Parking at my apartment

LawlessGoose

I've asked for the complaint to be escalated and included the point raised by coupon made about the voting and the various points raised by eljayjay2.

I've also asked for the name of the parking company on the contract and for confirmation that the contract even exists.

Also asked whether the MA gets any money from the tickets. Worth a punt!

I'll let you know what response I get but it could take a while judging by how long "stage 1" took.

[Deleted User]

LawlessGoose - If (a) you have not already sent your letter or email and (b) you do not have a copy of the parking contract between the parking operator and the managing agents, make that the first document requested in the indented list.


Umkomaas - many thanks for the tip about formatting.

LawlessGoose

I've asked for some meta info about the contract as well as for a copy of the contract itself.

Meta info like the name of the parking company/registered number, date signed, if it physically exists, etc.

LawlessGoose

Response #2 - slightly more promising

Some discussion about the legalities involved and a link to The Parking Prankster's page on the matter followed by these questions:

1. What is the name of the company that XXXX contracted with to enforce the parking scheme?

1. Or alternatively, what is the company number as registered at Companies House?

2. On what date was the contract signed?

1. Does a physical contract even exist?

2. If so, may I see an un-redacted copy of it?

3. By what legal right was this contract entered into and enforced upon the leaseholders? (existing clause in the lease, Deed of Variation, etc)

4. Does XXXX consider vehicles without permits to be trespassing?

5. Does XXXX receive commission or other monies from the parking company?

6. Is there any evidence that the aforementioned leaseholder consultation took place?

1. How many leaseholders were there at the time?

2. How many voted in favour of the parking scheme?

3. How many voted against?

4. How many did not vote?

5. What was the wording of the proposal?

You have set out specific information you are seeking and I am currently liaising with [redacted], Head of Housing, to understand the level of detail we are able to provide to you.

Fundamentally, however, I am aware the parking enforcement was introduced as there were a number of incidents of ‘trespass’, where our residents’ parking spaces were being used by non-residents.

I understand that, legally, there would not normally be any requirement to consult where there is no cost incurred by residents (permits are provided free of charge and there is no financial contribution required for the upkeep of the contract). [Except for the £100 per day charge!]

However, your email does raise some valid and very interesting legal points, particularly about ‘ownership’ of the parking space and the rights we have to introduce parking enforcement. I will seek to provide you with as much information as I am able.

Coupon-mad

I understand that, legally, there would not normally be any requirement to consult where there is no cost incurred by residents ...permits are provided free of charge.

Clearly there is a cost incurred by residents and the MA are deluded if they think the regime is actually 'free'. Are they really that dumb?

and there is no financial contribution required for the upkeep of the contract

Of course there is, they are deluded if they think the PPC does this for nothing. Certainly residents' peaceful enjoyment is interfered with, and the entire harassment and intimidation and cost of charges is a 'private nuisance' and a derogation from grant.

It must stop - and was never properly consulted/agreed and is not supported under the L&T Act.

Fundamentally, however, I am aware the parking enforcement was introduced as there were a number of incidents of ‘trespass’, where our residents’ parking spaces were being used by non-residents.

Thank them for confirming that the intentions in the contemplation of the HA, at the time of signing this contract, was to stop 'trespass'.

Point out that no (non landowning) private parking firm can sue or issue charges for trespass, and the PPC know this, and thus it seems they have taken the HA for a ride, along with the poor residents who are paying for the pointless protection racket.

LawlessGoose

Do the PPCs charge the MA regardless of whether charges are issued? I had assumed, perhaps wrongly, that they operate for free and only make money from the charges they issue. My reasoning was that it's perhaps too much of an opportunity to pass up for the MA if a PPC comes along and says they'll operate for free and give 'commission' to the MA.

I edited my post to include my questions. I'd asked directly about whether the MA think that non-permit vehicles are trespassing.

The person responding is just a customer service rep so it's unlikely they'll know the full details. I should have a detailed response by the 3rd Oct.

[Deleted User]

Generally, I believe most MAs claim that the services of the parking operator are provided for free and the MAs are paid nothing by the parking operator. [I have to say that, given this, one wonders why the MAs are so keen to keep the parking operators in place.]


I have, however, also seen large amounts appearing in service charge bills for things like parking signage rental.

LawlessGoose

The complaints dept have said they now expect a response from their housing team on the 11th (revised from the 3rd). I'm not convinced this is going to go anywhere useful or they would have replied on time.

Could someone explain the procedure for getting an injunction against the parking company? I've found a form online called N16A that looks like the right thing but I'm not sure how that ties in with a claim.

My plan now is to just go after the parking company, get the injunction, then show that to the MA and hope they see the light.

Any help would be appreciated.

Coupon-mad

Could someone explain the procedure for getting an injunction against the parking company? I've found a form online called N16A that looks like the right thing but I'm not sure how that ties in with a claim.

My plan now is to just go after the parking company, get the injunction, then show that to the MA and hope they see the light.

Use a local solicitor then sue the parking firm and MA (jointly liable) for the cost.

That's what Roger Davey did against UKPC.

LawlessGoose

Oh dear. Although, not very surprising. Is there anything I can do without obtaining the services of a solicitor?

As I mentioned at the outset of our exchange of correspondence, your email of 21 September 2018 raised some interesting legal points. To enable me to understand the merits of the argument you were putting forward I have consulted with our Housing Team and also with our Leasehold and Service Charge Team.




The fundamental finding (as defined in the particulars of the lease) is that the demised premises include the flat but, crucially, not the parking space. A parking space is allocated within the lease (third schedule, paragraph 7) whereby you have the right to park within the common parts of the development.




The car park spaces are within the common parts of the estate (section 1 of the lease, paragraph 2(b)). The landlord’s covenant includes a requirement for us to maintain the common parts (section 5 of the lease, paragraph 4(c)).




Also, the landlord has the power to alter the arrangement and extent of the common parts (section 6 of the lease, paragraph 8). On this latter point, for example, if we needed to carry out work which required us to cordon off the parking bay you currently use it would be incumbent upon ourselves to provide you with appropriate parking facilities.




Section 7 of the lease, specifically paragraph 5 (c)), covers the service charge and within it provision is made for the recovery of reasonable costs incurred in relation to the management of common parts.




Essentially as the landlord, it is within our gift to make changes which will enhance our residents’ quality of life. We would consider it reasonable, therefore, to introduce a parking enforcement scheme where there have been incidents of ‘trespass’ (non-residents using parking bays) reported to us. The scheme costs our residents nothing financially, the only requirement being that those who are entitled to park do display the appropriate permit, available free of charge from our adjoining office.




We do not consider it to be vital to your understanding as to why we have elected to introduce such a scheme, as the lease grants us the provision to alter the arrangement and extent of the common parts in our duty as the landlord, freeholder and/or managing agent.




Your arguments essentially are legal in nature, and I repeat I personally find them to be very interesting. However, within the context of customer complaint management, I have to advise that your arguments would be best served by approaching the appropriate judicial body should you wish to challenge this further. Our complaints policy specifically excludes certain types of complaint, legal arguments being one of those. I have attached a copy of our information booklet and draw to your attention page three and the specific exclusion:



a complaint about a decision where a statutory appeal body or tribunal has been established to examine the case (such as the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal)





In the first instance I would recommend you consult the independent Leasehold Advisory Service website, https://www.lease-advice.org/. The advice therein should be able to inform you as to whether there are merits to your case, and whether this is something which could be considered further by the First Tier Tribunal, essentially a legal process.




In reaching my determination, specifically not to uphold your complaint, I have presented my findings to an internal complaints panel, which considers all Stage Two cases where we determine we need to give an adverse decision within our pilot complaint management scheme in the East Midlands.




The panel comprises colleagues at Director and Service Head level. The panel have supported my decision based on the information presented within the lease and agreed that there are no grounds for us to exclude your vehicle from the parking enforcement scheme we use in Raleigh Square. As I noted, the key driver in the decision is that the parking bay does not form part of the demised premises.




I am sorry that this is not the outcome you are seeking, but I trust you are able to understand that as your arguments are of a legal nature the customer complaints process is not the appropriate avenue to follow should you wish to register your dissatisfaction. The First Tier Tribunal is the appropriate judicial body which can consider your representations.




My recommendation will mirror what we advised at Stage One – to avoid unnecessary parking charge notices, I strongly urge you to display the free permit we have provided in any vehicle yourself or your visitors use when parking in the common parts of Raleigh Square. Were such a notice to be issued, you would have the right to seek an appeal through the appropriate independent body – your dispute would not be considered by ourselves.