Management agent appointing PPC to patrol in garage area

cybervic

I've now draft this letter using others' as a template. Is this good enough? I am an engineer who's very good with numbers and formulae but not so good with words and grammar....

Re: ___our premises address___

REJECTING PRIVATE PARKING COMPANY AND PERMIT SCHEME

On 19/Feb/2020, One Parking Solution Ltd (OPS) put up signs in the premises of __XXXX__ and stating that anyone who enters the site would be entering a contract with OPS. 

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

Neither the residents, nor a majority of the leaseholders were consulted about contracting an external company to impose new parking rules and restrictions. Due to this significant oversight, you must cease and desist with the planned parking enforcement.

The legal position

Your actions in imposing an unwanted private nuisance and is a derogation from grant and breach of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.

a) Derogation from grant. 

The residents and leaseholders currently have the benefit of rights and an easement allowing their or their visitor’s cars to enter, use and be parked on the premises. This benefit cannot be removed, charged for, extinguished, adversely changed with onerous terms, nor reduced. 

The lease does not mention any parking scheme, permits, unregulated private parking enforcement companies, unsolicited contract, parking charges issued to residents. Therefore managing agent and/or freeholder cannot take unilateral steps to make change of the parking usage or impose (or allow an agent to impose) parking charges not covered within the leases without consensus of leaseholders.

The below cases support our position regarding new restriction on parking include:
(i)Kettel v Bloomfold [2012]EWHC 1422 (Ch) 

(ii) Saeed v Plustrade Limited [2001] EWCA CIV 201

The below two cases found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.

(iii) Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] 

(iv) Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016]

b) Violation of section 37, Landlord and Tenants Act 1987.

Currently the lease does not give Freeholders (and its management agent and any sub-contractor) any rights to:

• issue charges or invoice for any parking behaviour.
• force residents and leaseholders to accept OPS unlawful contact when entering the premises of Baltimore court
• request residents and leaseholders and their visitor to display parking permit
• collect and process vehicle data

According to Section 37 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, in order to establish a right to impose any unilateral changes such as above, you must first seek approval by at least 75% of the leaseholders with no more than 10% objecting.

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

We respectfully suggest you to seek legal advice and you must not allow your parking agents - or any parking firm - to impose any terms upon us in the meantime. 

Our lease has clearly defined what the residents/leaseholders can and can not do in terms of parking. Placing further restriction to the parking amenity and inflicting of a notoriously litigious firm upon the residents with no prior consultation does not, under any interpretation, constitute reasonable management for the good of the residents.

As such, we reject the service of OPS in our home estate and request their signs taken down immediately. If you have signed a contract with OPS before obtaining leaseholders approval as required by law, we will not be liable for any costs associated to your action. 

Should we be required to seek an injunction to stop OPS, we will require the costs of such action from the Managing Agent. Please be advised that MA and/or any individual who signs the contact with OPS will be jointly liable for the actions of their agents. We sincerely hope the matter can be resolved amicably without legal action or related costs.

We demand that OPS is removed, and the scheme is stopped before it is introduced. 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 as necessary, to prevent this private nuisance.

yours sincerely,

Coupon-mad

Looks OK apart from the date:

 19/Feb/2020,

If you are in Brighton, add in some links to Argus articles about this horrific local company and the Sunday Times from this past Sunday.

cybervic

I've now got the signatures from most residents and will be sending the letter off tomorrow.
I also got several residents to email MA individually but the replies are "It's freeholder's land, we the MA have right to employ OPS to enforce parking, this is not a variation of lease."

I am not sure if this rejection letter will go anywhere, they might came back with the same reply. How should I go about prepare for next step if they don't budge? 

cybervic

D_P_Dance said:

Read this

https://forums.landlordzone.co.uk/forum/residential-letting-questions/1053920-private-parking-companies

and complain to your MP.

So what happened in the end? Did you manage to keep PPC out?

Coupon-mad

He did I think.  

You may wish to band together and send the MA a solicitor's letter after a short fixed fee consultation.

nosferatu1001

Yep, amazing what a letterhead can do
You also formally
- opt out of any scheme
- instruct them to instruct their agents that you have opted out
- warn them that any interference with your lease will result in you taking all legal avenues available to you, including an injunction against the Freeholder, MA and their agents for potential breach of peaceable enjoyment, tortious interference with lease, breach of L&TA1975, breach of the DPA2018 and this could include personal liability on the p[art of the MA directors

D_P_Dance

So what happened in the end? Did you manage to keep PPC out?

Yes

D_P_Dance

I have used this firm on a couple of occasions to put the frighteners on people who think they can screw me

https://smallclaimsadvisor.co.uk/our-advocates

cybervic

nosferatu1001 said:

Yep, amazing what a letterhead can do
You also formally
- opt out of any scheme
- instruct them to instruct their agents that you have opted out
- warn them that any interference with your lease will result in you taking all legal avenues available to you, including an injunction against the Freeholder, MA and their agents for potential breach of peaceable enjoyment, tortious interference with lease, breach of L&TA1975, breach of the DPA2018 and this could include personal liability on the p[art of the MA directors

Many residents have written to MA to opt out the scheme quoting all you've said and plus GDPR. 

This morning we all get the same reply: 

"We note your opinion but do not agree with you in this instance.   The private parking industry is unregulated so it is not surprising that OPS are not working within regulations specific to private parking. They are well aware of current legislation relating to private parking and in our experience are a reputable company to provide the implemented services. This is open to review but to date we have no reason to discontinue their service provision at any sites where they operate with our authority on behalf of our clients.   

The comments regarding articles in local newspapers are here say and without supporting information appear to be an exaggeration of the truth.  The rules of management of the parking are clearly stated on the signs now in place on site. It’s logical and accepted that a charge notice applies where the rules are not complied with.  

We do not accept all your stated position but agree you have a right to peaceful enjoyment.

The lease states:

No vehicle belonging to the lessee or  persons visiting the lessee shall be parked anywhere in such a manner as to cause obstruction or nuisance or car parking spaces which promise part of the buildings shall not under any circumstances be used as an overnight parking place or as a substitute for a garage. 

It also states:

The right to make such other rules and regulations from time to time as the lessor may deem necessary for the management, care, or cleanliness of the building and for securing the safety comfort and convenience of all occupiers and visitors 

 We have issued you with a permit as per entitlement. How you choose to use it or otherwise is your entitlement.   We won’t be sending a SAE or arranging for collection.    

OPS will work within the terms of their contracted services and are responsible for complying with GDPR."

My blood was boiling when I saw the email. Now I feel a bit defeated. 

cybervic

I haven't send that Rejection letter off yet. I think I'm going to send it off as a complaint - to the head department -  rather than the person who's been dealing with us. 

We are also exploring Right-to-Manage now as a matter of urgency, but I guess that's a longer process.