Parking space with leasehold flat - plan doesn't match reality

G_M

It's very common for parking space numbers to be totally unrelated to flat numbers.

Flats 1, 2, 3 etc are on the ground floor with 4, 5, 6 on the first etc

Spaces 1, 2, 3 etc are in the top left corner, with 4, 5, 6 in the top right etc

Allocation may be according to location, or the order in which flates were originallyy sold, or some other process.

aneary

I lived in flat 6 but my parking space was 32. However there were 13 blocks around the car park so presumably 13 flat 6s.

flatbuyer1

silvercar wrote: »

This makes sense to me.

What is important is what your solicitor says, rather than the seller's solicitor.

It does make sense to me too, the more I think about it, but I agree that my own solicitor is the one with my interests in mind (while also acting for the lender) and they have suggested the main options are either

-tell the seller you won't buy it until they have "fixed" the issue, or,

-accept that you will buy it 'as is' knowing that a neighbor is parking on your land and that you are parking on someone else's and nobody really minds, recognising that a potential buyer may have the same issues/concerns in the future when you come to sell it which could cause you stress or delay trying to talk them around (and no doubt some people would be talk-roundable or not even notice).

I suppose my concern was being "squeezed out" or at least having a big bust up when flat 99 says he and predecessors have been parking on that land "painted 99" for twenty years (regardless of it being my land per title) and meanwhile a new owner of flat 101 says he doesn't care what's painted up because the space i'm using (painted 100) is his land...

Knowing little about the rules of adverse possession for registered land, what happens if I miss a piece of mail or two which says flat 99 wants to claim the land on my title because he's been using it as his for decades? Perhaps that's no issue at all and could never happen especially with a freeholder having a say in who is leaseholding what...

Like I said above, maybe making a mountain out of molehill. I understand from my solicitor they would need to report to lender that the lease and title seem ok but that someone from another flat has been parking on what was my land on the plan due to the way the management company have laid out the site but I still have somewhere to park and there is an explainable reason for the layout change, which is...[insert reason here]

davidmcn wrote: »

Your solicitor ought to realise that expecting another 4/5 neighbours (who currently don't think there's a problem) to take action, and involve their lenders and all the respective solicitors in coordinating a solution, is not exactly likely to get you into your flat this side of Doomsday.

Yes, my solicitor is not so naive to think that we could get 4 people (some of whom are probably absent BTL landlords) to have their leases/ titles varied/novated all in a row in a nice easy move any time soon. Let alone 100 people to get the whole site done. That's why they suggested to seller that it was their problem to fix to see how seller would think to address it - though that isn't something the seller has any interest in trying to do (because, as you say, it would be a painful task and not quick).

But they do have a point that your lender expects a squeaky-clean title, or else a suitable indemnity policy. So ask the seller to provide (or at least pay for) insurance to cover the risk. That should keep your lender happy, though be aware that you are likely to have similar awkward discussions with any future lender or buyers, who might not be happy with insurance as a solution or expect you to get slightly different cover.

Not sure if an indemnity policy has actually been suggested by my sol, though we know the seller doesn't see the title as defective and so doesn't agree there would be anything to indemnify against, no missing deeds or errors in lease or existing 'legal problem' in any way shape or form. Just something that I'd be welcome to try to sort out in future myself at my own time and cost if I didn't want to take a practical perspective on it -which they (seller) think I should.

G_M wrote:

It's very common for parking space numbers to be totally unrelated to flat numbers

Yes point taken, but on this estate (which is larger than 100 flats, that's just a made up number to keep the example easy) the convention is that all spaces are marked either with the number of the flat that use them, or with 'visitor'. The parking permit number 100 is supposed to be used by the person from flat 100 in the space marked 100 otherwise there is the potential for lots of confusion.

Unfortunately the parking space marked 100 has been marked out in the area that was edged red for 101's title deed and 99 has been painted in the area edged red in 100s title deed etc, but with no explicit published intention that anyone should use a space that wasn't numbered with their own flat number. Naturally the current management company isn't same as original management company who would have painted the site but I think they are still a related party to the developer.

I do appreciate all the comments, thanks to those who responded!