Parking only for owner occupiers in flat block. Unfair?

getmore4less

Check if they own more in the block renting them out..

Great way to reduce the values and pick them off one at a time when they come up for sale.

How will they enforce, is there access control to the parking?

NeilCr

varghesejim wrote: »

Should we be worried?

I don't know. If they are creating a little fiefdom for themselves it could get a bit iffy.

As I said earlier I think you need to get more of an understanding of how this is happening and what authority they are using.

There seems no problem with parking from what you say so enforcing it might be easy. Unless there are others like you, you might find that most residents shrug their shoulders and park on the street outside.

As long as their car is easily parked nearby a lot of people don't really care much what others are doing!

varghesejim

Browntoa wrote: »

I wonder if some tenants are causing problems by selling parking spaces on justpark or other parking apps .

Or they are a 3 car family and want to all park cars

Selling spaces-no. There is plenty of free parking on the road

Norman_Castle

varghesejim wrote: »

Regarding Power in the hands of few people. This year with the parking issue there is something else happened in AGM which might be related. Two new directors are appointed and the third person got spilt vote, so they again sent a form to shareholders to vote for the third person. All three have the same surname!

I think the idea of owner occupier parking is raised by one of the new directors!

Should we be worried?

Same name so presumably the same family. I would be concerned their mini dynasty is turning into a dictatorship.


What next, numbered bays for the limited spaces with the directors having the the first choice? A car in a car park uses the same amount of space regardless of property ownership. Limiting the parking to one car per property is fairer.


Try to find a tactful way of explaining they should be working in everyones interest and that engineering situations to suit themselves is corrupt.

NeilCr

Norman_Castle wrote: »

. Limiting the parking to one car per property is fairer.


.

Agree with most of what you say but this isn't viable. OP has already said there are only 12 spaces for 24 flats. Crux of the issue.

Norman_Castle

NeilCr wrote: »

Agree with most of what you say but this isn't viable. OP has already said there are only 12 spaces for 24 flats. Crux of the issue.

One space per flat isn't viable but a maximum one car per property in the parking area is.

NeilCr

Norman_Castle wrote: »

One space per flat isn't viable but a maximum one car per property in the parking area is.

Not that much difference, really.

You'll still have mostly the same problem. Once 12 spaces are full there are, possibly, 12 properties that will have to find somewhere else to park.

Norman_Castle

NeilCr wrote: »

Not that much difference, really.

You'll still have mostly the same problem. Once 12 spaces are full there are, possibly, 12 properties that will have to find somewhere else to park.

Depending on the current usage if just 3 of the 24 flats have two cars in the car park they're using 50% of the parking spaces leaving six spaces for 21 properties. Its fairer to exclude second cars than non owner occupiers.

AlexMac

varghesejim wrote: »

Two new directors are appointed and the third person got spilt vote, so they again sent a form to shareholders to vote for the third person. All three have the same surname! I think the idea of owner occupier parking is raised by one of the new directors!

Should we be worried?

Yes- so it may be worth marshalling your arguments and alerting these Directors and ALL other leaseholders, including thise who let out their flats, that there are pitfalls, and that this could set a bad precedent if enforced (which also begs the question of enforceability, more of which below)

LEASES & LEGALITIES? I know you say the leases are silent on this point but is there really no reference to your rights to use, enjoyment of and access to common space? And have you (or they) heard of "easements" (see below).

Are the Directors planning to change your leases? I've owned a flat in a couple of "shared freeholds" like this where there was off-road car space and in each case parking WAS clearly referred to in the individual flats' leases;
- in one case by including allocated spaces on the Land Registry plan and title
- in the other, by saying "no parking allowed" so collectively we decided to ignore this and in effect allocate spaces informally; for example by givng owners or tenants with children the spaces with the best access.

Any change to the arrangment may require variation to each flat's lease (which presumably involves cost of legal fees) so check what your Directors' intentions are?

ENFORCEMENT?
Are they planning to enforce controls by posting contractual notices, sticking "PCN" (parking charge notices) on windscreens and hiring an approved Parking Management Company to follow up with enquiries to DVLA and legal action against registered owners (the way supermarkets or some residential freeholders do locally to us)? Or install gates , chains, locks or an automated barrier? (Presumably imposing the shared cost on you and other leaseholders so you pay for the privilege of losing some long established rights?)

4 R 5 E FROM ELBOW?

Do the Directors know what they are talking about? Have they taken legal advice, or spoken to an "approved operator" on the list of parking enforcement Companies maintained by the BPA or IPC?

Have they even thought through the implications, above, or others such as what happens when offenders ignore "No parking" signs, or refuse to pay PCN's and front it out in Court? (only Councils or similar bodies can issue Parking "Penalty" notices or fines; PCNs are invoices or "Charges" which have to be enforced in court although the Companies try to emulate "Penalty Notices" and falsely threaten debt collection, etc).

Are they really intending to stoke up bad feeing or even formal disputes between neighbours which presumably will have to be declared to vendors' solicitors on future pre-sale enquiries ?

Or reduce the value of some flats as suggested above, leaving YOUR freehold company open to counter-claim?

Have they heard of "Easements" which I researched briefly when neighbours on our private road started to enforce controls on their frontage via PCNs and legal threat?
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a17172b7-9eaa-4635-ad96-e287bdf07a25
and
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/easements-claimed-by-prescription/practice-guide-52-easements-claimed-by-prescription#rights-of-way-acquired-under-the-vehicular-access-across-common-and-other-land-england-regulations-2002-and-the-vehicular-access-across-common-and-other-land-wales-regulations-2004

The usual 20-year rule doesn't always have to apply, and it's a complex legal area, but while they probably don't help, if anyone who gets a PCN challenges it with bu11 5h1t about "easements, leases, established rights shared ownership of freehold, etc" the Company will stop short of taking action.

WHO ELECTS DIRECTORS? What do your articles of Association or Contitution say (ours are downloadable on the Companies House website under our Freehold Company's entry)? And are they obliged to have an AGM where they have to look you in the eye rather than hide behind letters? Or is G_M's "tea and cake" conciliation a better solution than my implied confrontational one?

GOOD LUCK challenging this... if you can be bothered.

Whatever happens, they are the ones who have started the dispute, so whether or not you start a counter-campaign of absent BTL landlord- leaseholders,, it's maybe worth asking awkward Qs in your own name. Especially if this is the thin end of the wedge

Or, as you say, do nothing, especially if on-street parking locally is no problem... till the Council starts painting yellow lines (which is why our neighbours' block took similarly anti-neighbourly action!)

G_M

* You have said your lease does not include a specific parking space, ccorrect?

* you also said that your lease is completely silent on the subject to parking, correct?

* so you have no legal right either to a specific space, or to parking more generally within the freehold grounds, other than those rights acorded you by the freeholder

* the 'freeholder' is a group of people, all leaseholders, who are represented by a Residents Association, yes?

* it appears, then, that the RA can decide who can/cannot park, when and where

* to do so, the RA should disscuss the mater, hear all comments, and reach a concensus via a vote - this appears to be what is happening.

* you should vote against the proposal if you dislike it

* you could attempt to pursuade others to vote likewise (and could have attended the meeting(s) where the proposal was discussed to voce your opinion)

Whilst, like you & others, I think the idea is both unfair and barmy, I don't see it as illegal.

Of course, the exact wording of the resolution might provvide a legal loophole, eg if it refers ambiguously to 'tenants', since all leaseholders are, in law, 'tenants'.