to me, apparently not to the SC). The SC said just because its not a genuine pre-estimate does not make it penal, have to look at the surrounding circumstances e.g. commercial reasons for doing so. Either way I actually don't think Beavis has any influence in this case or could be relied upon because the facts are different here. Beavis related to public parking whereas this is residential parking and the two are not mutually exlcusive.
Certainly raise your points on (a) and (c) but (b) is a non-starter I think and doesn't apply and on top of that seek confirmation that they have authority to enter into the contract by the landlord.
Originally posted by ostell
View Post
@johnnic
(a) + (c) correct, you cold say that any contractual arrangement between the management company and the parking company does not override your right to park in said parking space. The right to park is an exlcusive one so I would say that is licence and not an easement, but in any event I preseume the lease will say no variation wihtout consent of the landlord - if that's the case just refer to that point also as they are effectively varying the licence under the lease which no authority to do so.
(b) Genuine pre-estimate is out of the window now with Parking v Beavis 2015 (Supreme Court decision) and the question now is whether it is unconscionable and/or extravagent (one and the same to me, apparently not to the SC). The SC said just because its not a genuine pre-estimate does not make it penal, have to look at the surrounding circumstances e.g. commercial reasons for doing so. Either way I actually don't think Beavis has any influence in this case or could be relied upon because the facts are different here. Beavis related to public parking whereas this is residential parking and the two are not mutually exlcusive.
Certainly raise your points on (a) and (c) but (b) is a non-starter I think and doesn't apply and on top of that seek confirmation that they have authority to enter into the contract by the landlord.
Comment