Restrictive Covenants - parking on a local highway

Choccygirl123

Do you have legal cover on your house insurance? I strongly worded letter from a solicitor will clarify would hopefully get it resolved. 

NameUnavailable

The freeholder/maintenance co issue still sounds confused to me, unless you haven't understood and there is a RTM company?

In any case I would just reply in writing stating that the road is the public highway and as such there are no restrictions as to who can park there or what type of vehicle can be parked (within reason of course!).

User_220321

NeilCr said:

Bonniemarie said:

mrschaucer said:

Bonniemarie said:

We contacted the freeholder who agreed that the wording of the lease is obsolete now as it only refers to the land owned at that time. They could not do anything in regards to the charges for his letters/ admin as the charges are against us, not them. It is a very frustrating situation. 

The Managing Agents are instructed by the freeholder, they don't have magical rights to do whatever they want.  The freeholder has every right to call off his attack dogs if they are in the wrong and should do so.

 The freeholders said they had no power as this company are employed by the managing agent (who ironically is the person as who owns the maintenance company)... neighbours tell me that one of the directors of the managing agent employed themselves as the maintenance company. Very difficult when they are the same person! 

Sorry

Can you just clarify this please?

There is a freeholder who employs a managing agent who employ a maintenance company. And it is the maintenance company who are issuing the threats? That's all a bit unusual - in my experience anyway. It would be the managing agent who would be having correspondence about restrictive covenants. I would still think that the freeholder could instruct the managing agent that they want no further action to be taken on covenants. Whoever employs who the managing agent have to follow the freeholders instructions (unless they are illegal of course) 

Yes, sorry I will clarify. The management company employ this maintenance company as a managing agent to manage all aspects of the management company. These letters are written from the maintenance company (the managing agent) as ‘our client .....’ (referring to the management company). The management company has two directors, who are both residents - one of which is the director of managing agent/ maintenance company... who parks his van on said roads. It’s very complex. 

User_220321

NameUnavailable said:

The freeholder/maintenance co issue still sounds confused to me, unless you haven't understood and there is a RTM company?

In any case I would just reply in writing stating that the road is the public highway and as such there are no restrictions as to who can park there or what type of vehicle can be parked (within reason of course!).

Yes so they were elected by the residents  so technically the residents can remove them. This is much easier said than done. I can’t go into this on here but this is just not an option. It doesn’t help that he is also a resident. 

There has been a lot of written correspondence including us attaching a clear letter from the local highway authority stating that all lease wording and restrictive covenants have been reviewed by their legal team and these do not apply following adoption. None of this was taken on board and the response we got following these letters was that we will now be taken to court for an injunction to stop us parking there. I just can’t see it standing in court with such a letter from the highway authorities. 

HampshireH

Bonniemarie said:

NameUnavailable said:

The freeholder/maintenance co issue still sounds confused to me, unless you haven't understood and there is a RTM company?

In any case I would just reply in writing stating that the road is the public highway and as such there are no restrictions as to who can park there or what type of vehicle can be parked (within reason of course!).

Yes so they were elected by the residents  so technically the residents can remove them. This is much easier said than done. I can’t go into this on here but this is just not an option. It doesn’t help that he is also a resident. 

There has been a lot of written correspondence including us attaching a clear letter from the local highway authority stating that all lease wording and restrictive covenants have been reviewed by their legal team and these do not apply following adoption. None of this was taken on board and the response we got following these letters was that we will now be taken to court for an injunction to stop us parking there. I just can’t see it standing in court with such a letter from the highway authorities. 

Interesting they are prepared to spend your fellow neighbours funds on legal action plus your fees if you are successful.

Onder how your neighbours would feel about this use of their services charges which would no doubt increase as a result.

I would start gathering all your evidence and let them crack on.

Get a solicitors letter to them once again pointing out your point of view, highways letter and any other evidence of similar vehicles parking on the estate roads in question. Ensure it states you will defend any application in court and pursue your own apication for your costs and legal fee if successful,  as there is clear discrimination  towards certain residents if this alleged covenant isn't being applied to all fairly. This could be deemed harassment

Have you spoken to any of your neighbours? Do they know their service charges are being gambled with like this?

NeilCr

Bonniemarie said:

NameUnavailable said:

The freeholder/maintenance co issue still sounds confused to me, unless you haven't understood and there is a RTM company?

In any case I would just reply in writing stating that the road is the public highway and as such there are no restrictions as to who can park there or what type of vehicle can be parked (within reason of course!).

Yes so they were elected by the residents  so technically the residents can remove them. This is much easier said than done. I can’t go into this on here but this is just not an option. It doesn’t help that he is also a resident. 

There has been a lot of written correspondence including us attaching a clear letter from the local highway authority stating that all lease wording and restrictive covenants have been reviewed by their legal team and these do not apply following adoption. None of this was taken on board and the response we got following these letters was that we will now be taken to court for an injunction to stop us parking there. I just can’t see it standing in court with such a letter from the highway authorities. 

It's all a bit confusing to be honest

Do you have a RTM. And who is the freeholder - not the name but the entity. The builder?

User_220321

NeilCr said:

Bonniemarie said:

NameUnavailable said:

The freeholder/maintenance co issue still sounds confused to me, unless you haven't understood and there is a RTM company?

In any case I would just reply in writing stating that the road is the public highway and as such there are no restrictions as to who can park there or what type of vehicle can be parked (within reason of course!).

Yes so they were elected by the residents  so technically the residents can remove them. This is much easier said than done. I can’t go into this on here but this is just not an option. It doesn’t help that he is also a resident. 

There has been a lot of written correspondence including us attaching a clear letter from the local highway authority stating that all lease wording and restrictive covenants have been reviewed by their legal team and these do not apply following adoption. None of this was taken on board and the response we got following these letters was that we will now be taken to court for an injunction to stop us parking there. I just can’t see it standing in court with such a letter from the highway authorities. 

It's all a bit confusing to be honest

Do you have a RTM. And who is the freeholder - not the name but the entity. The builder?

Yes I know.

No, the builders sold the freehold to another company. I have tried this route and although they completely agree that we can park there, they claim there is nothing they can do in regards to these admin charges from the managing agent for writing letters to us about the van. 

sheramber

Do you have anything in writing from the freeholder confirming the restrictions no  longer apply?

User_220321

sheramber said:

Do you have anything in writing from the freeholder confirming the restrictions no  longer apply?

Yes, they read my letter which originally stated that and offered to co-sign my letter. 

NameUnavailable

If they want to get a court injunction let them. If what you say about the road is correct then they're going to look very silly.