CPM Penalty Ticket Assistance Required

safarmuk

I agree with LOC123 - the second lease appears to be some transfer between the Landlord (Countryside Properties Limited) and the Management Agent (Harold Wood Management Limited).

Were you the Original Tenant? If not then what I think has happened here is that this second lease has kicked in once the Landlord has completed the development (or completed a significant part of the development) to allow the appointment of a Management Agent. This lease appears to transfer the responsibility of upholding the lease to the Management Agent possibly?
This second lease - like the first - transfers to any successive buyers of the property.

The second lease however makes no mention of parking at all as far as I can see. For example in the second lease the "Demised Premises" is directly linked to the address of the flat. If this really is everything in the second lease then it is the first lease that we need to look at in more detail.

hairray

Hey Safarmuk,

Thank you for your input.

The lease document comes with a diagram of the allocated space and property however I believe this comes with lease 1.

We were to first occupiers of this new build property.

Kindest Regards

Loadsofchildren123

It's a 250 year Lease with a Deed of Covenant to the MC from the Tenant to ensure the tenant is bound by the covenants to the MC in the main lease. It's nothing to do with parking.


The parking space is part of the demised property in the Lease.


I've gone through it today, comparing it to what the landowner has claimed so far. For instance, 2.9 says, as the L/L claims, that new regulations can be imposed. However, the only definition of "Regulations" is "Block Regulations" which the L/L can impose and "Estate Regulations" which the MC can impose. The scope of both are defined, and neither includes regulations in respect of the designated parking bays which are owned by the leaseholders.


There is a right to quiet enjoyment. There's a general exclusion of liability clause which is very wide but doesn't include the quite enjoyment, and I think it may well be void as an unfair term (not sure if the legislation about unfair terms applies here as it's a property transaction, does that mean it isn't a consumer transaction and so consumer laws don't apply, and I don't know if the law about unfair terms applies to all contracts or just consumer ones - I'll have to look at that separately. Presumably Lord Denning's red hand rule applies to all contracts, not just consumer contracts).


I'll post up a suggested LBC to the L/L, the MC and the PPC tomorrow. I do think it's worth bombarding them with this now in the hope that they will pull their finger out and intervene.

DoaM

There are two Unfair Terms acts ...

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999

The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977

One or both of these may have been rolled into The Consumer Rights Act 2015.

safarmuk

Hi LOC123, Hairray - is it possible I can get sight of that lease? I would like to compare it against a lease of a friend of mine in a similar parking situation.

Happy to swap leases and can give email over PM, if that works.

Loadsofchildren123

Forgot it was Friday, will do the LBCs on Monday.
DoaM thanks for the Acts, I'll have a look to see if they apply. If all else fails it's Lord Denning's red hand rule.

Loadsofchildren123

Hi Hairray, I'm just finishing the first LBC to the landowner. I'll finish it off tomorrow as well as LBCs for UKCPM and the MC.

DoaM

The one I forgot was The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. Not sure how they all interlink though.

Loadsofchildren123

I have done the LBC and sent it direct to hairray who might perhaps post a link of it?
It's quite long and technical but I think it has to be because the whole point is technical - whether or not L/L or MC have rights under the lease to impose new "reasonable regulations" in relation to the use/enjoyment of the properties in the estate. It's not just whether they are reasonable, it's whether they have the right to impose them in the first place, and how they conflict with the right to quiet enjoyment.


It also deals with trespass and DPA.

safarmuk

It's not just whether they are reasonable, it's whether they have the right to impose them in the first place, and how they conflict with the right to quiet enjoyment.

I'd personally like to see the LBC and the lease to compare it to another estate I am working with.

On the estate mentioned above one of the residents has just downloaded Land Registry data and the right to exclusive use of allocated bays is actually mentioned there (not just in the lease) with the bay explicitly referred to via a plot number and edged in colour in the plan in the LR documentation.

As I have said before this is coming down to a definition of demised land / demised rights and if you have leased land it is yours and a PPC have no rights to do anything with it irrespective of what a MA foolishly says/believes.