Estate Management Dispute - Remus

leejhopwood

Hi,
The Estate Management company who look after our new build residential estate (built by Taylor Wimpey) have written to us to confirm they are about to implement new parking permits and parking patrol restrictions to the shared access carparks 'managed' by them.
They are proceeding with a company called Link Parking.

The issue I and the majority of the residents have is

a) we were not previously notified of this, nor consulted on the proposed amendments.

b) the parking restriction policies that are being proposed are vastly opposed the all residents.

c) we have written to Remus stating our concerns and have requested for some dialogue/consultation with them to ensure any new scheme actually provides what we want (collectively as the residents estate) and benefits us, rather than then having to accept the imposing policies currently on the table by Remus/Link-Parking.

They are not interested in this, and have stated (in there initial reply) that they do not have to consult with residents and have no intention of doing so or delaying L-P's implementation. They are proceeding regardless of our many letters and concerns.

d) our concerns are valid as we feel that impact of this 3rd party (Link Parking) heavy handed implementation will not permit fair and reasonable usage of the shared parking areas / visitors bays. And will only cause further problems and unfair fines being issued when they are not necessary.
Again this is currently being ignored by Remus as they do not wish to delay or cause anger to Link Parking.

e) In response/receipt of these proposals our residents group took a poll, the result of which confirms that over 90% of residents are opposed to the scheme requesting a delay to its implementation to allow for a residents consultation prior to any new works/scheme being introduced. Remus are again ignoring this residents poll and carrying on regardless.

f) we have stated to Remus that we are entitled to and shall go to the ombudsman if they do not act fairly on this matter.
We believe that are in breach of the TP1 covenant (Schedule 4, clause 9) which states they can ‘provide any other services which the transferor or the management company (acting reasonably) wishes to provide for the owners of all the dwellings on the Estate’.
However in light of the above, no prior notification, no consultation, and now intention to accept overwhelming residents option and rejection of the current scheme that they are not acting reasonably Yon this matter, which at the end of the day is an alteration to the current services and conditions we have.

It should be noted too that Remus were not the appointed Management Company when most of of brought our houses and were only introduced afterwards by Taylor Wimpey.

Any advice please.
Basically what we want is for the following to happen,

1) Remus postpone the works, to allow for a consultation wit Residents to allow for a scheme that is acceptable to the whole estate.

2) We request that Remus to delay Link Parking, who have simply put forward a parking penalty scheme with their own policies designed only to assist them getting as many fines as possible.

3) We request that Remus to confirm/ the scheme would be reviewed yearly, or certainly after a set period, to establish if the scheme is working or not and to allow for its removal or revision to suit a democratic resident group poll/vote.

4) We wish for Remus to legally commit to this in wrting, and to confirm that any changes/cancellation (as above) are implemented within and agreed timeframe.

At the one they are ignoring rejecting all of this stating they have no legal obligation to consult.

FYI
TP1 convenants of revelance
Schedule 1
Rights granted for the benefit of the Property
The right for the Transferee and all persons authorised by the Transferee (in common with all other
persons having a similar right):-

(a) to go pass and repass with or without vehicles for all reasonable purposes along the Estate
Roads and along such parts of the Managed Accessways and any roads or accesses which
provide access to any Visitors Parking Spaces (if any) intended for vehicular use and on foot
only over any parts intended for pedestrian use

(i) to use for the purpose of temporary parking of private motor cars only the Visitors Parking
Spaces (if any) subject always to availability


Schedule 2
Rights reserved for the benefit of other land
(I) to use for the purpose of temporary parking of private motor cars only Visitors Parking
Spaces subject always to availability and subject further to the Transferor or other person
exercising such rights paying a due and proportionate part of the expense of maintaining
the Visitors Parking Spaces in good repair and condition

Schedule 4
Covenants by the Management Company
4. To maintain properly repaired renewed replaced and cleansed
(a) any parking spaces bin stores drives Managed Accessways footpaths and any other
hard landscaping areas which form part of the Managed Facilities and which are not
maintained at the public expense

9. To provide any other services which the Transferor or the Management Company (acting
reasonably) wishes to provide for the owners of all the dwellings on the Estate


Many Thanks
Lee

The_Deep

You will probably also get a lot of support on here

https://forums.landlordzone.co.uk/forum/residential-letting-questions

I posted a similar question a few months ago under the name D P Dance.

Read about Parliaments plans to throttle these parasites here

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

as nine times out of ten these tickets are scams so consider complaining to your MP.

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, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

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

NeilCr

Is the Freehold still owned by Taylor Wimpey. If so they will have appointed Remus and I would be taking it up with them, too

And to be a bit nit picky. Sorry! They need to consult with the owners - who will not necessarily be the residents