Can my landlord force me to buy a parking permit?

elvralia

Well I caught the agent taking pictures of my car today from within the bay. Guess this means war.

Fun fact: the chap living in the apartment below mine also had a run in with the estate agent. The agent mocked him for having a speech impediment (he's a war veteran injured in Afghanistan). Nice guy.

Guest101

Nick_C wrote: »

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.

In all my experiences in England at present, parking is handled by CEOs.


the other two no longer exist. - hence one in the same.

Guest101

elvralia wrote: »

Well I caught the agent taking pictures of my car today from within the bay. Guess this means war.

Fun fact: the chap living in the apartment below mine also had a run in with the estate agent. The agent mocked him for having a speech impediment (he's a war veteran injured in Afghanistan). Nice guy.

So did you take his picture?

Guest101

elvralia wrote: »

I got this in reply to my email:


I have seen your reply and regret your stance.
As you are aware conditions have changed since your lease was agreed and as such the new car parking supersedes all previous agreements – in any event your tenancy is not to be renewed as you know.
All others have accepted this and we reserve the right to change this benefit
Best


============

So what he's referring to in the "tenancy is not to be renewed" bit, is that my tenancy was renewed for 6 months, set to expire on the 20th of March this year (so 10 days from now). As I am buying a house, we have negotiated a move-out date of 20th of May this year. So I will continue to live here for two months once the tenancy has expired.

Does my right to use the car park remain even after the initial tenancy expires?

Also is there any basis to what he's saying with regards to the new parking "superseding all previous agreements"?

Dear Agent,


I refer you to the reply given in Arkell v PResdram

brit1234

silvercar wrote: »

If it went to court, a judge would rule on what was reasonable. £10 charge to protect the car parking situation could well be considered reasonable.

No, that's rubbish. The OP has entered into a contract which they have agreed on. Another body can't change that and impose extra costs on OP.

I give you an example if you buy goods from abroad and when they get to the uk you have to pay VAT. The delivery company changes you the VAT and an additional fee which varies depending on company. Under law you just have to pay the VAT and not the the delivery companies extra fee as you have no contract with that delivery firm and did not agree to fee.


Any judge would follow the law (contract law) not if the think the additional parking charge is reasonable.

littlegreenfrog_2

The terms of a contract are set at the time the contract is entered into.

The question is, does the OP's tenancy agreement contain a clause permitting the landlord to unilaterally change the terms of the contract afterwards, whether or not the tenant agrees to the change? If it doesn't, the OP is contractually entitled to use the parking space without having to pay an additional fee. And even if it does, a clause like that may not be enforceable.

OP, is the £20 charge for a one year permit? If you're moving out on 20th May why don't you just agree to pay pro rata and offer them two months' worth, which would come out at £3.33?

elvralia

Email received today:

In response to your email we are members of The Property Redress Scheme.

On another matter I am aware that you have complained to [Developer Name] although I have only spoken about your complaint and not seen it.

[Developer Name] will come back to you separately as of course you would expect them to do.

Aside from your direct communication I would wish to point out that it is quite appropriate that you have contacted them as they are the freeholder of the land on which your apartment and the car park sits.

The rights and responsibilities ultimately rest with them at this stage hence my saying it is appropriate.

As freeholder they reserve the right and have the entitlement to make changes to the common areas as they would wish subject to notifications etc where applicable.

In this context changes have been made to the car park ie allocated spaces have been designated and marked by white lines.

We have been appointed by [Developer Name] to manage the common areas of the development and in order to protect owners and tenants property and benefits a car park management system run by experts ([Developer Name] – Manchester)

has been introduced. Yourself and all others within the community have had several communications and notifications over the weeks about this and indeed you responded accepting same.

In charging you for a permit and insisting on permit parking only we are not breaking any content of our AST leasehold agreement with you.

This is a right of the freehold as explained and these rights have not been limited within your lease agreement.

I am sorry that this is not the answer you wanted however can assure you that it is appropriate and not protected or prohibited by your lease that the car parking restrictions have been introduced.

You have an entitlement to a space but have chosen not to activate that right by NOT purchasing a permit.

Your ticket will therefore NOT be cancelled as a consequence and furthermore you may receive a ticket for each day that you park without displaying a permit.

I regret that you believe this agency has acted unprofessionally and also reject that claim but am sorry that you find yourself in the position you have put yourself in.

Yours sincerely

Guest101

elvralia wrote: »

Email received today:

In response to your email we are members of The Property Redress Scheme.

On another matter I am aware that you have complained to [Developer Name] although I have only spoken about your complaint and not seen it.

[Developer Name] will come back to you separately as of course you would expect them to do.

Aside from your direct communication I would wish to point out that it is quite appropriate that you have contacted them as they are the freeholder of the land on which your apartment and the car park sits.

The rights and responsibilities ultimately rest with them at this stage hence my saying it is appropriate.

As freeholder they reserve the right and have the entitlement to make changes to the common areas as they would wish subject to notifications etc where applicable.

In this context changes have been made to the car park ie allocated spaces have been designated and marked by white lines.

We have been appointed by [Developer Name] to manage the common areas of the development and in order to protect owners and tenants property and benefits a car park management system run by experts ([Developer Name] – Manchester)

has been introduced. Yourself and all others within the community have had several communications and notifications over the weeks about this and indeed you responded accepting same.

In charging you for a permit and insisting on permit parking only we are not breaking any content of our AST leasehold agreement with you.

This is a right of the freehold as explained and these rights have not been limited within your lease agreement.

I am sorry that this is not the answer you wanted however can assure you that it is appropriate and not protected or prohibited by your lease that the car parking restrictions have been introduced.

You have an entitlement to a space but have chosen not to activate that right by NOT purchasing a permit.

Your ticket will therefore NOT be cancelled as a consequence and furthermore you may receive a ticket for each day that you park without displaying a permit.

I regret that you believe this agency has acted unprofessionally and also reject that claim but am sorry that you find yourself in the position you have put yourself in.

Yours sincerely

is the agent YOUR landlord? if not:




Dear Scummy Agent,


I'll respond to the various point you have raised in turn.


1: As freeholder they reserve the right and have the entitlement to make changes to the common areas as they would wish subject to notifications etc where applicable.


- I agree, however the Car Park is not a common area, the Parking Spot is designated for my use. I can choose to do what I wish, it is owned by me. Therefore neither you nor your agents are empowered to issue any 'Parking Charge Notices' or any similar charge on that land.


2: In charging you for a permit and insisting on permit parking only we are not breaking any content of our AST leasehold agreement with you.


- We do not have any agreement. My agreement is between myself and X - the landlord. You are agents of the landlord and are not a party to this agreement.
- My previous point aside, the AST does not allow the landlord (or by proxy you as agent) to charge me for a permit



3. This is a right of the freehold as explained and these rights have not been limited within your lease agreement.


- this statement is meaningless


4. I am sorry that this is not the answer you wanted however can assure you that it is appropriate and not protected or prohibited by your lease that the car parking restrictions have been introduced.


- Basic contract law would suggest otherwise. Please keep your 'assurances' to those you request them.



5. You have an entitlement to a space but have chosen not to activate that right by NOT purchasing a permit.



- Please highlight which section of my AST requires me to 'activate' my legal entitlement to use the land for which I own a lease


6. Your ticket will therefore NOT be cancelled as a consequence and furthermore you may receive a ticket for each day that you park without displaying a permit.



- Just to clarify, I will not be paying these invoices, and therefore look forward to receiving court papers.


7. I regret that you believe this agency has acted unprofessionally and also reject that claim but am sorry that you find yourself in the position you have put yourself in.


- I refer you to the reply given in Arkell v Presdram


Kind regards,

littlegreenfrog_2

Guest101's response is good.

However, I would also make the point that a decision made by the freeholder to impose charges in respect of common parts is the leaseholder's concern, not yours. And by the leaseholder, I mean the owner of the flat, i.e. your landlord. You have no contractual relationship with the freeholder, therefore the freeholder cannot impose any changes on you. The freeholder may be able to impose their decision on the leaseholder (i.e. your landlord) but this does not affect the terms of your tenancy agreement.

Hoploz

elvralia wrote: »

I got this in reply to my email:


I have seen your reply and regret your stance.
As you are aware conditions have changed since your lease was agreed and as such the new car parking supersedes all previous agreements – in any event your tenancy is not to be renewed as you know.
All others have accepted this and we reserve the right to change this benefit
Best


============

So what he's referring to in the "tenancy is not to be renewed" bit, is that my tenancy was renewed for 6 months, set to expire on the 20th of March this year (so 10 days from now). As I am buying a house, we have negotiated a move-out date of 20th of May this year. So I will continue to live here for two months once the tenancy has expired.

Does my right to use the car park remain even after the initial tenancy expires?

Also is there any basis to what he's saying with regards to the new parking "superseding all previous agreements"?

Ah-ha, after all the pages of responses finally we have a reason why the OP is irritated. It's because they are about to move out, so they would have to cough up the abhorrent sum of twenty quid for the benefit of only a few weeks.

OP, is twenty quid REALLY worth getting your knickers in such a twist over? Have you really nothing else to think about?

I cannot believe this thread has rambled on so long.