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
    • flatbuyer1
    • By flatbuyer1 6th Dec 17, 7:42 AM
    • 2Posts
    • 0Thanks
    flatbuyer1
    Parking space with leasehold flat - plan doesn't match reality
    • #1
    • 6th Dec 17, 7:42 AM
    Parking space with leasehold flat - plan doesn't match reality 6th Dec 17 at 7:42 AM
    Hi, long time lurker etc - sorry for mega long first post, I am looking at buying a leasehold flat with 100+ years lease on a large residential development.built around 2000

    The lease includes a site plan showing the location of flat and parking space edged in red among the other flats and parking spaces which are all numbered. The land registry title deed has same plan. Say I'm buying flat 100, the parking spaces on the plan go

    98,99,100,101,102,103,visitor,visitor,visitor,visi tor, visitor

    But the way the car parkin area is marked up by the management company with numbered parking bays go

    97,98,99,100,101,102,103,V,V,V,V

    Basically since producing the site plan, but before the leases were finalised and flats bought, someone wanted to buy a second space, or another visitor space was created further down the numbering system, so they nudged everything along one and there's one fewer visitor spaces at this end of the site. Everyone has a space who wants one, and everyone uses the space marked on the ground with their flat number, but everyone's title deeds point to a red-edged bay which is one removed from the area which has been marked for their flat in the real world.

    I am happy with where flat 100 is marked in real life, and would also be happy with where flat 100 is marked on the plan. Concern is that the spot that's currently vacant for me to park on, and marked with '100', is within the title and lease plan of Flat 101; meanwhile the person from 99 is using 'my' land i.e. what is shown on my plan. Because the plans are old and the site was changed. The seller says it has always been like that since they bought as a new build (one of the later flats to be completed) - though they don't live there, it has been let out - and nobody has any disputes with neighbours.

    Practically speaking if there is a space for me to use from day to day, marked with my flat number to stop anyone else using it (or they'll get a parking ticket), I am happy. And flats 99 and 101 were both successfully sold in the last 5 years with title plans pointing to the 'wrong' spot (I downloaded the plans from land registry), and they just go ahead and use the ones that the management company marked for them on the tarmac, as does everyone else.

    But I have a nagging concern that the proper fix for this is to vary the lease and title for flats 100,101,102,103 to show a different spot (offset by 1) which is where the management company (who work for the freeholder) have said they need to park. Unless management co wants to re-mark all the bays on the site, which they may not be able to, presumably they are this way for a reason like someone buying an extra spot way down the numbering system.

    If that sort of change was made to all the leases and deeds then we would all be/ using our land correctly, though it's different land from the old plan which was out of date by the time of site completion. That would involve time and effort and presumably the issue extends a long way down a 'chain' of flats in the other direction too (99,98,97 etc) though I am not too bothered about them as I can see I'm only a few flats away from the end of the problem where it just becomes visitor parking.

    This nagging concern I have is more about if there was a dispute in future or what happens when I am trying to sell later and the buyer says I have a problem to sort out with the freeholder. Basically a 'what if' scenario . My solicitor said seller should come up with a solution and get this resolved so my mortgage company can be happy that they are definitely getting a parking space in the property being secured.

    Seller's solicitor says it's a non issue and they won't be contacting the freeholder to get anything 'fixed' because legally the flat title includes a parking space and the lease also says it has a parking space, and that space on the plan does not conflict with what anyone else has on their title plan. So it is just a practical position that nobody is using 'their own' land, they are parking somewhere else, but nobody has a problem with it and if there was a dispute in future you could just enforce your rights under your lease and park in 'your' spot.

    Seller says if I want to sort out with the management company after I've bought it, I could go and do that but they will not be doing it because it doesn't practically matter.

    So the question is (at long last) : Would you buy a flat with that sort of 'inherited' problem or expect some sort of assistance from seller to 'fix' his title? Is this making a mountain out of a molehill because nobody practically cares as long as they have one space to park each and it won't ever come up in future... or is it naÔve to let yourself be talked around an apparent problem by an estate agent and solicitor employed by the seller who has allegedly never noticed it.

    Friends say variously 'ooh, sounds like a mess' or 'nah, wouldn't bother me' but majority the former. If there have been 100+ sales on the site since the time it was a new build and people generally aren't complaining about this sort of stuff, is that because most people don't take an interest in this sort of stuff because they are fools and I am the only one who has flagged it to the conveyancer? Or because half of the people noticed it, but didn't care? Either way, if nobody cares then maybe there is zero risk in going ahead and never trying to sort it because nobody I would sell it to in the future would notice anyway.

    What I don't want is to get right to the end of a sale process in five years and have a buyer say - like I said to the seller now - this seems to be a problem that will stall the sale until you can give me some comfort around it...

    Any thoughts appreciated
    Last edited by flatbuyer1; 06-12-2017 at 7:45 AM.
Page 1
    • JoJo1978
    • By JoJo1978 6th Dec 17, 7:51 AM
    • 181 Posts
    • 178 Thanks
    JoJo1978
    • #2
    • 6th Dec 17, 7:51 AM
    • #2
    • 6th Dec 17, 7:51 AM
    You're quite lucky to have a designated space these days. Many leasehold developments in London have just a 'right to park'. For example there are 200 flats and 150 parking spaces. Still never causes an issue because the chances of every occupier wanting to exercise their right park at the same time are minimal. Park in your numbered space, no issue
    Hamster in the wheel (London) 1999-2017
    Mortgage free since 2015; Pension pot sorted 2017
    Second career (what TBD!) 2018
    • silvercar
    • By silvercar 6th Dec 17, 8:00 AM
    • 36,218 Posts
    • 153,101 Thanks
    silvercar
    • #3
    • 6th Dec 17, 8:00 AM
    • #3
    • 6th Dec 17, 8:00 AM
    Seller's solicitor says it's a non issue and they won't be contacting the freeholder to get anything 'fixed' because legally the flat title includes a parking space and the lease also says it has a parking space, and that space on the plan does not conflict with what anyone else has on their title plan. So it is just a practical position that nobody is using 'their own' land, they are parking somewhere else, but nobody has a problem with it and if there was a dispute in future you could just enforce your rights under your lease and park in 'your' spot.
    This makes sense to me.

    What is important is what your solicitor says, rather than the seller's solicitor.
    • Tom99
    • By Tom99 6th Dec 17, 8:48 AM
    • 696 Posts
    • 418 Thanks
    Tom99
    • #4
    • 6th Dec 17, 8:48 AM
    • #4
    • 6th Dec 17, 8:48 AM
    You legally have a space to park and from a practical point of view you also have a space to park. If you like the flat I would just accept the situation.
    • ThePants999
    • By ThePants999 6th Dec 17, 9:44 AM
    • 904 Posts
    • 1,060 Thanks
    ThePants999
    • #5
    • 6th Dec 17, 9:44 AM
    • #5
    • 6th Dec 17, 9:44 AM
    Not an issue at all. Except that when you come to sell, someone who's considering buying will be going "hmmmm, could this be a problem?" Don't worry, we'll tell them it's not an issue too.
    • davidmcn
    • By davidmcn 6th Dec 17, 10:41 AM
    • 6,292 Posts
    • 6,075 Thanks
    davidmcn
    • #6
    • 6th Dec 17, 10:41 AM
    • #6
    • 6th Dec 17, 10:41 AM
    My solicitor said seller should come up with a solution and get this resolved so my mortgage company can be happy that they are definitely getting a parking space in the property being secured.
    Originally posted by flatbuyer1
    Your solicitor ought to realise that expecting another 4/5 neighbours (who currently don't think there's a problem) to take action, and involve their lenders and all the respective solicitors in coordinating a solution, is not exactly likely to get you into your flat this side of Doomsday.

    But they do have a point that your lender expects a squeaky-clean title, or else a suitable indemnity policy. So ask the seller to provide (or at least pay for) insurance to cover the risk. That should keep your lender happy, though be aware that you are likely to have similar awkward discussions with any future lender or buyers, who might not be happy with insurance as a solution or expect you to get slightly different cover.

    Unless there's some streamlined Land Registry-assisted solution I don't know about. I have dealt with a similar problem in the past where the (Scottish) Land Register was able to help us out and just tell everyone that their parking space had been shifted slightly, but that was slightly easier as the development hadn't yet been fully sold off.
    Last edited by davidmcn; 06-12-2017 at 10:43 AM.
    • Typhoon2000
    • By Typhoon2000 6th Dec 17, 10:46 AM
    • 779 Posts
    • 364 Thanks
    Typhoon2000
    • #7
    • 6th Dec 17, 10:46 AM
    • #7
    • 6th Dec 17, 10:46 AM
    Sounds like the parking space is the right place but the numbers are painted on wrong. Or the number don't refer to your flat number. In my first flat my flat number was 153 but my parking space was 126 ( maybe because not everyone purchased the optional parking space). As long as you have a place to park consitantly ( even if it's just next to the one marked on your deeds) I wouldn't bother trying to change anything.
    • eddddy
    • By eddddy 6th Dec 17, 11:19 AM
    • 5,552 Posts
    • 5,235 Thanks
    eddddy
    • #8
    • 6th Dec 17, 11:19 AM
    • #8
    • 6th Dec 17, 11:19 AM
    The cheapest and most sensible solution would be to get the freeholder to repaint the numbers in the car park - so they reflect the leases.

    If the problem arose because somebody has bought two parking places - they might be a bit annoyed that one of them is moved further away - but presumably that's what their lease says, and therefore that's what they agreed to buy.


    Or you could just leave things as they are, as it seems to work...
    ...until somebody awkward moves in who insists on parking in their 'legal' space.
    • ceh209
    • By ceh209 6th Dec 17, 11:54 AM
    • 705 Posts
    • 472 Thanks
    ceh209
    • #9
    • 6th Dec 17, 11:54 AM
    • #9
    • 6th Dec 17, 11:54 AM
    In my first flat my flat number was 153 but my parking space was 126 ( maybe because not everyone purchased the optional parking space).
    Originally posted by Typhoon2000

    I lived in a flat like that. I was told it was so that if someone broke into your flat and got your car keys, they wouldn't know which space to go to to steal your car. Somehow I doubt it though, as with remote locking you could just walk around the car park until the key worked...
    Excuse any mis-spelt replies, there's probably a cat sat on the keyboard
    • Slinky
    • By Slinky 6th Dec 17, 12:04 PM
    • 4,768 Posts
    • 20,810 Thanks
    Slinky
    We had a flat which supposedly had it's own parking space which was drawn up on the plan. The surface of the car park had deteriorated quite a lot and there was grass/weeds encroaching on the tarmac making the spaces quite a bit smaller. Nothing was actually marked up. Everybody parked where they could find a space. I don't think our car was ever actually parked in 'our' own space. Other flats when sold had the car parking details described as 'communal parking'. It didn't put us off when buying, it wasn't a problem when we sold.
    • Slinky
    • By Slinky 6th Dec 17, 12:06 PM
    • 4,768 Posts
    • 20,810 Thanks
    Slinky
    I lived in a flat like that. I was told it was so that if someone broke into your flat and got your car keys, they wouldn't know which space to go to to steal your car. Somehow I doubt it though, as with remote locking you could just walk around the car park until the key worked...
    Originally posted by ceh209
    It's more the other way round - it makes sense in that somebody can't be sure if space 153 is empty that the occupier of flat 153 is out and therefore more of a target for burglary.
    • G_M
    • By G_M 6th Dec 17, 12:53 PM
    • 42,352 Posts
    • 49,208 Thanks
    G_M
    It's very common for parking space numbers to be totally unrelated to flat numbers.

    Flats 1, 2, 3 etc are on the ground floor with 4, 5, 6 on the first etc

    Spaces 1, 2, 3 etc are in the top left corner, with 4, 5, 6 in the top right etc

    Allocation may be according to location, or the order in which flates were originallyy sold, or some other process.
    • aneary
    • By aneary 6th Dec 17, 12:58 PM
    • 818 Posts
    • 704 Thanks
    aneary
    I lived in flat 6 but my parking space was 32. However there were 13 blocks around the car park so presumably 13 flat 6s.
    • flatbuyer1
    • By flatbuyer1 6th Dec 17, 2:41 PM
    • 2 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    flatbuyer1
    This makes sense to me.

    What is important is what your solicitor says, rather than the seller's solicitor.
    Originally posted by silvercar
    It does make sense to me too, the more I think about it, but I agree that my own solicitor is the one with my interests in mind (while also acting for the lender) and they have suggested the main options are either

    -tell the seller you won't buy it until they have "fixed" the issue, or,

    -accept that you will buy it 'as is' knowing that a neighbor is parking on your land and that you are parking on someone else's and nobody really minds, recognising that a potential buyer may have the same issues/concerns in the future when you come to sell it which could cause you stress or delay trying to talk them around (and no doubt some people would be talk-roundable or not even notice).

    I suppose my concern was being "squeezed out" or at least having a big bust up when flat 99 says he and predecessors have been parking on that land "painted 99" for twenty years (regardless of it being my land per title) and meanwhile a new owner of flat 101 says he doesn't care what's painted up because the space i'm using (painted 100) is his land...

    Knowing little about the rules of adverse possession for registered land, what happens if I miss a piece of mail or two which says flat 99 wants to claim the land on my title because he's been using it as his for decades? Perhaps that's no issue at all and could never happen especially with a freeholder having a say in who is leaseholding what...

    Like I said above, maybe making a mountain out of molehill. I understand from my solicitor they would need to report to lender that the lease and title seem ok but that someone from another flat has been parking on what was my land on the plan due to the way the management company have laid out the site but I still have somewhere to park and there is an explainable reason for the layout change, which is...[insert reason here]

    Your solicitor ought to realise that expecting another 4/5 neighbours (who currently don't think there's a problem) to take action, and involve their lenders and all the respective solicitors in coordinating a solution, is not exactly likely to get you into your flat this side of Doomsday.
    Originally posted by davidmcn
    Yes, my solicitor is not so naive to think that we could get 4 people (some of whom are probably absent BTL landlords) to have their leases/ titles varied/novated all in a row in a nice easy move any time soon. Let alone 100 people to get the whole site done. That's why they suggested to seller that it was their problem to fix to see how seller would think to address it - though that isn't something the seller has any interest in trying to do (because, as you say, it would be a painful task and not quick).
    But they do have a point that your lender expects a squeaky-clean title, or else a suitable indemnity policy. So ask the seller to provide (or at least pay for) insurance to cover the risk. That should keep your lender happy, though be aware that you are likely to have similar awkward discussions with any future lender or buyers, who might not be happy with insurance as a solution or expect you to get slightly different cover.
    Not sure if an indemnity policy has actually been suggested by my sol, though we know the seller doesn't see the title as defective and so doesn't agree there would be anything to indemnify against, no missing deeds or errors in lease or existing 'legal problem' in any way shape or form. Just something that I'd be welcome to try to sort out in future myself at my own time and cost if I didn't want to take a practical perspective on it -which they (seller) think I should.

    It's very common for parking space numbers to be totally unrelated to flat numbers
    by G_M
    Yes point taken, but on this estate (which is larger than 100 flats, that's just a made up number to keep the example easy) the convention is that all spaces are marked either with the number of the flat that use them, or with 'visitor'. The parking permit number 100 is supposed to be used by the person from flat 100 in the space marked 100 otherwise there is the potential for lots of confusion.

    Unfortunately the parking space marked 100 has been marked out in the area that was edged red for 101's title deed and 99 has been painted in the area edged red in 100s title deed etc, but with no explicit published intention that anyone should use a space that wasn't numbered with their own flat number. Naturally the current management company isn't same as original management company who would have painted the site but I think they are still a related party to the developer.

    I do appreciate all the comments, thanks to those who responded!
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

2,266Posts Today

7,372Users online

Martin's Twitter