New parking regulations at home...

The_Slithy_Tove

Daniel_san wrote: »

Re the parking situation. Does this change the approach?
srbpower.com/dandan/lease-5-4.jpg

Could do, but, as suggested, you'll need to get professional advice about this. It does say "any such regulations shall not conflict with the lease." Your right to peaceful enjoyment (or whatever it says) could be used in this case, as having someone trespass on your goods and property does conflict with this.


It's quite clear that the management company are not acting in the interests of the leases, but entirely for their own greed. The management company is likely adding a (fat) percentage to all bills that go through them, hence their eagerness to increase all costs (=more for them). It's quite likely that they will get a kick-back from the PPC for tickets issued, too. Try to get the contract.


These people need to be booted out PDQ. They are as bad as the PPCs in their total disregard to ethical behaviour and certain aspects of the law.

Daniel_san

Thanks everyone. I've a digital copy of the lease (well actually WE have sent me someone else's lease but from the same building), so I'll see if I can submit that to LAS for assistance.

bazster wrote: »

If you've already exercised your right to manage and this management company has effectively been hired by you, the leaseholders, it ought to be relatively easy to kick them out.

I think the complication here is that the RTM Director is in favour of this parking scheme. I'm not sure if there is a formal process required to elect the director(s), but she volunteered (as did I at the time) and was named by WE last year and that was that!

Normally I would link this thread to our residents email discussion group, but I'm reluctant to do that now, having found out the contents of my email to other residents regarding this parking situation, landed on WE's desk before I made contact with them...

bazster

A director of the RTM company cannot override the wishes of its members (the leaseholders). If a majority of you wish it you can tell him what to do - and fire him if you see fit.

I've no idea what you mean by "named by WE". If you've truly exercised your right to manage then WE is merely contracted by the RTM company, they don't get to choose the directors, you do.

If you find out who all the members of the RTM company are and you can get a simple majority on your side then you're home-and-dry, subject to the length of any contract agreed with WE (and even then you could have grounds for terminating the contract if they are not fulfilling their side of it).

bazster

I just spotted this on WE's website. It perhaps offers a clue as to their level of competence and their understanding of their business:

Making sure a property is well run and leaseholders are happy and obeying the laws set out by the freeholder are all essential factors when making sure the buildings value is at its peak.

"laws set out by the freeholder"? Really?

bazster

Daniel_san wrote: »

Thanks again!

Re the parking situation. Does this change the approach?
srbpower.com/dandan/lease-5-4.jpg

I think this is a red herring. Your lease is a contract between you and the freeholder, but the freeholder didn't engage the parking scum, the management company did - and the management company answers to the RTM company (you!), not to the freeholder.

Sounds to me like WE are behaving as though they are the master and the leaseholders are the slaves, when in fact it's the other way around - something you need to get across to all concerned as forcefully as possible.

If there are other members of the RTM company who are in favour of the parking scheme they may change their minds when you point out the possible connection between Warwick Estates and UCS Parking. Not only was WE's director, Mrs. Jo Claire Stevens, a director of UCS Parking in 2012, but another director of WE is Dr. Craig Stevens of Harlow - and the domain name for UCS' website, ucsparking.com, was registered by one Craig Stevens of Harlow!

I think you would be perfectly within your rights, as a member of the RTM company, to demand that WE explains precisely what the relationship is between them and UCS. You could also demand to know why WE has engaged a company which is registered at Companies House as "non-trading". Be careful not to libel anyone though!

In fact, I'd say that not only do you have the right to do so, you have an obligation to do so. The management company is the agent of the RTM company (you!), and were there to be any wrongdoing by the management company to the detriment of residents (whether members of the RTM company or not) then the RTM company could find itself vicariously liable (that means YOU and all the other members of the RTM company!)

The_Slithy_Tove

Apropos nothing in particular
Hamlet, Act 1 Scene 4:

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

Daniel_san

Well it's been 3 weeks and I have a response from LAS, and also a reply from Warwick after I asked them under what authority they were changing the terms of my lease, with regards to the parking.

Warwick took over 2 weeks to reply and they tell me they are not trying to change the terms....which says to me as I knew, my original lease terms apply, which say nothing about a permit etc.

and LAS said this:

Thank you for your enquiry of 23/07/2014.

The particulars in the lease describe the parking space as the space shown edged red on the Plan 1 or any other parking space as the landlord may allocate from time to time if it becomes necessary to do so. The First Schedule Part II paragraph 6 gives the leaseholder the right to exclusive use the parking space for parking a private motor vehicle and the Third Schedule paragraph 27 sets out requirement for the use of the parking space.

The lease is a contract between the landlord and the leaseholder and the terms under the lease are binding and enforceable. In situations where residents are not complying with parking requirements under the terms of the lease, the landlord may use a parking company to ensure that residents comply.

Typically where managing agents are faced with non-compliance of parking requirements such as non-residents using the parking spaces or residents using someone else’s parking space, they may decide to use such measures such as displaying a parking permits to ensure compliance of the terms of the lease. I do not believe that the managing agents are changing the terms of the lease. On the contrary, they are seeking to enforce the terms of the lease to ensure that each resident parks in their allocated parking space.

Regarding the permit displayi9ng the flat number, you may wish to raise this matter with the managing agents to see if it is possible to agree an alternative way of identifying that the vehicle parked belongs to the correct flat.

With regards that last part from LAS, I think they misunderstood what I said, as the permit doesn't have my flat number on it, but it does give the name of the apartment block which is then easily traceable.

On top of this, we have a test scenario now....as "the driver" has left a vehicle parked in the car park, not in a space, but not in anyone's way either, and has received a "Parking Charge Notice" from UCS parking, at 22:09 and the reason for the ticket "Unauthorised Parking / No valid permit" and "Vehicle was incorrectly positioned".
I'll grab a photo of it and put it online, minus the vehicle info of course.
I still can't link, here it is - srbpower.com/dandan/ucs-ticket.jpg

The only thing you can't see clearly from the photo, is their company reg number in the bottom left corner, which seems to be 7457308, but it's not....it's actually 07457368 (the 6 would have been my second guess, but it's so small, you're purely guessing 0, then 6, then just looking it up on companies house).

I've also been checking up on their status, as someone pointed out early in this thread, they are listed on Companies House as "Nature of Business (SIC):
74990 - Non-trading company"
and I found something that says

"What does Non-Trading mean?
The term ´non-trading company´ has no legal meaning. A non-trading company has no significant accounting transactions, which simply means no entries in the company´s accounting records."

Can anyone tell me, does this basically mean they shouldn't be issuing tickets AT ALL? Surely if they issue tickets and take payment from such activity, they are effectively trading and would have significant accounting transactions?

Oh, I've also been invited to join the RTM company as a director, which could be a good thing, but also bad, based on a few things people have brought up on this thread regarding Warwick Estate....I don't their actions to bit me in the !!!!

As always, thank you all for your ongoing assistance, it is hugely appreciated

bazster

Who "invited" you to join the RTM company as a director? I assume you are already a member of the RTM company, although not a director?

Daniel_san

I probably didn't word that clearly. Warwick have said to me by email
"All of you are entitled to become Directors who make the day to day decisions on behalf of the company, you are more than welcome to join into that, on fact we would welcome some more input from some of you. Since we took over we have had [name removed] who has taken responsibility for everything and has followed through all the issues. If you are interested please do let me know."

As to me being a member of the RTM company, I assume everyone who owns a flat here is technically a member, although there was no discussion regarding these parking "issues" I'm being told of. The one director is in favour of it as apparently people were blocking her in. The 1st I knew of UCS's involvement was when I got home one day and found signs up everywhere! It seems the director wanted it, and Warwick want it (obviously), so it was decided.

bazster

And as I said to you before, if you get together with enough other members you can kick Warwick out, and you can kick the director(s) out if you want. The directors are there to serve the members, not the other way around. Warwick is merely a hired contractor of the RTM company, although it sounds like they are still behaving as though they are the top banana. They need putting firmly in their place.

You really need to be getting in touch with the other members about all this.

Have you asked Warwick yet to explain their connection with UCS and the involvement of Craig Stevens and Jo Stevens in both companies?