Lbc for parking in my own bay

System

The issue of residential parking tickets, in which genuine residents who have a right to park end up being targeted by unscrupulous private parking companies, is notorious and Bellway should be doing everything it can to assist its leaseholders, not attempting to absolve itself of responsibility.

Personally I'd avoid that. There is a clear well understood process to be gone through if Bellway/PPM wanted to introduce the system as part of a lease.

It would appear that the PPM scheme was offered as a service (which allowed people to opt out) rather than under the lease.

AFAIR PPM actually offer an opt-out at the start and ask people to sign their agreement to the scheme. Have seen at least one of these go down in flames when the defendant's signed authority to operate was produced.

Did the OP sign anything?

neeraj89

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

I'm just reading your lease. You've blanked out the definition of the property. Does it include the parking space? Or is the parking space just allocated to you? The wording of the lease suggests the latter but I need to see the definition of the property. The Bellway letter may have to be different if the parking space isn't part of the demised property (ie the property you bought the leasehold of) but is just an allocated space.

BTW this doesn't change anything, but it's an important distinction for the letter.

Exact wording
The premises known as Plot No, xxx Drayton garden Village west drayton as shown edged red on the plan and more particularly in Scheduled eight of this lease or known or intend to be known as Flat xxxx (my full address with postcode)

neeraj89

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

Some suggestions for you

Thanks. Suggestions taken on board and sent to Bellway

neeraj89

IamEmanresu wrote: »

Personally I'd avoid that. There is a clear well understood process to be gone through if Bellway/PPM wanted to introduce the system as part of a lease.

It would appear that the PPM scheme was offered as a service (which allowed people to opt out) rather than under the lease.

AFAIR PPM actually offer an opt-out at the start and ask people to sign their agreement to the scheme. Have seen at least one of these go down in flames when the defendant's signed authority to operate was produced.

Did the OP sign anything?

What's am OP ?

Umkomaas

neeraj89 wrote: »

What's am OP ?

Original Poster - you on this thread.

Loadsofchildren123

Sched 6, clause 1: here's your right to peaceful enjoyment. But if the parking space is not part of the defined "property" then the right to QE doesn't extend to the parking space (hence why I want to know the definition and whether it includes the allocated parking space)


Sched 8: the description of the property here doesn't seem to include the parking space


Sched 9 clause 5: here is the right to park and it doesn't put any conditions on it (eg permits)


Sched 7, clause 8: any notices have to comply with this - they didn't comply with it when notifying leaseholders of the requirement for permits (according to the Bellway lady, they were handed out in person with her as a witness)


Sched 7 clause 10: this is the important one so I'll reproduce it word for word and the important bits are in green, and definitions are in red:
Acting reasonably at all times, the Management Company COLOR=red]ie not Bellway[COLOR=black shall have authority to make and at any time vary such Estate Regulations [defined as "reasonable regulations made for the property management and use of the Maintained Property, which is in turn defined as the Estate Communal Areas and the buildings themselves - the definition of the Estate Communal Areas does NOT include the Car Parking Spaces which are separately defined] as it may reasonably think fit for the preservation of the amenities COLOR=red]undefined[COLOR=black of the Estate COLOR=red]defined as the entire development[COLOR=black or for the general convenience of the occupiers of the Dwellings PROVIDED THAT such Estate Regulations are notified to the Tenant and other owners and the Landlord in writing.[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR]


Also of crucial importance is this one:
Schedule 7 clause 17: a third party not a party to the Deed [ie the Deed between the flat leaseholder, the L/Lord and the MC] has no rights to enforce any of its terms.
So if parking restrictions can be said to have been validly introduced under the above clauses, then they cannot be enforced by the PPC but only by the MC or the Landlord.


Sched 15 clause 2: you must observe the "Estate Covenants" - but I'm not sure what these are because they are defined in a different document.


Sched 10: contains the Landlord and MC's rights - nothing in here of relevance.

Loadsofchildren123

So don't send that letter to Bellway because your right to Quiet Enjoyment doesn't extend to the parking space.

However, there are some golden nuggets in your lease, as I have set out above:

1. Your right to park in Sched 9 Cl 5 is unrestricted.

2. The power to introduce new estate regulations is the MC's, not Bellway's - Sched 7 Cl 10. In your post #43 you said that the MC said they hadn't contracted with the PPC, Bellway had. Well the lease gives Bellway no powers to do that. Furthermore, any such new regulations can only be introduced if they are notified both to leaseholders and to Bellway BY THE MC AND IN WRITING. The Bellway email to you indicates that this was not done.

3. Even if the new parking rules are validly introduced new estate regs under Sched 7 Cl 10, under Sched 7 cl 17 it is specifically stated that no third party (ie a PPC) has any right to enforce them.


So your letter to Bellway needs to focus on these provisions.

DoaM

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

So don't send that letter to Bellway because your right to Quiet Enjoyment doesn't extend to the parking space.

I fear you may be too late ...

neeraj89 wrote: »

Thanks. Suggestions taken on board and sent to Bellway

System

LOC - see if you can look up C3GF78FE.

Loadsofchildren123

Dear xxx,

I have now received a Letter Before claim for the 6 PCN's which I had mentioned to you in my email dated 15th September 2017 and want the below information from you urgently.

1) Please send me I need a copy of the agreement which you have mentioned in your emailed dated 19th September 2017.

2) can you please confirm who introduced the parking rules which [name of PPC] seeks to enforce and in what manner (orally or in writing)?

3) The Management Company has said it was Bellway who brought in [name of PPC]. However, the Lease does not permit this: it only permits the Management Company to introduce new "Estate Regulations", not Bellway (Clause 10 of Schedule 7)

4) In any event, the right of the Management Company to introduce new Estate Regulations is well defined in the lease and it does not extend to the Car Parking Spaces but only to the Estate Communal Areas and the buildings (clause 10, Schedule 7).

5) You have said that permits were handed out face to face, personally witnessed by you. Can you confirm whether you personally witnessed the permit being given to me?

6) You have said that there is the possibility of opting out of the scheme. I would like to immediately opt out of this scheme with P&PM. Can you please confirm how I do that?

7) I would like an explanation as to why this option was not communicated to me at the time of purchase or at any stage since.

8) Clause 17 of Schedule 7 states that a third party (in this case [name of PPC]) has no right to enforce any of the Estate Regulations (if the new parking terms could be said to be Estate Regulations, which I say they are not). Therefore, I am afraid it is not good enough for you to that you have no power to cancel any of the PCNs and are unable to help me.

9) The terms of the lease are clear: Bellway has no right to introduce new obligations relating to the parking; the Management Company has rights to introduce new Estate Regulations, however these apply to the Estate Communal Areas (which do not include the Car Parking Spaces) and the buildings only, and must be notified to leaseholders in writing; [PPC name] has no right under the lease to enforce any parking rules.

Based on a detailed reading of the Lease and the Deeds of Covenant, it is clear that Bellway had no right to enter into a contract with [PPC], by virtue of which [PPC] attempted to introduce new parking regulations which netiher Bellway nor [PPC] (nor even the Management Company] are entitled to do.

Put simply, Bellway has no rights under the lease to impose conditions on my right to park in my allocated parking space, nor the right to impose upon me a third party contractual relationship, which includes the alleged right for that third party to seek to levy charges which are in addition to and separate from the rent/service charges (namely extortionate charges for parking on a space which is part of my demised property). This has caused me loss and a significant amount of inconvenience. Since you have said that you are unwilling or unable to take any steps to have the charges withdrawn then I will have no choice but to send Bellway a Letter Before Claim and to proceed with a claim against Bellway should [PPC] take any further steps of recovery against me.


The issue of residential parking tickets, in which genuine residents who have a right to park end up being targeted by unscrupulous private parking companies, is notorious and Bellway should be doing everything it can to assist its leaseholders, not attempting to absolve itself of responsibility. you could take this out as a PP suggests or leave it in


Thanks
xxx