Restrictive Covenants - parking on a local highway

Marvel1

Also I would a tale a video of their van being parked as its ok for then as back up evidence.  I would do it with a newspaper in hand for date purposes, more than 1 day worth of proof.

Ditzy_Mitzy

All this talk of 'injunctions' rather sounds as if the letter writer has watched too many American legal dramas.  Injunctions are not freely given out and do not exist to prevent the feelings of aggressive company director types being hurt.  There has to be risk of damage or loss, for one.  Parking a van on a public road does not constitute damage or loss.  I live on a public road.  Plenty of residents have vans.  We've even had 7.5 tonne lorries parking on it.  Such things are to be expected.  
If I were you, I'd speak to a solicitor about writing a stern letter telling the maintenance man to stop being a nuisance.  I would also pay all service charges normally due under the lease, excluding anything related to the letters about parking.  
He might try and claim some breach of contract, but I would argue that such a claim is vexatious.  He may well be able to charge for his time dealing with breaches of the lease, however no breach has occurred here.  He knows that, meaning subsequent action is unwarranted and is being taken simply to increase costs or harass you.  

User_220321

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

All this talk of 'injunctions' rather sounds as if the letter writer has watched too many American legal dramas.  Injunctions are not freely given out and do not exist to prevent the feelings of aggressive company director types being hurt.  There has to be risk of damage or loss, for one.  Parking a van on a public road does not constitute damage or loss.  I live on a public road.  Plenty of residents have vans.  We've even had 7.5 tonne lorries parking on it.  Such things are to be expected.  
If I were you, I'd speak to a solicitor about writing a stern letter telling the maintenance man to stop being a nuisance.  I would also pay all service charges normally due under the lease, excluding anything related to the letters about parking.  
He might try and claim some breach of contract, but I would argue that such a claim is vexatious.  He may well be able to charge for his time dealing with breaches of the lease, however no breach has occurred here.  He knows that, meaning subsequent action is unwarranted and is being taken simply to increase costs or harass you.  

Thank you for such a clear response. This has been going on for over three months now and they just won’t listen to anyone as they truly believe that they are pursuing something which they have the right to pursue. They simply do not think that a road being adopted means that the lease wording in regards to the vehicles that can park of them is then obsolete. It’s all very odd and I can’t believe it’s got to the point of confirming they will be taking out an injunction against us. I don’t know of it is just to scare us into paying the charge in fear of what could happen etc... which will not work. I just find it hard to believe that even when told they are wrong by the local highway agencies that they still make these charges - where does this confidence in their actions come from?! 

NeilCr

User_220321 said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

All this talk of 'injunctions' rather sounds as if the letter writer has watched too many American legal dramas.  Injunctions are not freely given out and do not exist to prevent the feelings of aggressive company director types being hurt.  There has to be risk of damage or loss, for one.  Parking a van on a public road does not constitute damage or loss.  I live on a public road.  Plenty of residents have vans.  We've even had 7.5 tonne lorries parking on it.  Such things are to be expected.  
If I were you, I'd speak to a solicitor about writing a stern letter telling the maintenance man to stop being a nuisance.  I would also pay all service charges normally due under the lease, excluding anything related to the letters about parking.  
He might try and claim some breach of contract, but I would argue that such a claim is vexatious.  He may well be able to charge for his time dealing with breaches of the lease, however no breach has occurred here.  He knows that, meaning subsequent action is unwarranted and is being taken simply to increase costs or harass you.  

Thank you for such a clear response. This has been going on for over three months now and they just won’t listen to anyone as they truly believe that they are pursuing something which they have the right to pursue. They simply do not think that a road being adopted means that the lease wording in regards to the vehicles that can park of them is then obsolete. It’s all very odd and I can’t believe it’s got to the point of confirming they will be taking out an injunction against us. I don’t know of it is just to scare us into paying the charge in fear of what could happen etc... which will not work. I just find it hard to believe that even when told they are wrong by the local highway agencies that they still make these charges - where does this confidence in their actions come from?! 

What's the actual wording of the covenant?

I think (not going to dig it out!) that ours says something like you cannot park a commercial vehicle on any part of the estate. I guess, if it's along those lines , they might think they are right even though the roads are adopted. 

I agree with the others that they aren't. Although your set up is quite unusual and I am not sure I still fully get it. Nevertheless, certainly sounds like you are on solid ground (confirmation from council and freeholder). Personally, I think the freeholder should step in 

Otherwise, if you are, completely, confident then I'd say bring it on. A solicitor's letter will cost you money and sounds like they'd probably ignore it, anyway! 

Ditzy_Mitzy

User_220321 said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

All this talk of 'injunctions' rather sounds as if the letter writer has watched too many American legal dramas.  Injunctions are not freely given out and do not exist to prevent the feelings of aggressive company director types being hurt.  There has to be risk of damage or loss, for one.  Parking a van on a public road does not constitute damage or loss.  I live on a public road.  Plenty of residents have vans.  We've even had 7.5 tonne lorries parking on it.  Such things are to be expected.  
If I were you, I'd speak to a solicitor about writing a stern letter telling the maintenance man to stop being a nuisance.  I would also pay all service charges normally due under the lease, excluding anything related to the letters about parking.  
He might try and claim some breach of contract, but I would argue that such a claim is vexatious.  He may well be able to charge for his time dealing with breaches of the lease, however no breach has occurred here.  He knows that, meaning subsequent action is unwarranted and is being taken simply to increase costs or harass you.  

Thank you for such a clear response. This has been going on for over three months now and they just won’t listen to anyone as they truly believe that they are pursuing something which they have the right to pursue. They simply do not think that a road being adopted means that the lease wording in regards to the vehicles that can park of them is then obsolete. It’s all very odd and I can’t believe it’s got to the point of confirming they will be taking out an injunction against us. I don’t know of it is just to scare us into paying the charge in fear of what could happen etc... which will not work. I just find it hard to believe that even when told they are wrong by the local highway agencies that they still make these charges - where does this confidence in their actions come from?! 

Misplaced confidence can come from various origins: self-righteousness, misconception, hubris.  Some people can't admit they are wrong for fear of losing face.  Others are too dense to realise they are incorrect.  Unfortunately, what with lax regulations in this country, there are a lot of people in positions of responsibility who lack the intellect and humility to discharge their duties with the requisite competence.  
The trouble, perhaps, is that the man doing the pursuing still possesses an obsolete copy of the lease, which includes the roads within its demise and allows for the enforcement of parking regulations.  The adoption process passes the 'highway and scrapings' (funny what you find out) to the Highways Authority.  Highway rights, those which permit you to park the van, are granted at the same time.  Logically speaking, at least for the sake of tidiness, the lease should probably have been amended at the same time.  The road, now a highway, should no longer be demised within it.  Have you raised that point with the freeholder?  A varied lease might be sufficient to convince the maintenance man that he's wrong.  

User_220321

NeilCr said:

User_220321 said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

All this talk of 'injunctions' rather sounds as if the letter writer has watched too many American legal dramas.  Injunctions are not freely given out and do not exist to prevent the feelings of aggressive company director types being hurt.  There has to be risk of damage or loss, for one.  Parking a van on a public road does not constitute damage or loss.  I live on a public road.  Plenty of residents have vans.  We've even had 7.5 tonne lorries parking on it.  Such things are to be expected.  
If I were you, I'd speak to a solicitor about writing a stern letter telling the maintenance man to stop being a nuisance.  I would also pay all service charges normally due under the lease, excluding anything related to the letters about parking.  
He might try and claim some breach of contract, but I would argue that such a claim is vexatious.  He may well be able to charge for his time dealing with breaches of the lease, however no breach has occurred here.  He knows that, meaning subsequent action is unwarranted and is being taken simply to increase costs or harass you.  

Thank you for such a clear response. This has been going on for over three months now and they just won’t listen to anyone as they truly believe that they are pursuing something which they have the right to pursue. They simply do not think that a road being adopted means that the lease wording in regards to the vehicles that can park of them is then obsolete. It’s all very odd and I can’t believe it’s got to the point of confirming they will be taking out an injunction against us. I don’t know of it is just to scare us into paying the charge in fear of what could happen etc... which will not work. I just find it hard to believe that even when told they are wrong by the local highway agencies that they still make these charges - where does this confidence in their actions come from?! 

What's the actual wording of the covenant?

I think (not going to dig it out!) that ours says something like you cannot park a commercial vehicle on any part of the estate. I guess, if it's along those lines , they might think they are right even though the roads are adopted. 

I agree with the others that they aren't. Although your set up is quite unusual and I am not sure I still fully get it. Nevertheless, certainly sounds like you are on solid ground (confirmation from council and freeholder). Personally, I think the freeholder should step in 

Otherwise, if you are, completely, confident then I'd say bring it on. A solicitor's letter will cost you money and sounds like they'd probably ignore it, anyway! 

The exact wording says:
“Not to park any commercial vehicle exceeding 1000kg GVW on the property or any part of the estate (including any unadopted estate roads)” 

All the wording of the lease has been reviewed by the local highway authorities too. 

TBagpuss

User_220321 said:

The exact wording says:
“Not to park any commercial vehicle exceeding 1000kg GVW on the property or any part of the estate (including any unadopted estate roads)” 

All the wording of the lease has been reviewed by the local highway authorities too. 

That's very clear. You can't park on any part of the (private) estate including on any unadopted roads. I'd say that that was drafted explicitly taking into account that the some roads would be adopted an that the covenant wouldn't, and couldn't apply to those roads.

I would make a formal, written complaint that you are being charged for letters which are misguided and should never have been sent, and seeking urgent confirmation that those charges will be removed, and state that you will consider any further attempt to curtail or to otherwise interfere with your lawful use of the public road will be considered to be harassment and logged as such. 

Keep copies of anything you or they send, have photographs of any other vehicles (especially his) parked on the public roads and sit back and wait for him to take the next step. 

NeilCr

User_220321 said:

NeilCr said:

User_220321 said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

All this talk of 'injunctions' rather sounds as if the letter writer has watched too many American legal dramas.  Injunctions are not freely given out and do not exist to prevent the feelings of aggressive company director types being hurt.  There has to be risk of damage or loss, for one.  Parking a van on a public road does not constitute damage or loss.  I live on a public road.  Plenty of residents have vans.  We've even had 7.5 tonne lorries parking on it.  Such things are to be expected.  
If I were you, I'd speak to a solicitor about writing a stern letter telling the maintenance man to stop being a nuisance.  I would also pay all service charges normally due under the lease, excluding anything related to the letters about parking.  
He might try and claim some breach of contract, but I would argue that such a claim is vexatious.  He may well be able to charge for his time dealing with breaches of the lease, however no breach has occurred here.  He knows that, meaning subsequent action is unwarranted and is being taken simply to increase costs or harass you.  

Thank you for such a clear response. This has been going on for over three months now and they just won’t listen to anyone as they truly believe that they are pursuing something which they have the right to pursue. They simply do not think that a road being adopted means that the lease wording in regards to the vehicles that can park of them is then obsolete. It’s all very odd and I can’t believe it’s got to the point of confirming they will be taking out an injunction against us. I don’t know of it is just to scare us into paying the charge in fear of what could happen etc... which will not work. I just find it hard to believe that even when told they are wrong by the local highway agencies that they still make these charges - where does this confidence in their actions come from?! 

What's the actual wording of the covenant?

I think (not going to dig it out!) that ours says something like you cannot park a commercial vehicle on any part of the estate. I guess, if it's along those lines , they might think they are right even though the roads are adopted. 

I agree with the others that they aren't. Although your set up is quite unusual and I am not sure I still fully get it. Nevertheless, certainly sounds like you are on solid ground (confirmation from council and freeholder). Personally, I think the freeholder should step in 

Otherwise, if you are, completely, confident then I'd say bring it on. A solicitor's letter will cost you money and sounds like they'd probably ignore it, anyway! 

The exact wording says:
“Not to park any commercial vehicle exceeding 1000kg GVW on the property or any part of the estate (including any unadopted estate roads)” 

All the wording of the lease has been reviewed by the local highway authorities too. 

Thanks
As TBagpuss says that's very clear

No idea what they are basing this on at all. Have you asked them out of interest?

Ditzy_Mitzy

User_220321 said:

NeilCr said:

User_220321 said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

All this talk of 'injunctions' rather sounds as if the letter writer has watched too many American legal dramas.  Injunctions are not freely given out and do not exist to prevent the feelings of aggressive company director types being hurt.  There has to be risk of damage or loss, for one.  Parking a van on a public road does not constitute damage or loss.  I live on a public road.  Plenty of residents have vans.  We've even had 7.5 tonne lorries parking on it.  Such things are to be expected.  
If I were you, I'd speak to a solicitor about writing a stern letter telling the maintenance man to stop being a nuisance.  I would also pay all service charges normally due under the lease, excluding anything related to the letters about parking.  
He might try and claim some breach of contract, but I would argue that such a claim is vexatious.  He may well be able to charge for his time dealing with breaches of the lease, however no breach has occurred here.  He knows that, meaning subsequent action is unwarranted and is being taken simply to increase costs or harass you.  

Thank you for such a clear response. This has been going on for over three months now and they just won’t listen to anyone as they truly believe that they are pursuing something which they have the right to pursue. They simply do not think that a road being adopted means that the lease wording in regards to the vehicles that can park of them is then obsolete. It’s all very odd and I can’t believe it’s got to the point of confirming they will be taking out an injunction against us. I don’t know of it is just to scare us into paying the charge in fear of what could happen etc... which will not work. I just find it hard to believe that even when told they are wrong by the local highway agencies that they still make these charges - where does this confidence in their actions come from?! 

What's the actual wording of the covenant?

I think (not going to dig it out!) that ours says something like you cannot park a commercial vehicle on any part of the estate. I guess, if it's along those lines , they might think they are right even though the roads are adopted. 

I agree with the others that they aren't. Although your set up is quite unusual and I am not sure I still fully get it. Nevertheless, certainly sounds like you are on solid ground (confirmation from council and freeholder). Personally, I think the freeholder should step in 

Otherwise, if you are, completely, confident then I'd say bring it on. A solicitor's letter will cost you money and sounds like they'd probably ignore it, anyway! 

The exact wording says:
“Not to park any commercial vehicle exceeding 1000kg GVW on the property or any part of the estate (including any unadopted estate roads)” 

All the wording of the lease has been reviewed by the local highway authorities too. 

Which is all well and good, however the maintenance man needs to get it into his head that the adopted roads are highways and are not part of the estate.  

mrschaucer

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

 the adopted roads are highways and are not part of the estate.  

Excellently put!  OP, copy this out in capitals next time you have to write to the clowns.