Parking charge notice threat

The_Deep

the management company (run by a few residents) deemed it necessary to put these down and start to try and enforce parking restrictions.

Was this agreed at an AGM? If not, the directors may have been acting outside their powers, and contrary to your leasehold rights to quiet enjoyment. Google Primacy of contract

Can you not call an EGM to get it quashed/pass no confidence motions on the directors? What do the Articles of Association of the MC say about service charges?

... without consultation with the residents they’ve recently spent money from the funds to install bollards and speed bumps in the driveway,

Did they cost more than £250? If so they appear to have committed an offence, read this.

https://www.lease-advice.org/advice-guide/service-charges-other-issues/

and lots more here

https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=hp&ei=rXKnW4qFBsaUsgHF2KeIBg&q=service+charges+residential&oq=service+charges+residential&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0j0i22i30k1l3.1200.13740.0.15206.28.24.0.3.3.0.258.3429.0j23j1.24.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..1.27.3626.0..0i131k1j0i10k1.0.Y7fuN3On6fg

[Deleted User]

If you search for the company on the Companies House website - use the gov.uk version only - you will find its Memorandum and Articles of Association which will tell you how its directors are appointed.


The company's members (i.e. shareholders) may well be the leaseholders. If so and if you get enough support, you will be able to demand that the directors call a general meeting of the members. See Section 303 of the Companies Act 2006 - it can be found on legislation.gov.uk, S303 is not overly complicated and the threshold can be as low as 5% of the members.


The directors can only do what the leases, the Memorandum and Articles of Association and the law permits them to do. They are answerable to their members for their actions.

unholyangel

Eljayjay2 wrote: »

• notes giving details of the due diligence process undertaken by the management company and the parking contractor to ensure that not only the management company’s parking contract with the parking operator but also the purported contract(s) between the parking contractor and driver(s) parking on my allocated parking space met the “Implied term about care and skill” requirement contained in the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982;

Are you sure thats the right legislation to be quoting? SGSA was replaced by the Consumer Rights Act 2015 for b2c contracts.

SGSA would still apply between the management company & the parking company, but not where the drivers are concerned.

harrys_dad

Moo68 wrote: »

but without consultation with the residents they’ve recently spent money from the funds to install bollards and speed bumps in the driveway, something the PCC insisted was done before they would take on the contract for our block.

I suspect this was to slow the cars down so the ANPR cameras would work properly. there is also the point that these "funds" belong to you and the other residents, and are being spent on your behalf. I very much doubt proper procedure was followed.

[Deleted User]

unholyangel is quite right in saying...

“Are you sure thats the right legislation to be quoting? SGSA was replaced by the Consumer Rights Act 2015 for b2c contracts.

SGSA would still apply between the management company & the parking company, but not where the drivers are concerned.”

Of course, the implied skill and care clause still applies to both types of contract. It is just that two Acts apply nowadays.

Moo68

No meetings are arranged regarding major decisions, it would be helpful if they offered a postal vote at the least. We’re not really consulted about anything and the decisions in the main are made by the committee. We are notified about things that are going to happen that’s already been decided. As far as I’m aware they are not installing cameras, and as of to date, there are no signs stating the parking restrictions that are trying to be enforced. All of the advice that I’ve been given on this forum has been amazing and has really opened up my eyes to our rights as leaseholders. Thanks to you all, you’ve been great! I will update the post with any progress.

The_Slithy_Tove

Moo68 wrote: »

No meetings are arranged regarding major decisions, it would be helpful if they offered a postal vote at the least. We’re not really consulted about anything and the decisions in the main are made by the committee. We are notified about things that are going to happen that’s already been decided.

How these things should happen will all be in the Memorandum and Articles of the management company. Getting them needs to be your next port of call. If they have been circumventing the proper process, then they have some uncomfortable questions to answer.

Coupon-mad

would there need to be a variation of the lease to do this as well?

Not to put in speed bumps, but yes for the infestation of a PPC and the imposition of penalty charges and onerous regulations that impact on your quiet enjoyment, and where before, there were none.

The_Slithy_Tove

A further thought about how to attack the pig-headed numpties running the management company.

When you, or anyone else, comes to sell their flat, what is the reaction of potential purchasers going to be when they find a PPC infesting the area, especially those wise to this scam? This could affect the resale property of the flats, making them less attractive, and thus depressing the price.

While the amount by which that might happen is somewhat intangible, it could be enough to put the cat among the pigeons, and scare them off. So WHEN you contact the other leaseholders to rally support, you should use that point. Also you should include such a scenario when communicating with the management company numpties, suggesting (in a very carefully worded way) that there could be a claim against them for the loss of value of your property.

System

Just as an aside, if you have a mortgage ask the mortgage company of their view on interference with a lease. After all they "own" most of it until it is paid off.