PPC on Residential Site - Fightback against the MA

Loadsofchildren123

In Hairray's case the MC was party to a contract between lessee, freeholder and the MC in which MC was bound to comply with the covenants, making MC liable for breaches and not just the freeholder.


The trouble is the clause allowing new "regulations". In hairray's case these were undefined. So you have to then go to the existing regulations to see if there is any information pointing towards what sort of things the new regulations can cover. In his case there were 2 sets of regulations - estate regulations set by the MC and block regulations set by the freeholder. The estate regulations were a list of things you couldn't do - ride horses, walk dogs off lead, play ball games, things like that - and a list of things the MC had to do, like keeping common parts clear. The block regulations concerned the actual use of the flats. From reading these I thought that the clause allowing new regulations to be set was quite restrictive, because all the original regulations related to things you couldn't do, not things you must do.


Also, the regulations have to be for "for the benefit of use and enjoyment of the Development" and "for the preservation of the amenities of the Development or for the general convenience ..."



So you would argue that the imposition of a permit system and fines, with no power to cancel these for genuine residents, is not a regulation that falls within these definitions.


The breach of the quiet enjoyment covenant is a separate point - even if permitted to introduce such regulations, if they are a breach of the quiet enjoyment covenant then I'd say that covenant takes precedence.


A third issue is even if the parking regs come within the definition, the lease does not allow for any charges to be levied, save for ground rent/service charges. The charge they are chasing is not within either.


A fourth issue is even if they come within the definition, the lease does not allow the freeholder, or MC acting on its behalf, to impose a contractual relationship between leaseholders and a third party (the PPC).


A fifth issue is derogation from grant - they can't interfere with rights already granted to you.


A sixth issue - it's a variation of the lease and must be done in writing and I think by way of formal variation.


Copper Quarter in Swansea is an example of where a PPC was brought in by Barratts which then targeted residents - after a series of complaints and residents meetings, Barratts was pressurised into ending the contract with Millennium. Then there is DJ Bingo - one DJ found that the parking was a new regulation that came within the definitions (he actually said that the clause allowed the freeholder/MC to do whatever it liked), another found that it wasn't.


Where you have quite a few people affected by this problem, I would suggest everyone putting some money into a pot and getting a written Opinion from Counsel about what new regulations might be allowed under the lease, whether that includes parking restrictions, whether that clause allows the freeholder to impose a contractual relationship with a 3rd party who can then sue under that contract, whether the covenant of quiet enjoyment trumps new regulations, whether new regulations can only be imposed if in writing and/or by way of a formal variation of the lease, and what remedies leaseholders are entitled to pursue against the MC/Freeholder/PPC. You can then all rely on it in pressurising the MC to get rid of the PPC and in any proceedings that may be brought against any of you.