Can my landlord force me to buy a parking permit?

Senior_Paper_Monitor

My guess is it your responsibility to keep people of off 'your' parking space' rather than the agent/landlord et.

They appear to want to help solving an apparent problem but wish to recover all/some of the cost in doing so - seems very reasonable to me.

I suspect they can't force the change on you - but if enough tenants refuse to do so presumably the scheme will not progress and the parking problem becomes yours collectively again.

I suspect that neither the landlord nor the agency would be suffering hardship as result of that

rr755507

cjdavies wrote: »

What happens if you find someone else parked there?

What difference would paying £20 to a PPC for a 'permit' make to the answer? The PPC cannot tow, block or clamp.

LEJC

OP...Is there a genuine problem with non residents using the spaces to park?

We own several properties and at one there is a problem with extras parking and it is something that is being considered by the residents/owners and management company that a permit type system is introduced.
Does the owner of the property you rent actually own the space you rent ...or is it a case that there are allocated spaces for the entire complex that are communal?

paddedjohn

rr755507 wrote: »

Nice of them to admit they are willing to commit a criminal offence.

Not quite true.

It is an offence to immobilise, move or restrict the movement of a motor vehicle in a way which would prevent a person (who is entitled to remove that vehicle) from removing the vehicle concerned. Therefore if a vehicle has been left on private land, an offence may be committed if, for example, the owner of that land clamped or towed away that vehicle. To be guilty of the offence however, a person must undertake these actions with the 'intention' of preventing or inhibiting a person entitled to move the vehicle concerned from moving the vehicle. Consequently, a person who moves an obstructively parked vehicle a short distance intending to regain access to his or her property would not be committing the offence in circumstances where he or she did not intend to prevent the driver of the vehicle from subsequently retrieving it. The offence also does not apply where a person is acting with lawful authority when immobilising, moving or restricting the movement of a vehicle. Those who have lawful authority and in fact a duty to remove vehicles from roads or other land include the police, local authorities, traffic wardens, parking attendants and civil enforcement officers.

Guest101

paddedjohn wrote: »

Not quite true.

It is an offence to immobilise, move or restrict the movement of a motor vehicle in a way which would prevent a person (who is entitled to remove that vehicle) from removing the vehicle concerned. Therefore if a vehicle has been left on private land, an offence may be committed if, for example, the owner of that land clamped or towed away that vehicle. To be guilty of the offence however, a person must undertake these actions with the 'intention' of preventing or inhibiting a person entitled to move the vehicle concerned from moving the vehicle. Consequently, a person who moves an obstructively parked vehicle a short distance intending to regain access to his or her property would not be committing the offence in circumstances where he or she did not intend to prevent the driver of the vehicle from subsequently retrieving it. The offence also does not apply where a person is acting with lawful authority when immobilising, moving or restricting the movement of a vehicle. Those who have lawful authority and in fact a duty to remove vehicles from roads or other land include the police, local authorities, traffic wardens, parking attendants and civil enforcement officers.

The last 3 are one in the same.


All those named have the authority to act on public highways.


However, not on private land. (I will caveat that there may be additional rights which they have in relation to emergency access, I'm not aware of this) The point being, (subject to) the OP owning the land, or relevant lease to the land, he or she can park their vehicle there without any input from any 3rd parties.

silvercar

It seems you have a choice, pay £20 or end up fighting the penalty charges. You may win each time, but you will be hassled. Depending on how you value your time in fighting it.

Guest101

silvercar wrote: »

It seems you have a choice, pay £20 or end up fighting the penalty charges. You may win each time, but you will be hassled. Depending on how you value your time in fighting it.

They're not 'penalty charge notices' but parking charge notices.

One could make a living from the counter suits

bouicca21

The parking permit fee is an external charge

What does 'external charge' actually mean?

rr755507

paddedjohn wrote: »

It is an offence to immobilise, move or restrict the movement of a motor vehicle in a way which would prevent a person (who is entitled to remove that vehicle) from removing the vehicle concerned. Therefore if a vehicle has been left on private land, an offence may be committed if, for example, the owner of that land clamped or towed away that vehicle. To be guilty of the offence however, a person must undertake these actions with the 'intention' of preventing or inhibiting a person entitled to move the vehicle concerned from moving the vehicle. Consequently, a person who moves an obstructively parked vehicle a short distance intending to regain access to his or her property would not be committing the offence in circumstances where he or she did not intend to prevent the driver of the vehicle from subsequently retrieving it. The offence also does not apply where a person is acting with lawful authority when immobilising, moving or restricting the movement of a vehicle. Those who have lawful authority and in fact a duty to remove vehicles from roads or other land include the police, local authorities, traffic wardens, parking attendants and civil enforcement officers.

The OP is parked in their own rented numbered parking space, which they are legally entitled to do. There is no obstruction and the agent has given less than 24 hours notice, to do non-essential maintenance. They have no lawful reason to remove his car, when they can reasonably ignore his space and continue working around the car.

I cannot imagine them being stupid to do it, but if the PPC/agents, did came at 9AM and towed the car off as described in the letter it would almost certainly be a criminal matter.

Nick_C

paddedjohn wrote: »

Those who have lawful authority and in fact a duty to remove vehicles from roads or other land include the police, local authorities, traffic wardens, parking attendants and civil enforcement officers.

Guest101 wrote: »

The last 3 are one in the same.

Off topic, but in the interests of accuracy, no, they are not. They are all defined separately in law.

Traffic Warden - S95 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/95

Parking Attendant - S63A of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/63A

Civil Enforcement Officer - S76 of the Traffic Management Act 2004
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/section/76

Traffic Wardens are appointed by the Police.

Parking Attendants and CEOs are appointed by Local Authorities.