Management agent appointing PPC to patrol in garage area

Fruitcake

Just out of interest, does your lease say what would happen if a resident breached the terms of their lease?

For example, if sub-letting is prohibited, what would happen if someone was caught doing so?

The same applies to parking. What would happen if someone washed their car or parked on the grass, and continued to do so ad infinitum? I bet it doesn't say anything about bringing in an unregulated parking scammer.
A breach of something not included in the lease cannot by definition be a breach of the lease, so these are the sorts of things that need asking of the MA, and explaining to the residents who want a solicitor brought in. If the latter happens, who would pay for it?

Jenni_D

What's in the First Schedule? I ask because nothing in the below gives the MA/MC carte blanche to engage a PPC without first having an authorised vote to approve a variance in the lease.

“The lessor has right to make other rules and regulations from time to time (either in addition to or by way of variation of or substitution for the rules and regulations in the First Schedule or any of them) as the Lessor may deem necessary or expedient for the management care and cleanliness of the Buildings and for securing the safety comfort and convenience of all the occupiers of and visitors to the Buildings and such other rules and regulations shall be deemed to be incorporated in the First Schedule." 

Nothing in your 1-5 above changes this either - employing a PPC does not convey any benefit to leaseholders and a PPC cannot offer you anything that you don't already enjoy.

D_P_Dance

Have you read this?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5927955/my-management-company-wants-to-bring-in-cpm/p1

Have you complained to your MP?

cybervic

Thanks everyone again. Whilst I was reading up the info and link you've provided. I have received a reply from MA as follows:

We have not made any variation to the lease. We, on behalf of the freeholder are within our rights to instruct parking enforcement to ensure the parking facilities are being used correctly. 

We have had to employ an enforcement company as we have been inundated with complaints regarding residents using the visitor’s bays for long periods of time, which means actual visitors are not able to use them. This is why the 48-hour stay has had to be implemented. We’ve also received complaints regarding people not being able to access their garages due to people parking in the way of them. The complaints have been from multiple residents, about multiple residents rather than just one in particular. 

A letter is due to be sent this week to explain the new parking enforcement, which is due to commence on 1st March, a visitor’s permit will also be included. I did hope to write to you before the signs went up, but we only received the permits from the parking company today so have only today been able to begin to prepare the letters. 

So MA is denying any variation of lease. What can we do from here? Is there any court case I can site to strengthen the argument that this is a variation of lease.

cybervic

Fruitcake said:

Just out of interest, does your lease say what would happen if a resident breached the terms of their lease?

There is no mention about breach of lease. I was warned by my solicitor when I bought the flat that this could potentially be a problem.

Jenni_D said:

What's in the First Schedule? I ask because nothing in the below gives the MA/MC carte blanche to engage a PPC without first having an authorised vote to approve a variance in the lease.

“The lessor has right to make other rules and regulations from time to time (either in addition to or by way of variation of or substitution for the rules and regulations in the First Schedule or any of them) as the Lessor may deem necessary or expedient for the management care and cleanliness of the Buildings and for securing the safety comfort and convenience of all the occupiers of and visitors to the Buildings and such other rules and regulations shall be deemed to be incorporated in the First Schedule." 

Nothing in your 1-5 above changes this either - employing a PPC does not convey any benefit to leaseholders and a PPC cannot offer you anything that you don't already enjoy.

THE First Schedule referred to the regulation Regulation applicable to Flats, things like not to put poster on windows, not to play loud music, not to let children under 14 use lift alone...etc

D_P_Dance

So MA is denying any variation of lease.

Of course they are, but. in order to appoint a PPC we think that it should have been.   

Half_way

One key word is "reasonable"  its often used by the management company/lease  in terms such as to introduce reasonable regulations.

My guess is that the MA has appointed the Parking company and signed the deal without checking they have the authority to do so, and to cancel the contract could put them in some difficulty with the PPC.

 Whatever the dealings with the MA and the PPC are of no concern to you.

So you need to demolish any pretence that allowing a PPC on a site is reasonable, for starter:

 PPCs are completely un regulated, neither the British Parking Association limited (BPA) or the International Parking community (IPC) are regulatory authorities, they are both private members trade associations  the main objectives of a trade association are to help their members.

 The so called Codes of practice (COP's) are drawn up by the parking scammers industry for the parking industry, and are changed / updated often usually to the benefit of the parking company's , for example the reduction of grace periods form 10 minutes to 5.

There is another issue at play as well, as principal the MA will be jointly and severally liable for the actions of its agents the parking company should also  carry out due diligence to make sure it has the rights to enfarce parking restrictions on a particular site.

 If they are operating on a site where they have no rights to do so - such as where a pre existing right to park exists then it can be reasonably argued that they are processing someone's personal details without just cause and/or the data is inaccurate.

 both of these are key parts of the General Data Protections Regulations (GDPR) If the Management company is jointly and severally liable for the actions of its agents then GDPR  non compliance could also fall to the management agents/company.

 

GDPR also introduces something called personal liability, this is where an individual can be held personally liable for a GDPR breach, so if the MA is run by Bob Smith, or Bob Smith is the responsible person within that organisation who has signed up the PPC, then Bob Smith -not the management company, could be personally liable.

As with all things a lot of coulds and possibles, but the door is open to explore these things, as this is an open forum it would also be good manners to point the management agents at this thread, as if the GDPR aspect can be pursued then it may affect them personally.

Fruitcake

If the MA now require you to do something (pay a scammer) that is not a requirement of your lease, then it can only be a unilateral change in the terms of your lease. 
As I said before, every resident should send an opt out notice to the MA and the scammers stating they do not agree to the unregulated parking scheme because it is not a requirement of your lease, and no change is permitted without a ballot in accordance with the L & T Act 1987.
As above, point out that the MA and/or individuals within the MA will be jointly liable for the actions of their agents.

If the person who sent you the above letter is named then you should warn them that they will be required to attend court should a claim be made against you, as will the person or persons who signed the parking contract with the scammers.

Coupon-mad

few leaseholders are not convinced we have a case because MA is ultimately just enforcing the term of our lease.

The MA can't vary the lease though, and an onerous change like this is massive, and would require agreement to variation.  And you will not agree!

This is a bunch of ex-clampers who are looking to charge you all £100 per 24 hours on their arbitrary terms, introducing a permit scheme that does not currently exist and imposing a charge that doesn't exist in your lease agreement.  That would DEFINITELY need a Deed of Variation and consensus from the leaseholders. The MA has zero power to do this.

Read this court report from @bargepole, one of many:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6242993/court-report-brentford-telephone-ukpc-roasted/p1

@lamilad also won a case on appeal a few months back, which is persuasive (UKPC v McCarthy) but we've not had the transcript.

cybervic

Thank you so much, more relevant case to read up. I should've come here earlier as I've spend whole day and only found pity amount of info.

Most cases mentioned are about tenants(leaseholders) who already have designated parking space specified in their lease. This isn't the case for us though, parking in front of garages is not allowed in our lease and there wasn't any mention of visitor parking space too. Can I still apply the same concept?