Yesterday, 10:09 PM
@KHarHar, yes, that answers the important questions and, importantly, I do not think you have identified the driver in either of those appeals.
You consistently describe yourself as the tenant/resident and refer to "my vehicle", but you never say that you were driving or that you parked it. Ownership/keeper status and driver identity are not the same thing. So, unless there is something else you have sent them which identifies the driver, I would continue on the basis that the driver has not been identified. Do not now volunteer that information.
The tenancy position is also rather better than I initially feared. The tenancy defines "the Property" by reference to the contents of the Inventory, and that Inventory expressly identifies Parking space [number]. You also have the agent's pre-tenancy confirmation that the property "comes with an allocated parking space within the complex". Taken together, that is useful evidence that use of that particular space formed part of what was granted with the tenancy.
What I would want to check next is the exact wording of the tenancy clause dealing with parking permits, particularly the clause requiring permits to be returned at the end of the tenancy. The crucial question is whether anywhere in the tenancy you are actually required to display a permit, comply with a third-party parking scheme, or pay parking charges for failing to do so. A clause merely requiring any permit to be returned when the tenancy ends is not the same thing.
I would also slightly temper some of the wording used in your original appeal. "No loss or breach has occurred" is not particularly helpful because private parking charges do not depend upon the operator proving financial loss. Likewise, I would not rest the argument solely on a broad assertion of "primary right of occupation". The stronger point is much more concrete: your tenancy documentation and inventory appear to grant you use of this specific allocated parking space, and we need to establish whether that grant contains any condition requiring display of P4Parking's permit.
So please post the full permit-related clause from the tenancy. Subject to what that says, you potentially have both the tenancy/parking-right argument and, because the driver appears not to have been identified, any applicable keeper-liability arguments still available.
You consistently describe yourself as the tenant/resident and refer to "my vehicle", but you never say that you were driving or that you parked it. Ownership/keeper status and driver identity are not the same thing. So, unless there is something else you have sent them which identifies the driver, I would continue on the basis that the driver has not been identified. Do not now volunteer that information.
The tenancy position is also rather better than I initially feared. The tenancy defines "the Property" by reference to the contents of the Inventory, and that Inventory expressly identifies Parking space [number]. You also have the agent's pre-tenancy confirmation that the property "comes with an allocated parking space within the complex". Taken together, that is useful evidence that use of that particular space formed part of what was granted with the tenancy.
What I would want to check next is the exact wording of the tenancy clause dealing with parking permits, particularly the clause requiring permits to be returned at the end of the tenancy. The crucial question is whether anywhere in the tenancy you are actually required to display a permit, comply with a third-party parking scheme, or pay parking charges for failing to do so. A clause merely requiring any permit to be returned when the tenancy ends is not the same thing.
I would also slightly temper some of the wording used in your original appeal. "No loss or breach has occurred" is not particularly helpful because private parking charges do not depend upon the operator proving financial loss. Likewise, I would not rest the argument solely on a broad assertion of "primary right of occupation". The stronger point is much more concrete: your tenancy documentation and inventory appear to grant you use of this specific allocated parking space, and we need to establish whether that grant contains any condition requiring display of P4Parking's permit.
So please post the full permit-related clause from the tenancy. Subject to what that says, you potentially have both the tenancy/parking-right argument and, because the driver appears not to have been identified, any applicable keeper-liability arguments still available.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
