Management agent appointing PPC to patrol in garage area

Half_way

it might be worth looking at court cases with ops if there are any

nosferatu1001

I would absolutely be informing them that you opot out, and they must not contact you as this will be a breach of your lease, for which you will hold the MA responsible
They will get no more warnings; any breach of DPA2018, because OPS lack any reasonable cause to acxcess your personal data, will be acitonable against the MA

D_P_Dance

Was  there not a case recently where they were spanked by a judge.  ISTR hat they were rather rude about CM.

Jenni_D

cybervic said:

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. 

But any new rule which infringes on other key elements of the lease (e.g. right to quiet enjoyment etc.) must be approved per the L&T Act - they cannot unilaterally make that decision. They cannot remove a right you currently enjoy under your lease.

Coupon-mad

Get a solicitor's letter, it will cost you a few quid each to contribute and for one of you to show your paperwork and emails to the solicitor for say, an hour's consultation.  Also show the solicitor the outcome of the case posted by @bargepole last week (I have no affiliation but just so you know, he runs the company D P Dance linked).

The very LAST thing to do now is to give up or just refuse to display permits.  You will all be sued and will get hundreds of PCNs.  An atrocious situation.

BrownTrout

D_P_Dance said:

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

I can recommend this firm to write a detailed letter for you.

Jenni_D

BrownTrout said:

D_P_Dance said:

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

I can recommend this firm to draw a detailed letter for you.

Mr B, Mr W and Miss L had all received penalty charge notices from a private parking company, for parking in the roadway servicing the apartments where they live. The total sums being claimed were over £3,500. After a hearing in Court where the three cases were joined together, David argued their case against a London barrister sent by the parking company. The Judge dismissed all three claims, and awarded the three defendants their costs.

Really @bargepole? You should get your website admin to update it. 😁

Ditzy_Mitzy

Just a thought: is the managing agent, the party employing the parking company, the freeholder?  I appreciate that sometimes the two entities are one and the same, but if they aren't the claim made in the rejection email would appear to be even weaker.  The email states that the lessor can make changes.  The freeholder is the lessor.  The management company, if it is not the freeholder, is not the lessor.  

The_Slithy_Tove

cybervic said:

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. 

Indeed it does. But the woeful signage posted earlier suggests that you can contract to park there for a fee of £100. Does the lease state that the penalty for breaching it is to enter a contract with another party to the tune of £100? Complete nonsense.

Jenni_D

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

Just a thought: is the managing agent, the party employing the parking company, the freeholder?  I appreciate that sometimes the two entities are one and the same, but if they aren't the claim made in the rejection email would appear to be even weaker.  The email states that the lessor can make changes.  The freeholder is the lessor.  The management company, if it is not the freeholder, is not the lessor.  

A long as the MA contract is properly constructed then the MA can inherit the lessor's (freeholder's) rights and obligations.