Claim Form, 2 contract breaches, own parking space, no permit displayed, Link Parking

Castle

Notice it says "Tenant", not Leaseholder.

Coupon-mad

Are you a leasehold owner?

Elo88

I am yes. My plot is inclusive of this allocated parking space. Can use it for parking of domestic motor vehicles.

Tenant refers to myself in definitions of my lease.

Coupon-mad

You have primacy of contract and your lease rights to park cannot be varied, interfered with or charged for, without express agreement by you and at least 75% of the other leaseholders.  As an extra exhibit, you can use the judgment posted the other day by @bargepole

Elo88

Right, so if I understand this correctly:

Management Company hires Parking Company that enforces a contractual agreement on me, which only permits me to park in my allocated space when displaying a permit. This varies my right to park as given in my lease and as per primacy of contract this is not allowed.

Even if the below line is also in my lease, the above still applies:

The tenant must observe all regulations made by the Management Company from time to time relating to the parking of such vehicles.

I need to be 100% sure I make sense talking to the jugde, as the claiman't solicitor who wrote the WS seems sharp and their WS looks more like a book than a document

Coupon-mad

Yes, you have that correct.

Contractual signs can't trump leaseholder rights and your lease only allows certain service/ground rent charges, not rip off penalties for failing to jump through a third party's hoops!

Go find bargepole's post.  The last reply I gave you provided his profile and therefore his 'Discussions' by hyperlink. 

Fruitcake

"The tenant must observe all regulations made by the Management Company from time to time relating to the parking of such vehicles."

You are not a tenant, you are a leaseholder, therefore the above does not apply to you.

The original regulations in your lease don't mention an unregulated private parking company, paying them, or court. In addition, there will usually be a clause about your rights to quiet enjoyment.

New regulations must be reasonable in accordance with the Consumer Rights Act 2015, and only implemented if agreed following a ballot of all leaseholders and landlords in accordance with Part IV, Section 37, Application by majority of parties for variation of leases, of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.

Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (legislation.gov.uk)

Ask the MA when (not if) this ballot was carried out, and what was the result, because without said ballot, a variation of your lease is unlawful.

Note that the Landlord or tenants under the lease may apply for a variation of said lease, but there is no provision for a third party such as a managing agent or unregulated parking company.

The number of votes against must not exceed 10%, and the majority in favour must be at least 75%, otherwise the variation cannot succeed.


You should bring this up with other residents as well as your MP.

Jenni_D

Elo88 said:

I am yes. My plot is inclusive of this allocated parking space. Can use it for parking of domestic motor vehicles.

Tenant refers to myself in definitions of my lease.

@Fruitcake does the above change any of your advice?

Fruitcake

Jenni_D said:

Elo88 said:

I am yes. My plot is inclusive of this allocated parking space. Can use it for parking of domestic motor vehicles.

Tenant refers to myself in definitions of my lease.

@Fruitcake does the above change any of your advice?

I think it would enhance it, because a change to a lease allowing an unregulated third party to penalise a motorist for parking in their own demised space could be anything other than unreasonable, unfair, and a breach of the leaseholder's right to quiet enjoyment.

It would be an unfair contract clause and therefore breach the CRA 2015.

Jenni_D

Sorry - I was meaning this bit: Tenant refers to myself in definitions of my lease. Thus the line "The tenant must observe all regulations made by the Management Company from time to time relating to the parking of such vehicles." would apply to the OP rather than not (per your previous post)?

Perhaps the OP can share the Definitions section of the lease?