Brought a flat on the assumption it has a parking space when it doesn't!

armchaireconomist

Keep hold of all correspondence with the freeholder and have the lease updates/the number changed.


Amazing incompetence really. How did parking spot #22 manage to be renamed to #31 of 33 spaces of 34 flats?

diggingdude

Glad you got the right result

muz3562

Glad it is all sorted .



make sure you print off and keep safe a copy of all correspondence with the management co in case of future dispute .

eddddy

I'm glad you got it sorted - but this kind of arrogance amuses me:

ChloeLangford wrote: »

Although, as agreed with the Directors this space does belong to Flat 22 and you have the right to park your vehicle in the space, although please note any vehicles in the car park must be kept in a good working condition and be MOTed and Insured.

Instead of just admitting "Sorry - we made a mistake"...

... they try to show their superiority by picking some rules to quote at you, which I assume you have never disputed.

EachPenny

Smodlet wrote: »

What kind of an idiot must the planner, to say nothing of the builders have been to build a block of 34 flats over an underground parking garage for 33 cars? Are you certain there is no mistake, OP?

At various times national and regional planning policies have sought to reduce the amount of parking provided to discourage people from owning/using cars. At one point councils were told (might have got the wording slightly wrong) that they "were not to require developers to provide more parking than they (the developer) or future occupants require). Parking standards in 'accessible' locations were reduced down as far as possible, in some cases to 'car free' (spits) development. Brighton is a place known for a less than positive attitude towards car ownership and use.

So a planner might have had no choice but to accept a 34 unit development with only 33 spaces provided.

From the developer's perspective, providing parking wastes land that could have additional flats built on it. Providing underground parking is also hideously expensive. It could be the case that the footprint of a site only allowed room for 33 spaces, and to provide a 34th would mean adding a second floor of underground spaces... adding that one extra space could hundreds of thousands, which wouldn't be recouped by the sale of the additional flat. If that happens, and the Council permit less than one space per dwelling, then the developer makes more money by selling one flat with no parking.

It might sound like idiocy, but often there is a reason behind it.

Smodlet

EachPenny wrote: »

It might sound like idiocy, but often there is a reason behind it.

Pretty much sums up officialdom's mentality, don't it? I sometimes think the idiocy comes first and then some think tank types sit around dreaming up reasons to justify it. As if limiting parking spaces is going to make people stop using cars.

Thanks for the explanation, EachPenny.