Move to allow parking only for owner occupiers in a flat block

varghesejim

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I'd go down that line too, but adding the case that IamEmanresu cited which is so similar, and was upheld on appeal.

To start with, I sent them an email

Hello,

Thank you for your mail. The parking restrictions idea is not looking good and sounds discriminatory. I would like to know some background information on the issue. Will you be able to get the answers for the following queries from the directors please?

1)Why do they want to restrict non owners from parking within the development?

2)What authority the residence association are using to bring in the parking restrictions?

NeilCr

varghesejim wrote: »

To start with, I sent them an email

Hello,

Thank you for your mail. The parking restrictions idea is not looking good and sounds discriminatory. I would like to know some background information on the issue. Will you be able to get the answers for the following queries from the directors please?

1)Why do they want to restrict non owners from parking within the development?

2)What authority the residence association are using to bring in the parking restrictions?

When did you send this?

I'd, definitely, not send anything else until you have had a reply (did you get an acknowledgement?) or an amount of time has passed without response.

varghesejim

NeilCr wrote: »

When did you send this?

I'd, definitely, not send anything else until you have had a reply (did you get an acknowledgement?) or an amount of time has passed without response.

I sent it today around 1 pm. I delayed because I couldn't decide on what to write.

in the original mail from management company they gave us time for voting till 14th.
yes, can wait for a couple of days

Coupon-mad

IMHO you must circulate something to the other residents now, before they vote blindly.

varghesejim

varghesejim wrote: »

To start with, I sent them an email

Hello,

Thank you for your mail. The parking restrictions idea is not looking good and sounds discriminatory. I would like to know some background information on the issue. Will you be able to get the answers for the following queries from the directors please?

1)Why do they want to restrict non owners from parking within the development?

2)What authority the residence association are using to bring in the parking restrictions?

Got a response from management agent

At the AGM there were a couple of Owner/occupiers (especially the ones with children and elderly !!who find it difficult to park their cars as often the spaces are used up by people who do not move their cars all week or do not park considerately making some spaces difficult to use, i.e. perhaps they go to work by train etc.,) and they expressed a desire to be able to restrict the parking to those who own a property and live there permanently.


As this provoked a fairly lengthy discussion !from both views and could not be voted on at the AGM as it was brought up Any Other Business it was agreed that we as Managing Agents would write to all Owners asking them to vote as each Owner is !a Shareholder of the Management Company who own the Freehold.Once the votes are in we will pass them onto the Directors.,. and depending on how the vote goes the Directors of the management company! will then have a further meeting and advise us of their thoughts on the matter.

We checked the Lease following the AGM and confirmed the spaces are not designated to any particular flat or even visitors parking. I hope this clarifies.

Coupon-mad

So now you move on to the stronger version:

I'd go down that line too, but adding the case that IamEmanresu cited which is so similar, and was upheld on appeal.

And politely (URGENTLY THIS WEEKEND) circulate ALL residents with a note explaining all that is wrong with the idea, not least because any 'restriction/permit' scheme would require some stinking scumbag ex-clamper to maraud around everyone's cars looking for excuses to fine people who live there, even those with permits.

It's a case of be careful what they wish for - tell them how terrible the idea is.

NeilCr

Coupon-mad wrote: »

So now you move on to the stronger version:



And politely (URGENTLY THIS WEEKEND) circulate ALL residents with a note explaining all that is wrong with the idea, not least because any 'restriction/permit' scheme would require some stinking scumbag ex-clamper to maraud around everyone's cars looking for excuses to fine people who live there, even those with permits.

It's a case of be careful what they wish for - tell them how terrible the idea is.

I have to agree with the idea of canvassing all other residents. You are much more likely to get somewhere with support. However, you need to be in touch with the flat owners - not the tenants who have no vote. You want a list of owners addresses - you should be able to obtain that from the MA. Failing that any letter through the door should be addressed to the owner - and hope the tenant passes it on. Perhaps a covering letter saying "please if you are the tenant send this to your landlord. It is about parking and may affect you"

C-M (or anyone else). Genuine question. The case cited by Ian involved the lady having (it appears) an allocated space which was in her lease taken away from her. There are no such "rights" in the OP's situation or lease. I can see there is a detriment in that they will lose the chance to park in the car park. However, they only really have, at best, a one in two chance now and many are happy - because it is easier for them - to use the on street parking available. It just doesn't seem as strong to me. Is it enough to still cite the 5% loss?

OP. I really hope you win this because the attitude of some of the owner occupiers stinks. . I am sure there are tenants with children, too, and, possibly, some who are elderly. In this instance I'd be less worried about a PPC being brought in than the attempted take over (which we discussed in the other thread) by a few residents of the MC

However, I suspect that you are going to have to put in some hard yards which may be more difficult as you don't live there. I get a sense of apathy among quite a lot of the residents (this is how this sort of takeover happens) and, as they have a viable and used alternative, it may not bother many of them, much. You may well need more than just a few emails to get the right result.

Coupon-mad

C-M (or anyone else). Genuine question. The case cited by Ian involved the lady having (it appears) an allocated space which was in her lease taken away from her. There are no such "rights" in the OP's situation or lease. I can see there is a detriment in that they will lose the chance to park in the car park. However, they only really have, at best, a one in two chance now and many are happy - because it is easier for them - to use the on street parking available. It just doesn't seem as strong to me. Is it enough to still cite the 5% loss?

I see what you mean, however the recipient is a Residents' Association who have listened to some moaning minnie Nimbys, so they probably are not the brightest legal brains.

The point is to worry them, and to worry the residents, IMHO.

NeilCr

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I see what you mean, however the recipient is a Residents' Association who have listened to some moaning minnie Nimbys, so they probably are not the brightest legal brains.

The point is to worry them, and to worry the residents, IMHO.

From the other thread those who are now directors of the MC are the "moaning Minnies".

The MA has already told OP that there is nothing in the lease re parking - if it was just the directors you may well have a point but the MA is on the case, too.

IMHO the only realistic chance OP has got is to get a groundswell of opinion from the rest of the owners.

System

IMHO the only realistic chance OP has got is to get a groundswell of opinion from the rest of the owners.

Your missing the point @NeilCr. Each individual leaseholder has an individual contract with the Head Leaseholder which can only be varied if they meet the statutory requirements as laid down.

The canvassing looks like they are testing for that requirement but they cannot legally vary without meeting the criteria. To do so would remove a valuable right and so cause a loss that is actionable.

Being able to park on someone else's land (the highway) is not a substitute for any rights in a lease.