Car clamped in my own parking space

[MrShed]

The "Communal Parking" section in the sticky is more applicable here. In any event, the sticky was (with the best intentions of course) written by someone versed in the rules around PPCs/clampers, not neccessarily versed in landlord/tenant law. I can promise you that this would not come near the protection from eviction act. The quiet enjoyment aspect it may impact, but not in your specific scenario.

[yoman228]

so in theory, if i sign a 12 month contract with the landlord, and they desided to remove or charge extra charge for the parking space at any time, I have to right to cancel my 12 month contract?

[MrShed]

Absolutely categorically NOT. Where do you get that idea from?

[yoman228]

sorry, just notice I make a typo in my post, so i gusses I stand no chance to cancel my contract even they change the term and condition of the parking rules.

[MrShed]

No absolutely you dont have grounds for that. Like I said, stick to the legality aspect of the clamping.

[yoman228]

Just an update, I just called my bank, they said the chargeback is the the progress, they are waiting the other side to response and not sure how long it will take

 

what supprise me is that they do not need me to sign anythings or provide any more information except my first phone call, very different to what the girl said from visa Debt. May be as Dx said, most of them do not know the chargeback rules until they talked to their manager

 

anyway. wish me luck and I will update the stroy again when things become clear.

[Zamzara]

Mr Shed:

 

Atthe time of the clamp, my car was parked in my own parking space with the flatnumber clearly label on the ground

 

If there is exlusive use of that particular space, then surely it will form part of the lease? Why do you think the Protection of Eviction Act is not engaged: surely s. 1(3A) applies? A landlord impounding my goods and blackmailing me would certainly make me likely to give up the premises, or use of the parking space.

[MrShed]

Because the lease ITSELF does not encompass the land that the space lies on. That is clear from the terms that the OP has posted.

[yoman228]

Mr Shed:

If there is exlusive use of that particular space, then surely it will form part of the lease? Why do you think the Protection of Eviction Act is not engaged: surely s. 1(3A) applies? A landlord impounding my goods and blackmailing me would certainly make me likely to give up the premises, or use of the parking space.

[/font][/size]

 

Because the lease ITSELF does not encompass the land that the space lies on. That is clear from the terms that the OP has posted.

 

 

 

 

I had goolged the Protection from Eviction Act 1977, I found the following interesting.

F1 3A as quoted by Zamzara

“Subject to subsection (3B) below, the landlord of a residential occupier or an agent of the landlord shall be guilty of an offence if—

(a) he does acts likely to interfere with the peace or comfort of the residential occupier or members of his household, or

(b) he persistently withdraws or withholds services reasonably required for the occupation of the premises in question as a residence,

and (in either case) he knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, that that conduct is likely to cause the residential occupier to give up the occupation of the whole or part of the premises or to refrain from exercising any right or pursuing any remedy in respect of the whole or part of the premises.

(3B)A person shall not be guilty of an offence under subsection (3A) above if he proves that he had reasonable grounds for doing the acts or withdrawing or withholding the services in question.”

 

 

 

I agreed that the parking space may not be part of the lease as a premise, but the lease did stated that I have to park in my own allocated parking space (no mention of using a permit in contact at the time of signing the contact), they also send me the only permit of that parking space, which proved I have the right to park there.

 

So the question will be if the parking space falls into the services that I reasonably required as an occupation of the premise.

 

Notice that the agent have shown me the parking space before I rent it (my prove is that, I will not know there is a allocated parking space for the permit if they have not told me). I will not rent the premise if there is no allocated parking space.

 

Hence, removing me using the allocated parking space or impounding my goods and blackmailing me would certainly make me likely to give up the premises as Zamzara said.

 

Is that mean the property management company or the landlord have breaking the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 as Zamzara said?

[MrShed]

That term in the Act refers to services that are required for occupation. e.g. preventing gas/water/electric to the property.

[yoman228]

Firstly I think gas/water and electric is essential, not reasonably required.If the parking space does not fall into “reasonably required for the occupation”,

 

what law could stop the landlord just board up my house, stop any sunlight, and reduce my assess to permit to a very narrow road or requires me to pay a fee on walking the pathway without putting a permit on the forehead (notice having the permit in pocket is not enough, the permit must be on the forehead when they take my photo, as the same requirements as I need to put permit on windscreen. )

 

Isn’t all this count as an act of “interfere with the peace or comfort of the residential occupier?”. I know the example above is a bit extreme, but isn’t the logic is the same? Surely removing my right of parking or requiring a parking permit are similar to reduce the assess to permit to a very narrow road or the requirement of sticking a permit on my forehead.

 

Note that the contact did not say I have the right to have sunlight or requirement of permit when assess the pathway.From all the logic above, unless the management can proved that the car clamping is legal, doesn’t their conduct refrain from exercising any right or pursuing any remedy in respect of the whole or part of the premises (smmlar to the right of asscess the pathway)? Which could mean they are trying to “interfere with the peace or comfort of the residential occupier” and cause the residential to give up the occupation?

[Zamzara]

I'm reluctant to dispute Mr Shed on housing issues, but there is clearly an OR in the section. "Inteferes with the peace and comfort", or "withdraws services". Two routes to the offence.

[yoman228]

Just rereading my last post, plese forgive me if they sounds rude, as english is not my first language.

 

sorry for noobs, what is OR mean?

[greasmonkey]

i think he said that the parking spaces had the flat numbers on

so not comunial parking

[MrShed]

OK guys look. What I was trying to do here really was emphasize the point that the much stronger approach is to follow on the legality (or otherwise) of the clamping element as opposed to the housing law element. Of course, there is always the possibility that a judge COULD class the clamping of a vehicle on private property as against the protection from eviction act. In my humble opinion, it is a stretch at best, and I believe it would be actually detrimental to your case to use this argument. There are a number of reasons for this. First of all, the action clearly was not INTENDED to evict or otherwise persuade you to leave. Secondly, there is a big argument as to whether parking in a communal area (with or without individual car parking spaces) is classed as a "reasonable" requirement of habitation. Thirdly, the act did not permanently restrict you from access to that service, it merely restricted you once, when you did not abide by their rules surrounding that service. Of course, it can be argued (and probably rightly so) that you did not agree to those rules - but that puts you firmly in the realm of contract law, not unlawful eviction. Stranger things have happened in court, but I am merely voicing my opinion that the OP would be better served to following more sound legal argument to contest this charge. In my experience with the housing acts, unlawful eviction is VERY difficult to win a case on at the best of times - using it as legal argument here will cloud the issue and will almost certainly be on a hiding to nothing. You have to think about the practicalities surrounding the case, as well as the "letter of the law".

[yoman228]

Latest update from Visa debt chargeback, they claimed that the transition is pin enter, that mean they cannot do anything about it. If I was force to pay under fear, I should call the police.Meaning the only choice I have left is to sue the car clamping and Property management Company, as the car clamping company is likely to shut after the new laws come. Think I have no choice but to go though the small claim court to sue the property management company.Can Anyone give me any advice on how put a case in small court please?

[Al27]

You need to get hold of the flat's lease. This was asked on page 1 of this thread.

[dx100uk]

you were under fear

fear of you car being towed away

 

its a shame its a real lottery with these bank people

most will put it through because it is unlawful

 

pers i'd try again

 

dx

[yoman228]

to Al27, To get the flat lease? u mean the rental lease or the lease from landlord when he bought the place?

 

To Dx, I did tried to told them I paid under fear when I input the pin. but they claimed that if I were under fear and think it is unlawful for them to charge me, I should have called the police. IS there any section of the Visa poicy about the chargeback under fear?

 

unless I have other method, I think I need to go thought the small court route, as suring the car campany is waste of time, How do i ensure that it will be the property company to pay me, not the car clamping company? I belives the car clamping company will shut down before I gets the money as the new law passed.

[sailor sam]

to Al27, To get the flat lease? u mean the rental lease or the lease from landlord when he bought the place?

 

To Dx, I did tried to told them I paid under fear when I input the pin. but they claimed that if I were under fear and think it is unlawful for them to charge me, I should have called the police. IS there any section of the Visa poicy about the chargeback under fear?

 

unless I have other method, I think I need to go thought the small court route, as suring the car campany is waste of time, How do i ensure that it will be the property company to pay me, not the car clamping company? I belives the car clamping company will shut down before I gets the money as the new law passed.

 

Even if they do, they will still be liable. It dosn't really matter who pays you as long as you get your money back does it?

[dx100uk]

who to hell are they say you should call the police.....

 

they weer not there

 

demand they do a chargeback and do their investigation AFTERWARDS

 

if the bod on the phone wont do it

escalate it up the chain

keep asking to speak to their superior if they will not do it.

 

 

dx

[yoman228]

To Sailor Sam, Am I correct that if the car company is a ltd company which is likely to be, as soon as the company close down, the director is to responsible for the debt related to the company?

 

To Dx100Uk, The bank said they already send me a letter to explain what they told me which I will get it in this few days; they call it a voucher or something

 

I understand that I could escalate it up the chain, but when they reply me in writing, I find it hard to get my ground round it unless I can find some loop hole from their letter and their policy. I will update here again once I gets the letter.

[yoman228]

I read about the chargeback in http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/sale-of-goods/your-rights-when-paying-by-credit-card/chargeback-on-credit-and-debit-cards

 

It stated that Conditions and requirements of chargeback

 

The main requirement for compensation is evidence that there has been a breach of contract.

 

Can I claimed that the car clamp company did not reply me within 10 days of received my appeal letter? Is that a breach of contract? Wounder if I could use this as to get myself up to the supervisor ladder.

[Al27]

to Al27, To get the flat lease? u mean the rental lease or the lease from landlord when he bought the place?

 

Neither

 

The lease that comes with the flat. Your landlord will have it, or you might be best finding an owner-occupier in the same block and having a look at theirs. It will be a physical book, setting out the rights that come with the flat. There is likely to be something in it about parking.

 

Often management companies just bring in parking companies and they have no rights over the land whatsoever.

[yoman228]

lastest update, I finally got a letter from the bank saying they reject my request of chargeback and refered me to their fuard team.

 

Gusses my only option now is the small claim court, I wounder if there is a deadline when I can not sue them? am I too late now?