Parking Dispute

New_Guy_2016

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

There is another way, but it's not available when pride is an insurmountable obstacle.

What way would you suggest then as I have spoke to them and signs may be the next option but if you have someone who does not care or respect others it is very hard to come to an amicable solution.

Not sure what you mean about pride, this has nothing to do with pride but more to do with values and not just letting people who are ignorant get away with it and everyone else suffers.

Aylesbury_Duck

New_Guy_2016 wrote: »

What way would you suggest then as I have spoke to them and signs may be the next option but if you have someone who does not care or respect others it is very hard to come to an amicable solution.

I posted earlier: My view is that there is only one way to trying to sort this out that has a chance of succeeding, and that's to politely negotiate a solution with the transgressors so that visitors to all properties can benefit from the spaces, that they can reasonably be used when there are no visitors and crucially, that no-one feels they've lost face. Any other action will, as far as I can see, create a dispute and an uncomfortable situation for all concerned. It will also eat away at you, them or both of you for as long as you live there.

New_Guy_2016 wrote: »

Not sure what you mean about pride, this has nothing to do with pride but more to do with values and not just letting people who are ignorant get away with it and everyone else suffers.

I disagree. It has everything to do with pride. Dressing it up as some sort of moral crusade doesn't hide it very well. You appear to have worked yourself into a stew about this, and I sympathise, but it seems to me that it is now an issue of pride whereby you need to "win". I'm not sure you can, at least not in the way you want to. Pride also works both ways, and the neighbour is also unlikely to back down and in his mind, "lose". You have a stalemate. Your threats of deeds, signs, legal action and so on are, so far, empty. Have you the energy and funds to see it through? If you do go down that route, you may win an argument over a parking space but you will also win a disgruntled neighbour, a lack of cooperation at a point in the future when some might be welcome, and a documented dispute when you come to sell your house. Will that count as a victory? Only you can answer that.

New_Guy_2016

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

I posted earlier: My view is that there is only one way to trying to sort this out that has a chance of succeeding, and that's to politely negotiate a solution with the transgressors so that visitors to all properties can benefit from the spaces, that they can reasonably be used when there are no visitors and crucially, that no-one feels they've lost face. Any other action will, as far as I can see, create a dispute and an uncomfortable situation for all concerned. It will also eat away at you, them or both of you for as long as you live there.


I disagree. It has everything to do with pride. Dressing it up as some sort of moral crusade doesn't hide it very well. You appear to have worked yourself into a stew about this, and I sympathise, but it seems to me that it is now an issue of pride whereby you need to "win". I'm not sure you can, at least not in the way you want to. Pride also works both ways, and the neighbour is also unlikely to back down and in his mind, "lose". You have a stalemate. Your threats of deeds, signs, legal action and so on are, so far, empty. Have you the energy and funds to see it through? If you do go down that route, you may win an argument over a parking space but you will also win a disgruntled neighbour, a lack of cooperation at a point in the future when some might be welcome, and a documented dispute when you come to sell your house. Will that count as a victory? Only you can answer that.

Yes you did post earlier and I read that and did not reply back disagreeing so not sure why you are posting it again.

Again it is not pride or some sort of moral crusade as you say. It is simple right and wrong which a 10 year should know so for grown adults to act like this and have no regard for others is not right. I have not worked myself into a stew and as am calm about the situation as I was when I posted originally. I have had a conversation with the guy calmly so I have made no threats of deeds, signage etc so no one know if this will work or if I will even go down that route.

I get what your saying in that in a few months after things that have happened I may look back and think was it really worth it but then if everyone had that attitude in life nothing would ever get questioned for fear of the consequences. I am still holding hope they are decent people in some way and will see what they are doing is wrong. But the funny thing is if they had of come like decent people and asked could they use them when not occupied but will move if needed then all would be fine for me, however I cannot comment on the other neighbours.

It is a bit like someone taking something of yours without asking that you were not going to use anyway. Does the fact you were not going to use it make it okay that they did not ask?

AdrianC

New_Guy_2016 wrote: »

It is a bit like someone taking something of yours without asking that you were not going to use anyway. Does the fact you were not going to use it make it okay that they did not ask?

Umm, just a minor point.

It's not "yours" in the first place. You cannot use it. It belongs to the freeholder of your development, and is provided for the use of your visitors, not for your use.

If you use it yourself, you are misusing it in the exact same way as the person you are complaining about. I'm sure you're not a hypocrite, are you?

If your visitors cannot use it, does it make a difference if it's blocked by a resident misusing it, or by a visitor to another resident?

New_Guy_2016

AdrianC wrote: »

Umm, just a minor point.

It's not "yours" in the first place. You cannot use it. It belongs to the freeholder of your development, and is provided for the use of your visitors, not for your use.

If you use it yourself, you are misusing it in the exact same way as the person you are complaining about. I'm sure you're not a hypocrite, are you?

If your visitors cannot use it, does it make a difference if it's blocked by a resident misusing it, or by a visitor to another resident?

Think you read too much into my comment. The point I was trying to make is if someone does something that is wrong but is does not affect others that much or at all is it still okay to do?

Not saying you but other comments have mentioned if it is not doing harm to others then leave it. I agree with others who feel like that but I am not one of them and if you do something wrong then you need to be held accountable regardless if it did not affect others or really affect them. The cause of the action is not the sole thing to judge on whether the action was right or wrong is all I am saying

AdrianC

New_Guy_2016 wrote: »

Think you read too much into my comment.

Not at all. You came up with an analogy. I'm merely pointing out it's a poor analogy, because it's based on drawing a flawed parallel.

Herzlos

The only way to win this one is to not take part.

You're talking about 6 households (3 houses + 3 flats), so it's not going to be a busy bit of road unless it's a through road. So what's wrong with having visitors park on the pavement / at the side somewhere, and occasionally have to move to let someone else out?

Though, the only way you may actually win is if the lease/freehold agreement has a clause about no commercial vehicles, in which case they *may* be violating that, if these are in fact deemed to be commercial vehicles. Will the lease/freeholder care enough to do anything about it? I doubt it.

Ironically, having your visitors block him in occasionally is probably more likely to get things sorted without causing a dispute.

I'd just move on and pretend those spaces don't exist.

New_Guy_2016

AdrianC wrote: »

Not at all. You came up with an analogy. I'm merely pointing out it's a poor analogy, because it's based on drawing a flawed parallel.

For some reason I have upset you that you need to point out every little thing that you see as wrong. You took my comment in the wrong meaning and are looking into wrong and trying to pull me up on it which makes me think this whole post has got you irritated and wound up for some reason which I cannot see why.

AdrianC

New_Guy_2016 wrote: »

For some reason I have upset you that you need to point out every little thing that you see as wrong. You took my comment in the wrong meaning and are looking into wrong and trying to pull me up on it which makes me think this whole post has got you irritated and wound up for some reason which I cannot see why.

Nope.

I apologise for trying to stop you making a fool of yourself... Fill your boots.

New_Guy_2016

Herzlos wrote: »

The only way to win this one is to not take part.

You're talking about 6 households (3 houses + 3 flats), so it's not going to be a busy bit of road unless it's a through road. So what's wrong with having visitors park on the pavement / at the side somewhere, and occasionally have to move to let someone else out?

Though, the only way you may actually win is if the lease/freehold agreement has a clause about no commercial vehicles, in which case they *may* be violating that, if these are in fact deemed to be commercial vehicles. Will the lease/freeholder care enough to do anything about it? I doubt it.

Ironically, having your visitors block him in occasionally is probably more likely to get things sorted without causing a dispute.

I'd just move on and pretend those spaces don't exist.

Well the issue is the way our street is built and on a bend you would have to park your car right up on the curb/pavement and this would then block pedestrians and say parents with prams or small kids which is not safe.

Yes quite a few do have the commercial clause but again as well as wanting them not to block the visitors all day I do not want to start reporting them for using commercial vehicles in there as that is not my argument on what type of vehicles they are. But as you say if they are not playing ball and will not consider a compromise then going down that route may be the answer