New Parking Enforcement in Estate

NeilCr

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

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

The covenant precludes parking on the paths. People park on the paths. The ManCo have asked them to stop. They haven't. The ManCo now have to find a way of enforcing the covenant. Unfortunately, the most likely way of making them stop is by hitting them in their pockets. In my experience, in the end, nothing else works.

Yep. It is a poor letter and yes I would have thought that the ManCo would have a veto on tickets. I would want it as a director. But we don't actually know who the contract with the PPC is with - freeholder, ManCo or MA.

nosferatu1001

Its more: ther is no offer of parking being made
The covenant prohibits parking there entirely.

THe MA cannot then OFFER parking and claim a parkign charge. Especiallya s its been described as "illegal".

DoaM

Exactly - you cannot contract to do that which is forbidden.

NeilCr

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

Its more: ther is no offer of parking being made
The covenant prohibits parking there entirely.

THe MA cannot then OFFER parking and claim a parkign charge. Especiallya s its been described as "illegal".

I'll bow to your greater legal knowledge.

How would you deal with this issue then as it looks like the ManCo want to enforce the covenant? Yellow lines won't work in the long term. Letters haven't worked. Going down the legal route takes time and money.

I would be, genuinely, interested in ways to stop this parking problem - as, I suspect would others.

ETA

It may be that there is a catch all in the lease/TP1 that the ManCo can use instead of the covenant?

nosferatu1001

The man co has to take it up with teh leasholders as a breach of the lease.
They cannot just make stuff up.

I have no opinion on how a judge will take a view, but if they are applying the law as it stands, as there cannot be a contract in place then a claim under contract law must fail.

Legal action might be expensive, but if the freehodler wanted that covenant in place ,they have to enforce it using the law available. Making stuff up because its more convenient while putting leaseholders at risk from a parasticical parking firm that WILL in ALL WAYS overstep their authority, because none of them can ever be trusted - theyve shown this over and over and over - isnt the way forward.

Castle

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

I have no opinion on how a judge will take a view, but if they are applying the law as it stands, as there cannot be a contract in place then a claim under contract law must fail.

Ransomes v Anderson gave some indication of a trespass case outcome-£97.50 awarded although that would mean the landowner actually having to pay the PPC for their services in order to sue in their own name. (This of course predates the Beavis decision, so the award could be a lot lower for trespass now).

The_Deep

I have a property in a complex where, how do you say it, some of the residents are not top drawer. As a result, the new management company want to inflict a PPC on us.

This would no doubt stop the rogue parkers, but it will do nothing to prevent fly tipping, vandalism, car park car repairs, bad behaviour, etc.

Unless the MA are fully on the side of the residents and strictly control the PPC, appointing a PPC is not the answer imo.

Guys_Dad

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

The man co has to take it up with teh leasholders as a breach of the lease.
They cannot just make stuff up.

I have no opinion on how a judge will take a view, but if they are applying the law as it stands, as there cannot be a contract in place then a claim under contract law must fail.

Legal action might be expensive, but if the freehodler wanted that covenant in place ,they have to enforce it using the law available. Making stuff up because its more convenient while putting leaseholders at risk from a parasticical parking firm that WILL in ALL WAYS overstep their authority, because none of them can ever be trusted - theyve shown this over and over and over - isnt the way forward.

Going by what has been written, the land in question is owned by the estate landowner and residents have no ownership other than right of passage and access. Leases or deeds will not apply to that land in any way other than its maintenance. The landowner has absolutely a right to introduce a reasonable procedure to that land, including a PPC, as long as it does not breach any lease or covenant.

As it is not land transferred in any way to leaseholders or freeholders, I'm am struggling to see what possible grounds any resident can object to or appeal against as long as the PPC has no jurisdiction over their owned or leased properties.

The land ain't theirs! ( going on what info OP has given)

The_Deep

The landowner has absolutely a right to introduce a reasonable procedure to that land, including a PPC, as long as it does not breach any lease or covenant.

I see where you are coming from. Preventing others from parking without the leaseholder's permission on it is indeed reasonable, but is interfering with the leaseholder's peaceful enjoyment? Is dragging residents through court for not displaying a permit? Is pestering one's plumber or truss-make?

Guys_Dad

The_Deep wrote: »

The landowner has absolutely a right to introduce a reasonable procedure to that land, including a PPC, as long as it does not breach any lease or covenant.

I see where you are coming from. Preventing others from parking without the leaseholder's permission on it is indeed reasonable, but is interfering with the leaseholder's peaceful enjoyment? Is dragging residents through court for not displaying a permit? Is pestering one's plumber or truss-make?

No, of course not. But you can't say that peaceful enjoyment covers parking in areas you do not own or lease or is to the detriment of others and there is no suggestion of any permits to allow motorists to park in restricted areas.

I did say that there needs to be a protocol for loading and unloading and if they are not careful, the Royal Mail and Hermes drivers could be penalised, plus any tradesman doing work. That needs to be clearly set out to avoid future problems as I am sure that the PPC will relish the additional income from these sources until no tradesmen will visit at all.