PCNs imposed on a legally parked leaseholder

[R0b]

Re: PCNs imposed on a legally parked leaseholder

There can be trespass even if it is not a unique space in that a notice stuck on the car is trespass.

With regard to the requirement to comply with all reasonable regulations I would contest that having to give up control of a right given in your lease to a third party is not reasonable.

Did the management company really say "Penalty Charges" and "Fines"?

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.

[johnnic]

Re: PCNs imposed on a legally parked leaseholder

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.

I take your point. So, is it the case that there is nothing that would allow us to argue that the imposition of a charge (however defined) is 'unconscionable and/or extravagent'?

Also, I'm slightly confused with your second point about seeking confirmation that they have authority to enter into the contract by the landlord. The property manager works for the landlord and landholder (one and the same as I understand it) and inferentially they have authority from the landlord. Am I missing something here?

[R0b]

Re: PCNs imposed on a legally parked leaseholder

The point about authority is that just because you are employed to act on behalf of the landlord does not mean you have authority to act as the landlord. Simple example will be if you are an employee of a business, you act on behalf of the business but has the business given you authority to enter into contracts on its behalf?

Same applies here with the property management company, they may have been instructed to maintain the property but the question is whether that extends to entering into legally binding contracts. They are an agent of the landlord, they dont own the land so they may have acted beyond their powers if no authority has been given to them to do so. On the other hand, they may have authority to enter into contracts on behalf of the landlord, thats what you need to find out.

Regardless of the above point, the contractual agreement does not override your legal position in the lease.