PCM company introduced

Coupon-mad

Rather than 'To whom it may concern' can one of the leasehold owners phone the MA and ask who to address a formal complaint to?

Re - (address of properties - FORMAL COMPLAINT REJECTING PERMIT SCHEME)

We the undersigned, object to any proposed 'parking management' in the strongest terms and unequivocally reject the unsolicited permits foisted upon residents. We will not be bound by any terms unlawfully imposed upon us.

The background:
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. This seems to have been a knee-jerk reaction to lobbying by the residents of a single flat, no. __, who had been putting pressure on you as Managing Agents.

You are already aware from correspondence from Flat _ that the majority of residents have not encountered any issues with parking and that residents wanted to continue to amicably resolve any issues that might arise. That resident did not receive the courtesy of a response.

Neither the residents, nor even a majority of the leaseholders, were consulted when you contracted with an external company regarding a parking regime, and due to your significant oversight you must cease and desist with your planned parking enforcement.


The legal position - derogation from grant and breach of L&T Act 1987
Your actions now in imposing an unwanted private nuisance of ex-clamping firm PCM are unlawful and a derogation from grant.

As such, we require PCM to be removed from our home estate and their signs taken down immediately. If you have signed a contract with PCM, that is your issue to rescind and as residents, we will not be liable for any wasted costs due to your actions.

Should we be required to seek an injunction to stop PCM, we will require the costs of such action from you, the Managing Agent. We sincerely hope the matter can be resolved amicably without legal action or related costs.

You are advised that as a Managing Agent, you (and even the freeholder) cannot take unilateral steps to change or remove such a fundamental amenity as parking. Further, you/the freeholder may not impose (or allow an agent to impose) 'parking charges' not covered within the leases, nor invent a change of use of some of the unmarked bays to become 'visitor bays' without proper consensus.

The flat-owners position is that we have the benefit of rights and/or an easement allowing cars to be parked on servient land and this benefit cannot be removed, charged for, extinguished, adversely changed with onerous terms, nor resident access to spaces reduced.

Authorities which support our position include:

(i) Kettel v Bloomfold [2012]EWHC 1422 (Ch) and
(ii) Saeed v Plustrade Limited [2001] EWCA CIV 201, as well as
(iii) the Winchester County court case of Roger Davey v UKPC [2013] where, in an Order by consent, the parking firm gave undertakings to the Court not to enter the Claimant's land and not to place any parking charge notices on the cars, and the Court ordered damages for trespass in a total of £150.00 and costs in the sum of £1280.26 which included the cost an injunction obtained by Mr Davey.

We respectfully suggest you need to seek legal advice and you must not allow your (BBC Watchdog exposed as rogue) parking agents - or any parking firm - to impose any terms upon us in the meantime. The regime is void and rejected by all residents, tenants and leaseholders alike (except for Flat_ who we note remain at odds with the majority).

As stated in Section 37 of 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 with no more than 10% objecting, or in the case of nine or less leaseholders, all but one must agree. The reverse is true.

A variation to the lease was never sought but will not be approved, by Flats _, _ and _.

Before you attempt to respond with wording from the Head Lease, we advise you that a fundamental restriction to the parking amenity and inflicting of a notoriously litigious firm upon us with no prior consultation does not, under any interpretation, constitute 'reasonable estate management' for the good of the residents.

We demand that PCM is removed, and the scheme is stopped before it was due to be imposed on May 22nd. If this is not put to a halt in the next 7 days, we will be forced to take legal action and/or apply for an injunction and pass the costs to you and/or the freeholder and/or PCM, as necessary, to prevent this private nuisance.

yours sincerely,


NAME (leaseholder, FLAT _) Signature:

NAME (leaseholder, FLAT _) Signature:

NAME (leaseholder, FLAT _) Signature:

NAME (resident/tenant, FLAT _) Signature:

NAME (resident/tenant, FLAT _) Signature:

Date signed:

NeilCr

Or you could just do what C-M says.

:D

But write - don't email

It's personal taste but I would have it only from the leaseholders.

Still need to know what's actually in the lease.

Coupon-mad

I was waiting for you to say it's too aggressive, NeilCr!

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)

I'd suggest that who owns the spaces doesn't matter if there is an easement the residents are entitled to rely on (Kettel v Bloomfold!).

NeilCr

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I was waiting for you to say it's too aggressive, NeilCr!
I'd suggest that who owns the spaces doesn't matter if there is an easement the residents are entitled to rely on (Kettel v Bloomfold!).

I thought you'd take that as read C-M!

:D

I'd still like to know what the leases actually say before things get sent.

To be honest, if I was the freeholder I might take the chance on the visitors spaces. This does feel very tenant led and it's hard to get a sense for how up for a real fight the leaseholders are!

ETA.

Could the freeholder introduce parking restrictions on the "visitors spaces" on their own. To ensure that everyone got fair dibs at them, for example!

Coupon-mad

Could the freeholder introduce parking restrictions on the "visitors spaces" on their own. To ensure that everyone got fair dibs at them, for example!

Only if the leaseholders agreed! Better to leave well alone IMHO. No PPC.

Rapacji

Hi all. The managing agency has confirmed that they are ending their contract with PCM! All leaseholders signed and sent the letter. Cannot thank you all enough! You are all experts and I am truly so grateful for all the help you provided.

BrownTrout

Well done there

Coupon-mad

Rapacji wrote: »

Hi all. The managing agency has confirmed that they are ending their contract with PCM! All leaseholders signed and sent the letter. Cannot thank you all enough! You are all experts and I am truly so grateful for all the help you provided.

Bang - and the dirt is gone! :T

NeilCr

Rapacji wrote: »

All leaseholders signed and sent the letter. .

Including the complaining ones?

:eek::eek:

Well done anyway

:beer::beer:

The_Deep

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.

That would not be very clever, they could immediately be taken to these people, where, imo, they would get a thrashing.

https://www.gov.uk/courts-tribunals/first-tier-tribunal-property-chamber

Have you complained to ARLA?

https://www.arla.co.uk/

What about complaining to your MP.