New parking regulations at home...

safarmuk

Ultimately if this is to be done properly, Leaseholders should be invited to put forward other companies to quote for the cleaning contract as well as the ones selected by the MA. Does the letter say you can do this? If not complain and put forward some other contractors.

Without this it is generally a stitch up in that the contractor they want will be almost the cheapest and will get selected.

Additionally the whole "if we don't hear from you we will assume you approve" is a new tactic MA's use and it is flawed because:
1) Only the MA see the votes anyway
2) How does any Leaseholder know that every other Leaseholder actually got the letter

In a similar situation at an estate I heard about it was proven that certain Leaseholders never received the letters and were not included in the vote (deliberate or otherwise).

You need to check the lease or any other covenants because sometimes I know it requires a certain amount of leaseholders to actually vote to make the vote "valid" (not that this would really help you anyway as you would then be left with the incumbent).

I think your job here is to ensure that you get the cheapest quote possible for the work to be carried out, if that is the Directors company then so be it but if you get the cost down - job done.

Lastly, in your case I think you need to get the Leaseholders together as individually you will come up against it but if you have a group of Leaseholders you will fare better. You can get the names and addresses of the current Leaseholders from various sources.
a) If they live there knock on the door and canvas their opinion
b) If they rent ask the tenant for the landlords (or estate agents) details
c) Pull the information from the Land Registry and write to them (this will cost)

Also try a Facebook group "residents of XYZ" and get both Leaseholders and Tenants to join to discuss the estate.

I am not going to lie to you, until the law is changed dealing with MAs is frustrating and a war of attrition (as you well know) ... but remember everything you do costs them time and money so they shouldn't be any happier about this than you.

On your parking wars ... you might also want to search for Hairrays thread as LOC123 has written some great Residential Parking LBCs there that might give you some help ...

Daniel_san

Thank you, some good points there, I appreciate it. CM pointed me to LOC's post - very good!

Only the MA - AND the director, will see the results, as the director has access to some back end system of the MA's, which gives access to leaseholder information among other things as I understand it.
It doesn't ask for suggestions as to who to contact.
It doesn't state what the cost includes from each company - previous quotes varied slightly by specification - carpet cleaning etc etc
There are 75 private apartments in the block, so it would need 38 responses to say they don't want the current cleaner to continue, in order to remove them.
We are also asked if we disagree with the twice weekly clean, and want to revert to once per week, but there is no costing for this, so we cannot make an informed decision.
Ultimately, I don't really mind who does the cleaning; what I objected to, was the deceitful way it seems to have been done. We all know it is often easier to ask forgiveness (even though they aren't of course), then to ask permission.
It's one reason why I am asking for another 1 or 2 directors to be appointed. As the normal process in these circumstances, would be for an ordinary resolution to be passed, allowing the director with a conflict, to vote on such a contract - or allow the 2 other directors to make the decision and director with conflict avoids the issue. I've volunteered to be a director, but the current director must appoint me apparently, and that's not going to happen...she refuses.

You are spot on with regards the law! This industry seems to be almost completely unregulated. MA's do as they please and continue doing so I guess until someone takes proper legal action to hold them to account. HA....the accounts are another issue I've challenged them on also! They've been preparing them themselves for a few years, charging for this, but not providing an invoice and not having the accounts audited. That's another story though!

I wonder if the MA would send a similar letter to leaseholders regarding the parking enforcement

Dear Leaseholder, we propose to remove PCM Parking from the site. If you disagree with this, please sign and return this form. We will go with a majority verdict. If we do not hear from you, we will assume that you agree to removing PCM. *Insert "Muttley" style laugh here*

Daniel_san

After a 2 month wait, I received a letter from the solicitors:

Dear Mr XXXX
Parking Advice at [site]

We are responding to your email of 2 June 2017. We apologise for the delay in this response but trust that you will consider that in light of the many issues raised in your email our client needed to obtain clear advice on what its approach should be.

We are instructed to respond to you today to confirm that the position of our client, [site] RTM Company Limited (“the RTM Company”), in relation to the various matters raised is that they are content that their conduct is correct and proper and in accordance with the lease terms which set out the actions, and where appropriate enforcement, it should be taking in relation to the management obligations of the development.

We are aware that you are unlikely to share that view. Notwithstanding that and with a view to avoiding further costs in a continuing debate on the issues raised, we do not intend to correspond with you further on the issues. It is our client’s view that there is little that would be of advantage to, or in the best interests of, the residents and owners as a whole from such a debate. We do however invite you to seek advice on your position if you remain dissatisfied with our client stance and, if after obtaining advice, you remain of the same view then you have the ability to seek a determination in either the County Court or the First Tier Tribunal - Property Chamber insofar as you claim that the RTM Company is acting in breach of the provisions of the leases or it’s management powers. We must however highlight to you that the RTM Company reserves the right to seek payment from you of any costs that it might incur in responding to any such application.

In relation to the breaches that you say exist in relation to others use of parking spaces at the development we are informed that our client is investigating further the claims made. The Director whose use of another parking space, with consent and for no remuneration, is looking for alternative parking and her car will be removed shortly. Our client is not aware of any other breaches in relation to
parking spaces. However, if you say to the contrary and are able and do provide specific detail accompanied by evidence supported by your Witness Statement testimony together with confirmation that you will attend court to provide oral confirmation of the content of your statement, our client will investigate further.

Thank you for your attention in this matter

Daniel_san

In the meantime, I have contacted the land owner, to find out if they are aware of this and if they signed any contract that so far hasn't been shown to me or even mentioned.

Sadly, the land owners response was disappointing.
"Warwick Estates act on behalf of your right to manage company, they are not required to liaise with us regarding any form of management of your site as our clients no longer have any management rights or obligations".

I've pressed them further for confirmation they aren't aware and haven't signed a contract, on the basis I need to know who I may potentially be suing.

and finally, I came home from work to find a letter from Gladstones, alerting me that their client "may" instruct them to sue me. I shall read up on the next step right after I get some food!

The_Deep

I would not be too scared about going up against Gladstones, have you read this?


http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/judge-fed-up-with-gladstones-behaviour.html

safarmuk

This all sounds very familiar. The MA are basically saying they are in the right and are saying if you think they are not you will have to prove it in court. Until then it's unlikely they will budge and/or move further.

How did you get on rounding up any other leaseholders to your cause?

On people using visitors bays for 2nd cars (against most leases) this is also common. The only way to stop this is to take repeated time stamped photos of the offence and then send the information to the management company insisting they take action to have the car moved to the allocated space it should be in or removed offsite. Then you need to keep an eye out to make sure the vehicle does not come back in a few weeks.

It sounds like your resolution will come from the court process. But the court action you take depends on what outcome you want.

Daniel_san

Apologies for lack of reply since my last post.

I'm reading up in the newbies thread, particularly the links provided (awesome thank you!) and working out if my next step is to wait for them to decide if they are taking court action (as the letter says they "may" not they will) or if now is the time to send those letters to Gladstones and the PPC to put them on notice that any claim will be defended and a counter claim made against the PPC (for DPA breach) and the [site] RTM company including it's directors (there are 3 now!) and the managing agent for tortious interference.

I'm still waiting on a reply from the land owner, as their initial response seemed to suggest they have literally no interest in the land anymore, and that it was all down to the managing agent, acting on behalf of the RTM company. I think I'm right in assuming even if the land owner doesn't care about another business operating on their land (and effectively saying no they haven't signed any contract to allow it but don't care), the PPC can't simply sign with the MA or RTM Co, as that does not give them locus standi, so they are not establishing themselves as the creditor. Regardless of the land owners thoughts, no contract between land owner and PPC = no right to pursue charges = DPA breach / KADOE breach. Correct please?

Thank you

Daniel_san

Regarding other leaseholders. I found a few that had received PCN's via post, all said the PPC shouldn't be here etc etc, they didn't want a permit either, but then they displayed their permit in almost the next breathe and didn't contact me again with anything further. I advised all to complain to the MA, but nobody got back to me to say what the outcome was. I suspect the MA advised them they know who's put these "ridiculous" things in their head, and that a solicitor's letter was on route to me etc etc, which probably was enough to make other people cave in, sadly.

safarmuk

Regarding other leaseholders. I found a few that had received PCN's via post, all said the PPC shouldn't be here etc etc, they didn't want a permit either, but then they displayed their permit in almost the next breathe and didn't contact me again with anything further.

Unfortunately some people are inherently lazy, don't do proper research, scare easy, want an easy life and/or just don't care enough - these are likely the problems you are facing. As I said a Facebook group is your best bet ... easier for people to interact this way.

Daniel_san

Received a "Final Reminder" from Gladstones. Waiting for the LBC now, which should arrive in just over 7 days I guess. Then I will respond with my letters to Gladstones, PCM, MA, RTM Co directors and if the landlord still fails to respond to me again regarding the issue, I'll send them copies too.

Unless anyone has a different suggestion?

I'm planning to use the templates found here, adjusting various aspects to suit of course.
http://www.thebridesmother.co.uk/Media/Templates.pdf

along with LOC's posts and letters linked from post 103
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5588292