New Parking Enforcement in Estate

NeilCr

Sounds very much like our estate. I am a freeholder and my contract documents have the same rules, regs and covenants as the leaseholders. I'd be a bit surprised if yours differ because it would make managing the estate very difficult. You can't have freeholders parking on the pavements and not leaseholders - for example!

We have much the same issues. Not enough parking and families with multiple cars. The parking is very limited and yet we get quite a lot of surprised residents who haven't checked this out before moving in (or have received incorrect information from LAs).

Residents are divided - many are heavily against parking on pavements etc - others don't see the problem. So, to an extent, the ManCo (that's us as residents) are squeezed between the two sides although, fortunately, the vast majority do park sensibly. Sadly, a few selfish idiots can spoil it for the rest.

When you say Management Company do you mean that the residents have acquired the freehold of the estate - or is there a separate freeholder?

SGN01

I'd be a bit surprised if yours differ because it would make managing the estate very difficult. You can't have freeholders parking on the pavements and not leaseholders - for example!

I’ve checked my contract again and there are no covenants regarding parking.

When you say Management Company do you mean that the residents have acquired the freehold of the estate - or is there a separate freeholder?

The freehold for the development is owned by a third party.

The management company (MC) comprises 5 directors who are all residents.

The managing agent (MA) are employed by the MC to collect the management fee and do the organising, paperwork etc on their behalf.

The MA say they contracted the parking company on behalf of the MC. I can’t believe that 5 residents are able to make a decision like that without consulting all residents first.

NeilCr

Might be worth having a word with one of the five residents if you know them? And to find out who the parking contract actually is with ..... freeholder/MC/MA.

What about your original house documentation from when you made the purchase. My covenants are attached to the TP1 and the Land Registry papers. Sorry if that's what you meant. I realise that my earlier use of the word contract could be misleading.

If I was guessing I'd say the five residents believe all properties have the same covenant and that they have had complaints about the out of bay parking (see my comments above) and feel that they have to enforce the covenant. And it sounds like they have tried the gentler approach with warning letters before acting.

Guys_Dad

The seems that the PPC is only appointed for patrolling common public areas that are not owned or leased by free holders or leaseholders. No mention of permits only action against motorists parking "where they shouldn't. "

Now if your legitimate parking areas are not affected this makes this case different from most others on here and I'm not sure that the 75% agreement is needed and arguably, controlling non legitimate parking is enhancing rather than detracting from peaceful enjoyment.

Parking on pavements would interfere with wheelchairs, prams and other disabled people, for example.

Discussion with the Management is needed.

NeilCr

Guys_Dad wrote: »

The seems that the PPC is only appointed for patrolling common public areas that are not owned or leased by free holders or leaseholders. No mention of permits only action against motorists parking "where they shouldn't. "

Now if your legitimate parking areas are not affected this makes this case different from most others on here and I'm not sure that the 75% agreement is needed and arguably, controlling non legitimate parking is enhancing rather than detracting from peaceful enjoyment.

Parking on pavements would interfere with wheelchairs, prams and other disabled people, for example.

Discussion with the Management is needed.

I was getting here!

I agree with this completely. I really would be surprised if the same covenants didn't apply to freeholders and leaseholders. It would make estate management unworkable.

Fruitcake

SGN01 wrote: »

Thanks for all your advice, really appreciated and helpful . Will let you know how it goes.

If you are up for it, you could do leaflet drops in as many letterboxes as you can, and/or leave leaflets on windscreens.

Unfortunately you would bear the brunt of the cost unless you can get other involved, but it might save you money in the long run.
If you decide to do this, don't forget to mention this site, and suggest everyone complains to their MP.

NeilCr

Fruitcake wrote: »

If you are up for it, you could do leaflet drops in as many letterboxes as you can, and/or leave leaflets on windscreens.

Unfortunately you would bear the brunt of the cost unless you can get other involved, but it might save you money in the long run.
If you decide to do this, don't forget to mention this site, and suggest everyone complains to their MP.

I am not too sure that that will do a lot of good. As GuysDad says this appears rather different than quite a few residential estate cases that are seen on here. That covenant is pretty clear (I am assuming that it applies equally to freeholders and leaseholders) and will be very difficult to overturn - especially, if there are residents who want it applied because they are inconvenienced by pavement parking.

It sounds like the ManCo have tried the softly, softly approach. That hasn't worked so they've gone for something rather stronger - and it isn't on demised spaces - just common areas. I have to say this is one of those cases which strengthens my view that PPCs should not be totally banned from residential estates. They should, of course, be properly controlled and regulated, though.

Guys_Dad

NeilCr wrote: »

It sounds like the ManCo have tried the softly, softly approach. That hasn't worked so they've gone for something rather stronger - and it isn't on demised spaces - just common areas.

Just get confirmation in writing if possible that they have absolutely no authority over designated parking spaces. And also get from the management company their position on loading and unloading should that be contentious.

beamerguy

NeilCr wrote: »

I have to say this is one of those cases which strengthens my view that PPCs should not be totally banned from residential estates. They should, of course, be properly controlled and regulated, though.

If you were infested with rats you could control and exterminate them.

The human version of these rats like UKCPM cannot be controlled

nosferatu1001

I dont see how that covenant can result in a parking charge
That letter from teh management co is horrendous. It is not "illegal", it is not a "fine", and the management co as principal MUSt have control over their agents or they could find themselves on the end of a lawsuit