NEW ADDRESS HAS JUST INTRODUCED PARKING MANAGEMENT

nosferatu1001

An AST is aa lease, just a specific one. But you would almost never refer to a tenant as a lessee because freehold and leasehold are the terms in property that have a very specific normal meaning. 

D_P_Dance

As a tenant your AST should reflect the terms in the landlord's lease.  If the original lease requires a parking permit, but you AST is silent on the metter, then IIMU that the lease takes precedence.  If your AST is wrong or misleading then you should take the matter up with your landlord.  

NeilCr

KeithP said:

Whoever let you the tenancy was acting on the instructions of your landlord - the person who holds the lease to your flat. Ask your letting agent who your landlord is.

We seem to be drifting away from parking.

I think we have to clarify who does what and who is responsible for what to the OP so they understand what they are saying in their note to residents. There are important distinctions here

I am concerned, for example, that the OP thinks everyone is a tenant. It may be so but it would be good to know on what basis they form their judgement

bargepole

Exactly right. For example, I have a rented flat which is one of 12 in a block. Half of them are occupied by the owners (leaseholders), and half are rented out to tenants. 

The tenants' terms of occupancy are determined by what their AST says, whereas the owners will rely on the terms of their long leases. None of those documents say anything about parking, although there are half a dozen spaces outside on a first come, first served basis. Fortunately, the road is a cul-de-sac on the edge of town, with no yellow lines, so on-street parking is not an issue.

Some years ago, we (the owners) voted to kick out the MA, and form our own company to manage the property. At one AGM, one person raised the issue of bringing in a PPC, to deter random people from parking in our area. After I explained the horror stories of the likely effect of that on genuine residents, that idea was quickly dropped.

tom_cahill

D_P_Dance said:

...  there's no need to add condescending phrases like 'of course' when someone asks a question #

What, not even when the answer is so patently obvious that it should never have been asked?

Well it depends on what you deem to be the primary function of this forum. If you believe it is a place where people come to pathologically assert their superiority over others with their knowledge of technical issues then crack on. If, like me, you believe it's to help people fight back against scammers and charlatan parking companies then I suggest there is no need.

tom_cahill

Update: I have just spoken to the MA. They have told me there is only one landlord who owns the entire block of flats. All residents are tenants. The landlord instructed the MA to bring in a parking control company as, and I quote, 'a few residents were parking awkawrdly'. I told them about my experience and knowledge of these companies and the MA were clueless and asked me to put down my concerns in writing.

So assuming that all AST agreements are uniform, none of our agreements mention anything about parking.  

Coupon-mad

Wow, this is your chance to put something powerful in writing, politely telling the landlord and MA what is likely to now happen to all their tenants, and that you (and no doubt, other tenants when they realise) will view this as a private nuisance and harassment. 

Parking firms infesting residential sites undoubtedly bring down the value of properties, intimidate and distress the residents and put prospective new tenants off when viewing such properties (many people boycott places with parking firms now).  This is the exact opposite of what the landlord no doubt intended.

Show them the link to the other PCM thread about how PCM were removed before they started, and say this is what needs to be done to protect the peaceful enjoyment of the residents and to avoid an adverse effect on the property being blighted by an ex-clamper firm who have no place handling the personal data of the residents.  PCM simply exist to fine the residents and their visitors; they will not cancel charges for the MA or landlord or for genuine visitors, and offer no independent appeal worth trying - the 'IAS' was exposed a a sham in Parliament. and the Trade Bodies are self-serving.

Also give a link to the Hansard record of the Private Parking Bill being debated on 2.2.18 and quote a few words from MPs about this industry and why Parliament is stepping in.

Umkomaas

Show them the link to the other PCM thread about how PCM were removed before they started, and say this is what needs to be done to protect the peaceful enjoyment of the residents and to avoid an adverse effect on the property being blighted by an ex-clamper firm who have no place handling the personal data of the residents, simply exist to fine them, and will not cancel charges, and have no independent appeal.

Also give a link to the Hansard record of the Private Parking Bill being debated on 2.2.18 and quote a few words from MPs about this industry and why Parliament is stepping in.

And send them this link about the practices of PCM-UK ......

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2015/05/is-it-pcm-uk-who-make-up-stuff-all-time.html

tom_cahill

Coupon-mad said:

Wow, this is your chance to put something powerful in writing, politely telling the landlord and MA what is likely to now happen to all their tenants, and that you (and no doubt, other tenants when they realise) will view this as a private nuisance and harassment. 

Parking firms infesting residential sites undoubtedly bring down the value of properties, intimidate and distress the residents and put prospective new tenants off when viewing such properties (many people boycott places with parking firms now).  This is the exact opposite of what the landlord no doubt intended.

Show them the link to the other PCM thread about how PCM were removed before they started, and say this is what needs to be done to protect the peaceful enjoyment of the residents and to avoid an adverse effect on the property being blighted by an ex-clamper firm who have no place handling the personal data of the residents.  PCM simply exist to fine the residents and their visitors; they will not cancel charges for the MA or landlord or for genuine visitors, and offer no independent appeal worth trying - the 'IAS' was exposed a a sham in Parliament. and the Trade Bodies are self-serving.

Also give a link to the Hansard record of the Private Parking Bill being debated on 2.2.18 and quote a few words from MPs about this industry and why Parliament is stepping in.

Brilliant. Thanks very much for this! If in this instance there is only one landlord and several tenants with ASTA, would the complaint you pointed me to in the other thread apply to my case? I.e. does section 37 apply if there is only one landlord? And would our Tenancy agreemetns hold any water in all of this?

Coupon-mad

s37 LTA applies but he's the only landlord so there was a consensus - so leave the L&T Act out of it.