PCM company introduced

Rapacji

Thank you. We will draft a letter tomorrow for freeholders to sign tomorrow and get it to the managing agency.

Apparently this freeholder is really hard to get a hold of. I believe he's a business developer and doesn't like to get involved. At the moment, we don't have his contact details and the leaseholders above don't seem to either. I will badger them for it again tomorrow.

Wish I could call in sick tomorrow, getting all of this ready is a full time job.

Cannot thank you enough for all of your help.

NeilCr

Fine.

But. Do find out what the leases say about parking and post here as C-M suggests first. While I understand the urgency you do have over two weeks and these things are best not rushed.

As an aside I don't, personally, like the suggestion about moving cars if the visitors spaces are needed. In my experience (well the experience of a friend) that didn't work

If the freeholder is distant then the MA may be doing their own thing. But, he still employs them so worth trying every avenue.

Rapacji

Thanks Niel.

I will post that information as soon as I have it.

We will also be trying to contact the freeholder.

The property technically would have enough space for eight parking spaces. No one else has ever had any issues with their visitors not having a place to park. It is just these neighbours who complain.

I appreciate your help and your input.

NeilCr

No problem..

But, I am not the expert here on PPCs!

I do wonder, particularly, about the two "visitor" spaces. It could (emphasise could) be that the freeholder owns them which may complicate matters.

I do understand about your neighbours but they are owners and aren't going anywhere! I suspect that this is one of the reasons that the MA reacted to them.

Good luck, anyway.

Half_way

Thank you. We will draft a letter tomorrow for freeholders to sign tomorrow and get it to the managing agency.

before you send any letters off, post them up here first so they/it can be checked/eyeballed.


Also be wary of any personal messages that you may get from unknown members, this is best being dealt with in the open, parking companies read these forums, and its not been unknown for parking companies to advise people via PMs ( the the detriment of the individual)

Rapacji

Hi all,

I have been drafting a letter. I will not send it before we have double checked the lease and tried to contact all other leaseholders, as well as the freeholder. Let me know if you think I should structure it differently, if I need to amend any wording, or if I should add anything to it. I am hoping to add exactly what they are in breach of in the lease (once I have sent you the sections on lease for parking, quiet or peaceful enjoyment, and Third Parties).

To whom it may concern,

On Wednesday afternoon (____ 2019), Parking Control Management Limited (PCM) put up signs and distributed letters stating that parking enforcement would begin _____, 2019, three weeks from then. One permit was issued per flat.

In March, Flat __, who were unhappy with the parking situation, had been putting pressure on some sort of parking enforcement to be put in place, and as a result, residents had received a letter from you, the managing agency, reminding tenants and leaseholders not to be parking in visitor bays.

Flat __ (different flat), who wanted to seek clarification, were engaged in a series of communications with you regarding parking. Their last correspondence, stating that three of the four flats had never encountered any issues with parking and that residents wanted to continue to amicably resolve any issues that might arise, never received a response.

Neither residents, nor a majority of the leaseholders, were consulted when hiring an external company, PCM, to enforce parking. This is a derogation from grant. As stated on Section 37 from the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, in order to establish a right to impose unilateral terms which vary the terms of the lease, you must have such variation approved by at least 75% of the leaseholders, or in the case of nine or less leaseholders, all but one. This variation to the lease is not approved, by Flats _, _ and _.

We demand that PCM is removed, and the scheme is stopped before it is enforced May 22nd. If this is not put to a halt in the next 7 days, we will be forced to take legal action against you. We would like to remind you of Roger Davey vs UKPC court case, an example of a parking firm interfering with a leaseholder’s existing rights and easements.

The_Deep

You might also like to post on here

https://forums.landlordzone.co.uk/

read this

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5927955

and complain to your MP. PPCs have no place in residential car carks

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, and persistent offenders denied access. Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers.

Until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

Le_Kirk

Add to your letter that (depending upon the number of residents involved) no more than 10% must disagree. Seems from what you are saying that you have the 10%. Also regarding the "missing" freeholder, someone pays the MA, so they must have an address for correspondence even if it to chase their cheque when it doesn't arrive!

Rapacji

Hi all, I thought I would update you.

We, alongside at least two of the three leaseholders that are against this, have contacted the managing agents telling them that we do not want PCM to be enforcing parking restrictions. They have said that due to the number of calls and emails they have received about parking, they received permission from the freeholder to hire PCM.

We have let them know that those calls and emails have all come from the same flat (a flat of leaseholders who, might I add, have been trying to sell their flat). They seem to suggest that all leaseholders should come to an agreement as to what they want and that the managing agency will present this to the freeholder to see what they think.

They are also arguing that, as per the lease, every flat is allowed one space and that PCM company enforcing this should make no difference if that is followed and everyone parks in their space and never in the visitors spaces. I have continued to make the point that all of that does not negate the fact that this decision, which affects all leaseholders, was made without consultation of anyone, and that it does, in fact, constitute as a change to the lease and should therefore need approval by 3 out of the 4 flats.

Do you have any advice as to how we should proceed? I doubt they will answer again before Tuesday, but it would be good to have something prepared.

I believe our best hope is to manage to contact the freeholder and for him to understand that 3/4 leaseholders are very unhappy with this.

The managing agency is also threatening to charge a service charge if we continue to enquire about this, which is ridiculous considering that the other flat has continuous contact with them.

All of your help has given me hope, whereas I started out with none. Thank you all so much!

NeilCr

Have you got the wording from the lease yet?

To an extent I can see the MA's point about trying to get a solution between you. Jaw jaw is better than war war etc etc etc. Problem is if you do end up going down the legal route it could get messy and expensive. That's not to say that you shouldn't continue the battle!

Depending on what the lease says I think that the best course of action would be for the leaseholders (not you or any other tenant) who don't agree to write formally to the MA objecting to the decision and quoting the L and A Act as cited by C-M.

At the back of my mind is that if this gets too tricky the MA/freeholder may get fed up and do something about the visitors spaces on their own (assuming the freeholder owns them)