B
Bodd
He showed me letter today. They still want payment.
I think we will blag it. Let the take court action
I think we will blag it. Let the take court action
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 18,317
- Reaction score
- 2,770
- Country
Dear Sirs,
Nothing in your letter (wordy as it is) has any basis in Law. The terms of your service and charge as worded, applies only to those who enter in to a contract with you. Since no permit was displayed there was no agreement to the terms of your contract. Your notice is worded such that the fee only applies to those who agree to, and then breach the terms of your contract. They do not apply to those who are authorised under a different licence. Nothing in the deed between the Land owner and the leaseholder restricts who the lessee may assign a licence too. The lease clearly grants a right to use the common areas and makes no mention of you as a party.
Your terms do not apply in this instance and your claim of fees is disputed.
No doubt you will be aware of this.
best regards -
smug mode
Nothing in your letter (wordy as it is) has any basis in Law. The terms of your service and charge as worded, applies only to those who enter in to a contract with you. Since no permit was displayed there was no agreement to the terms of your contract. Your notice is worded such that the fee only applies to those who agree to, and then breach the terms of your contract. They do not apply to those who are authorised under a different licence. Nothing in the deed between the Land owner and the leaseholder restricts who the lessee may assign a licence too. The lease clearly grants a right to use the common areas and makes no mention of you as a party.
Your terms do not apply in this instance and your claim of fees is disputed.
No doubt you will be aware of this.
best regards -
smug mode
B
Bodd
I should cut and past this and send without the smug bit. ???
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 18,317
- Reaction score
- 2,770
- Country
maybe add Having taking advice on the matter, I am informed ...
In the country court claim example I posted, the district judge interpreted the sign as being the terms and conditions for those who display a permit, not those who don't.
I'm also a bit suspicious that the exchanging of emails was a trap to confirm you'd entered in to a contract. Was there anything in there appealing to their terms or were you simply informing them that you were authorised? Who emailed who, the driver or the tenant/leaseholder?
In the country court claim example I posted, the district judge interpreted the sign as being the terms and conditions for those who display a permit, not those who don't.
I'm also a bit suspicious that the exchanging of emails was a trap to confirm you'd entered in to a contract. Was there anything in there appealing to their terms or were you simply informing them that you were authorised? Who emailed who, the driver or the tenant/leaseholder?
Last edited:
Similar threads
