Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Daniel san
    • By Daniel san 13th Jul 14, 4:27 PM
    • 187Posts
    • 192Thanks
    Daniel san
    New parking regulations at home...
    • #1
    • 13th Jul 14, 4:27 PM
    New parking regulations at home... 13th Jul 14 at 4:27 PM
    Hi all, I've been reading through threads for a few days now, including the "newbies" and guides - all great info and very much appreciated.

    I'm always very careful to check notices when out and about and parking up, so have avoided any charges so far, but something happened a few weeks ago which has annoyed me, although I must stress it only comes into force next week, I'm looking for a bit of specific guidance if you would be so kind please

    From posts I've read, I gather the following info will help you to help me.
    I am in England
    I am over 18
    The vehicle is not a lease car

    I live in an apartment block, with a leasehold purchase, and have done so since it was newly built in 2007. I am allocated a single parking bay as part of my lease. Until these notices were put in place recently, there has been no parking enforcement in place in any way, just a gate to the car park, opened by a remote fob. This new parking situation has been initiated by the managing agents for the apartments, but not something I've been asked to agree to.

    A few weeks ago, I came home to find the following notice on display in various locations around the car park (edit: oh, I can't post an image as I'm a new member )


    I've read on here that I should ignore any screen ticket, wait 28 days, I should get a NTK within 56 days.

    My question really is, given the above information on my specific scenario, does any of the advice I have read on here change, should I happen get a ticket on my windscreen please?

    I really don't want this round sticker on my windscreen....I'm happy the tax disc is finally going bye bye in October, but now I'll have to have this NCS Parking sticker/advert on my car instead anyway!

    I thank you for your time and help in advance.

    Regards
    Dan
Page 17
    • safarmuk
    • By safarmuk 5th Oct 17, 4:27 PM
    • 567 Posts
    • 1,001 Thanks
    safarmuk
    That's been my understanding until LOC's post which indicates the MA as the land owners agent, would have authority to do this.
    But the MA is not the landowners agent, the MA is the RTM Co's agent and the RTM company do not own the land ... the freeholder company "Theowal LTD" own the land.

    @LOC123 unless the RTM incorporation document contains something that shows that the land or rights over the land has been ceded to them then its clear that there is no link between the PPC and the landowner surely?

    RTM Co's are generally companies set up to allow a group of residents to manage the estate and appoint their own MA's should they wish to do so (instead of the Freeholder doing it) as opposed to taking control of the land itself.
    • Loadsofchildren123
    • By Loadsofchildren123 6th Oct 17, 11:44 AM
    • 1,264 Posts
    • 2,164 Thanks
    Loadsofchildren123
    Managing Agent is defined in the interpretations clause as “such agents as may be employed from time to time by the Lessor for the management of the Estate….”
    There is frequent reference in the lease to “agents” of the landowner, but only one specific reference to the “Managing Agent” which is in para 1 of the 3rd schedule where it specifically says the MA may be appointed to collect ground rent/service charge.Eg "agents" are mentioned in para 2 of Sched 2 and para 14/15 of Sched 3 – the landlord’s power of entry to repair, maintain, inspect etc includes its agents and Lessee’s obligation to allow them entry
    The clause about introducing further regs is at 5.4 – “the Lessor may at any time or times…in the interests of good estate management impose such regulations of general application regarding the Building or the flats or the parking spaces and the Communal Areas therein as it may in its absolute discretion think fit in addition to or in place of the Regulations…..”
    It doesn't say in this clause that it may use agents to introduce new regulations


    In hairray's case there was a Deed signed at the same time as the lease to which the management company was a party which gave it rights and powers/obliged it to observe the covenants. In this case the MA is party to nothing.


    In the case of residents setting up a RTM, isn't the RTM the landowner's agent under the lease, because it takes over the obligations/rights and effectively exercises them under the terms of the lease as the landowner's agent? So acting as the landowner's agent they are employing further agents (which I would say is allowed). Or does a RTM company have a different status? My understanding is the RTM is a way of forcing the landowner to allow the RTM to take over its the rights/obligations. After this has occurred, is the RTM's status as agent of the landowner, or is it exercising the rights/obligations in its own right (ie it steps into the landowner's shoes) - if the latter, then it is entitled to employ agents in the same way the landowner was (and if the former it does so as landowner's agent). I think under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act (which "invented" RTMs) the RTM assumes all the obligaitons/rights in its own right (ie not as landowner's agent). Therefore it isn't the landowner who has the sole right to bring in agents (eg PPCs) but the RTM.


    But then the PPC can only be brought in as AGENT, not be granted rights to act independently. This calls into question whether the RTM can validly grant the PPC rights such as the right to sue drivers. I say it can't. The RTM can only acquire the rights/obligations from the lease, it can't invent new ones - it can exercise the power to impose new regulations but it can't create contractual relations with its agents.


    I'm not a property expert, although I have enough knowledge and experience to read and interpret a lease.


    I don't think the RTM is taking control of the land, it's simply exercising the rights and obligations it has acquired which are contained in the lease. I think the RTM is entitled to exercise the rights contained in the lease and that includes employing its own agents.

    • Daniel san
    • By Daniel san 14th Oct 17, 12:27 PM
    • 187 Posts
    • 192 Thanks
    Daniel san
    Apologies for the very late reply. Thank you LOC, I really appreciate your input.

    FYI, I sent my letter to Gladstones, which they would have received within their 14 days deadline. I am now awaiting their response. In the meantime (FYI), I've had 2 more letters from "Trace" debt recovery, with regards to 2 PCN's for a vehicle in my own space.

    My understanding of RTM is to allow residents to take control of how the building is managed. With the correct qualifications / ability to satisfy regulations, Directors could effectively manage the building themselves and thus save money; or they can choose to appoint a MA, but the important part is more control.

    I would expect that those rights extend to, but not beyond, the terms and requirements of the lease - cleaning contracts, maintenance works, light bulb replacement, lift repairs, TV/Sky aerial/dish, accounting etc etc.

    The land owner surely retains absolute right over the land, and so in the absence of any mention of a PPC and any requirement to display a permit, along with an absence of details of any penalty for failing to adhere to such requirements, such a scheme cannot be introduced without a change to the lease? and ultimately the land owner must contract with the PPC to allow them to establish themselves as the claimant?

    I hold little hope that the claimant will follow the Protocol and provide me with the information as required....I will of course update when I receive further communication.

    Again, apologies for the lack of reply until now.
    • safarmuk
    • By safarmuk 15th Oct 17, 10:32 AM
    • 567 Posts
    • 1,001 Thanks
    safarmuk
    I would expect that those rights extend to, but not beyond, the terms and requirements of the lease - cleaning contracts, maintenance works, light bulb replacement, lift repairs, TV/Sky aerial/dish, accounting etc etc.

    The land owner surely retains absolute right over the land,
    Why don't you write to the Directors of "Theowal Ltd" at their correspondence address (35 Park Lane)
    https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06570726/officers

    And/or phone up Molteno House (the Regents Park Road office) and ask to speak to someone from "Theowal Ltd" or the Directors by name (I would copy the letters above here as well)

    In the letters and phone call tell them you are looking for the status of the land ownership and rights relating to your estate. Tell them you are currently about to enter into legal proceedings related to that estate you need to establish the facts and their information is pertinent ... if they don't play ball then I am sure there is some way to force them to reveal such pertinent information (others will know better but there must be a way to formally request this information).
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

213Posts Today

1,548Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @LordsEconCom: On Tuesday Martin Lewis, Hannah Morrish & Shakira Martin gave evidence to the Cttee. Read the full transcript here: https?

  • Ta ta for now. Half term's starting, so I'm exchanging my MoneySavingExpert hat for one that says Daddy in big letters. See you in a week.

  • RT @thismorning: Can @MartinSLewis' deals save YOU cash? ???? https://t.co/igbHCwzeiN

  • Follow Martin