parking permit taken away

DandelionPatrol

Herzlos wrote: »

Surely if the permits were known about in advance (were they?) then buying the property in the first place would constitute consideration? Admittedly, they might not be a legal expectation for it to be permanent without some sort of upkeep fee.

As the permits were presumably for a year, then they are only licences for the period and no property rights accrue. So, yes you might prove a contract for the licence. It may even be that OP has some months left to run on the current permit, so may be able to prove a claim to a parking right for the rest of the period.

But we still don't have evidence for a contract for a permanent and transferable right to park - and the deeds are explicitly to the contrary.

I hesitate to suggest that this problem is on the wrong forum, but the question is more one of property rights than of parking. It is unlikely to be satisfactorily addressed by the admittedly powerful knowledge on this forum about parking issues at Aldi/Morrisons/Milton Keynes. The solution lies in the realms of Title Deeds, Covenants, Management Companies and Residents' Committees.

Herzlos

But would anyone reasonably buy a property (on potentially a 40+ year mortgage) with the offer of a years parking? Surely anyone would assume that parking would be perpetually available?

DandelionPatrol

Herzlos wrote: »

But would anyone reasonably buy a property (on potentially a 40+ year mortgage) with the offer of a years parking? Surely anyone would assume that parking would be perpetually available?

First Time Buyers can easily be caught like this. If you were a cash purchaser, you would still want this sorted - but if you were a cash purchaser, you would be more likely to recognise the issue. It is those with the 40 year mortgage who are more likely to be caught.

Assuming in relation to Property Rights is dangerous, which is why buyers employ solicitors.

I suspect that across the estate, the majority of purchasers were made aware of the parking restrictions by their solicitors - even if they were the developer's pet solicitor. This is because the restriction is quite onerous and has implications for anyone visiting by car. The developer probably then offered permits to overcome the objection without specifying the time span of a permit - but when they were issued they were time limited. It would be helpful if OP would tell us a little more about the initial issue of the permits and how this was negotiated.

I doubt that it was ever the intent to prevent parking - the intent was to monetise it - these days, developers are far more switched on to adding chargeable services to an estate and selling on the right to provide these services. This post refers

princeofpounds wrote: »

I think it is fair to point this out. Many people don't realise that things have changed here, and assume freehold properties are charge-free.

This is partly happening because developers are getting 'cleverer' and partly because it is worth so much more to develop ongoing earnings streams in a low interest rate environment. If capitalised at 5%, every £1000 p.a. of income is worth £20k to the builder when sold to a management company. Very few buyers have the understanding to incorporate such things into their decisions.

Of course the builders would say that it is a method to ensure freeholders pay towards the upkeep of the area, which is true, but it's certainly not the only motivation!

It looks to me as though someone has bought the benefit of No Parking Rights on the estate and decided that there may be more money in penalising residents than in managing and selling permits. Or they may just be trying to push up the value of a parking permit from £20/year to £350/year. If they can raise say £200/year from 50 residents, that is £10,000 and on the figures in the quoted post, the right to do that is worth £200,000.

bazster

Jesus wept, another armchair lawyer more interested in parading his/her own clever-dickery than posting anything useful.

The seller's sales-pitch included a promise that the OP would be permitted to park on the road. The buyer paid money to buy the property, partly on the strength of that promise. The purchase price, obviously, is consideration.

Clearly the permission to park was not for just one year. If that had been the case the OP wouldn't have bought the property. The permits, handed over by the seller, are evidence that the seller entered into a contract, should the seller deny it.

And coming from someone with such encyclopaedic legal knowledge, I'm intrigued by the hybrid concept of "a contract for the licence".

And regardless of what "the deeds" say there is nothing to prevent a contract being entered into separately from "the deeds", which is exactly what appears to have happened here. Why was the right to park on the road not enshrined in "the deeds"? Dunno, but quite likely the lawyer(s) responsible for "the deeds" didn't even know that the offer of parking on the road was actually being made as part of the sales pitch - but made the offer was, and accepted.

DandelionPatrol

bazster wrote: »

Jesus wept, another armchair lawyer more interested in parading his/her own clever-dickery than posting anything useful.

Plainly, you don't get it. And I don't think I deserve your insulting post for bringing a different insight into a parking issue which will be increasing in significance. Residential parking is only similar to supermarket parking in that some of the same companies using the same methods are involved. Beyond that the legalities are very different.

OP is, by virtue of his deeds, in a much weaker position that anyone caught for overstaying in a supermarket carpark.

bazster wrote: »

The seller's sales-pitch included a promise that the OP would be permitted to park on the road. The buyer paid money to buy the property, partly on the strength of that promise. The purchase price, obviously, is consideration.

Clearly the permission to park was not for just one year. If that had been the case the OP wouldn't have bought the property. The permits, handed over by the seller, are evidence that the seller entered into a contract, should the seller deny it.

This is all presumption on your part. I have been through OP's posts [although they are edited] and he never claims that any representation was made that on road parking would be offered. The restriction in the deeds is definitive unless the deeds are at variance with the contract for deeds. It is far from clear or certain that any representation was made that parking would be offered for more than a year, or indeed for any period.OP actually says.

rr2 wrote: »

Just to add....

The contract for the house doesn't mention permits.

As far as premier estates are concerned, the original company were never obliged to issue permits, they just chose to do so.

And as I have said previously, a licence [==permit] is a mechanism to give a right for a time without committing to it permanently.

bazster wrote: »

And coming from someone with such encyclopaedic legal knowledge, I'm intrigued by the hybrid concept of "a contract for the licence".

This really is a nitpicking diversion, but I shall explain. A licence grants a right for a possibly limited duration. A contract for a licence is a promise to deliver a licence at a future time in exchange for a consideration. It might come into play as part of the contract to buy the house - the licence would not be issued at the time of the contract because the buyer of the house would not have completed. [We have no evidence of a contract for a licence in this situation].

bazster wrote: »

And regardless of what "the deeds" say there is nothing to prevent a contract being entered into separately from "the deeds", which is exactly what appears to have happened here.

Nothing to prevent this happening. Indeed, it is the norm to exchange contracts as part of the process of transferring deeds for a property. But there is no evidence whatsoever that this happened here. in fact, OP says

rr2 wrote: »

The document i have found is called Report on contract and mortgage. It is from my solicitor at the time.
it states in searches in points to note

'There is a length of private roadway leading from the public highway to the property. Rights of way are granted by your deeds to use the driveway subject to you paying a fair proportion of the maintenance and repair. You are not entitled to park or obstruct the roadway."

bazster wrote: »

Why was the right to park on the road not enshrined in "the deeds"? Dunno, but quite likely the lawyer(s) responsible for "the deeds" didn't even know that the offer of parking on the road was actually being made as part of the sales pitch - but made the offer was, and accepted.

It is probably not in the deeds because of the opportunity to monetise parking, as explained in my previous post. Where do you get the idea that on road parking was offered in the sales pitch?

DandelionPatrol

bazster wrote: »

Jesus wept, another armchair lawyer more interested in parading his/her own clever-dickery than posting anything useful.

OK bazster, I am calling you on this, assuming it is my post you are referring to.

Put up a poll on whether I should continue to post on the parking forum. I will abide by the result.

Or shut up.

Herzlos

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

I doubt that it was ever the intent to prevent parking - the intent was to monetise it - these days, developers are far more switched on to adding chargeable services to an estate and selling on the right to provide these services. This post refers

If the intent is to monetize it, why bring in a parking company and take a £10/day/car (if paid) kickback whilst !!!!!! off all of your residents and dropping the value of your development like a rock, when instead you could just start charging for the permits at something reasonable like £200/year? Unless the plan is to scare the residents into paying an extortionate rate when they are allowed to park again.

Who's the building company/agent? So I can be sure to avoid them in future for either being so malicious or so incompetent.

DandelionPatrol

Herzlos wrote: »

If the intent is to monetize it, why bring in a parking company and take a £10/day/car (if paid) kickback whilst !!!!!! off all of your residents and dropping the value of your development like a rock, when instead you could just start charging for the permits at something reasonable like £200/year? Unless the plan is to scare the residents into paying an extortionate rate when they are allowed to park again.

Who's the building company/agent? So I can be sure to avoid them in future for either being so malicious or so incompetent.

Good questions.

I strongly suspect that the development is complete and that permits have been issued to keep a lid on things until completion. The rights to revenues from parking would either not have been sold until this point - or if sold earlier, the rights would only have been valid from the end of developer involvement.

The total prohibition of parking and the ticketing of vehicles in order to scare residents into paying well is indeed one of the scenarios I am suggesting.

You are right, the developer is indeed one to avoid. But more importantly, buyers should beware of all developers, because if one does it, the others are likely to follow because there may be big money in it.

Buyers are advised to check out that parking rights on developments are adequate and to ensure that the rights are included in the deeds. It is not adequate to accept sales assurances - or even parking permits and licence arrangements.