New Parking Enforcement in Estate

NeilCr

Guys_Dad wrote: »

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.

Thanks very much for your posts.

The Deep. What about the quiet enjoyment of residents who want to walk on the pavements without having to squeeze past cars (assuming this happens on the OP's estate).

And, while I take the earlier points about the covenants I don't think it is unreasonable to be expected to adhere to what you signed up to.

nigelbb

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.

To enforce a covenant would require an injunction stopping the breach (ie preventing the action being taken or requiring that something be done) or a claim for damages for losses caused by the breach.

A PPC "fining" people is not a legitimate means of enforcing a covenant.

SGN01

Success!

Following the efforts of many residents to challenge this, gather evidence and speak to the right people, parking control on the estate has been scrapped.

It transpires that despite the management company and parking agent insisting they had authority to implement the parking control, they actually did not.

The roads and pavements are still owned by the original developer and they did not give the management company permission, nor did they have any legal right to implement any parking control measures.

Half_way

despite the management company and parking agent insisting they had authority to implement the parking control, they actually did not.

Pretty much the usual case with residential parking

Umkomaas

Well done on getting to the bottom of this quickly.

This could be just the start if you want to take it further. Anyone who has received a postal ticket from Excel (their data acquired via the DVLA) should write to the DVLA to complain that Excel have accessed (and DVLA have provided them with) data for which they had no reasonable cause to request. Ask that the DVLA investigate and apply sanctions.

Write similarly to the IPC, that their member has broken IPC Code of Practice rules (same details as per DVLA complaint) and ask them to investigate and apply sanctions.

Consider suing Excel for breaking of Data Protection Act rules in handling your data. Join the MA in the action too. Have a read of some of these:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/02/transcript-round-up-data-protection.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/05/motorist-awarded-900-for-data.html

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/08/cp-plus-lose-data-protection-claim.html

Guys_Dad

Actually, whilst I agree with Umkomaas, joint responsibility for this debacle lies with the Managing Association as well, probably even more so.

They will have claimed to the PPC that they were the de facto landholders and could legally instruct the PPC. If anyone has been charged or any cancellation charges by the PPC for breach of contract incurred, then that cost lieswith the MA. !!!!

Half_way

Make sure the management company do not repeat this.
I'd the management company is a large company (ie a big corporate company) they should know better and have had the resources to perform due diligence etc, by all means include them in any joint action over the antics of their agents.


If, on the other hand the management company is no more than a local committee made up of local volunteers, hopefuly they will have learnt, however it may be worth reminding/politely informing then that they could be at risk from any GDPR Breach /data protection breach by their agens, from which individual members of the committe could be held personally liable