Private Car Park Resident Permit - Does it fall under Consumer Rights Act?

andyuk2005

Hi all, I hope you're all good!

I live on an estate, where there is a Housing Association which manages site services. We have a private contractor who enforces parking in the resident's car park. The contractor has been terrible in every aspect.

The managing company of the estate changed parking contractors recently, without telling residents. I had 2 permits which I paid for, paid direct to the 1st contractor, to allow me to park there. 

The permits were not allowed to be carried over to the new contractor, who I had to pay separately again. I asked the first contractor for a pro-rata refund for the unused part of the permits. 

They have just got back, refusing to do so. They said the money they receive for permits is sent directly to the management company/housing association, so they have no money to refund. They also said they were not aware their contract was not being renewed, so issued permits in good faith.

When applying and paying for the permits, no T&C's were agreed to. This was confirmed by the contractor. As such, I sent them an LBA, claiming under Consumer Rights Act 2015, Supply of a Service, that they did not fulfil their section of the contract, which is to enforce and allow me to park on the estate. 

My question is whether I have actually used the correct legislation and whether it appears valid?

I have been chasing the housing association, where the money apparently lies. They are 100 times worse than the parking contractors in every sense. They initially said they would not assist, then they said they'll give some people £25 vouchers who had outstanding permits. I'm trying to create as much pressure on all involved to get a satisfactory solution, which is basically a pro-rate refund paid in cash (not vouchers!) for all those on the estate.

Thanks for any comment you make!

eddddy

Are you a tenant, a leaseholder, a freeholder - or something else?

How did you come to have the right to park in the resident's car park? For example...

• Does your AST give you that right?
• Does your lease give you that right?
• Or have you signed some kind of contract with somebody to give you that right?

The AST or lease or contract should tell you the t&cs of parking there - like whether you need to pay for a permit.

It should also tell you who you are contracting with - i.e. Who it is you are paying money to for the right to park, and therefore, who you should make a claim against in respect of any breach of contract.

DullGreyGuy

andyuk2005 said:

They have just got back, refusing to do so. They said the money they receive for permits is sent directly to the management company/housing association, so they have no money to refund. They also said they were not aware their contract was not being renewed, so issued permits in good faith.

When applying and paying for the permits, no T&C's were agreed to. This was confirmed by the contractor. As such, I sent them an LBA, claiming under Consumer Rights Act 2015, Supply of a Service, that they did not fulfil their section of the contract, which is to enforce and allow me to park on the estate. 

My question is whether I have actually used the correct legislation and whether it appears valid?

Is this a leasehold property?
What does your underlying lease, deed or title say about your right to park a vehicle or more?
Was the permit for a fixed duration?

There is clearly a contract between the managing agent and the parking company. This will be a B2B contract to which you aren't party and wont be covered by the CRA.

It's not abundantly clear if there is a contract between you and the parking company or what the implied terms are if you weren't given explicit terms. It could be that simply providing you with the permit is the full extent of their obligations to you and it's implicit that if they lose the contract then the permit will cease to be valid. Certainly what is a red herring is the fact they've passed the money on to the Managing Agent... that's between them and the MA and whatever commercials they agreed amongst themselves and doesn't change your rights.

It's certainly an interesting one. When we had a flat with permit parking the permits were open ended/not for a defined period. As such in principle if the managing agent had switched provider then I'd have no right to a refund.

andyuk2005

Thanks for the reply!
Yes property I have is leasehold, although there'll be plenty of people on the estate which aren't and just residents. I don't have the lease to hand unfortunately.

Permit was for 1 year.

I was hoping that there would be an implied contract (or otherwise) between me and the parking company, as I paid my money direct to them.

I would have thought it would be implied that if I paid for a permit for 1 year, and then that company doesn't enforce/permit for 1 year, then I could get a refund.

eddddy

andyuk2005 said:

Thanks for the reply!
Yes property I have is leasehold, although there'll be plenty of people on the estate which aren't and just residents. I don't have the lease to hand unfortunately.

Permit was for 1 year.

I was hoping that there would be an implied contract (or otherwise) between me and the parking company, as I paid my money direct to them.

I would have thought it would be implied that if I paid for a permit for 1 year, and then that company doesn't enforce/permit for 1 year, then I could get a refund.

Your lease is the contract.

Presumably, the lease gives you the right to park in the car park - and it gives the freeholder or management company the right to insist you have a permit, and that you pay a fee for the permit. 

(The parking company could then be the freeholder's or management company's agent - who collects payment on their behalf.)



It depends on exactly what the lease says, but I suspect that the legislation you would want is the 'Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002'

The parking permit fee would probably be classed as "An Administration Charge" in that legislation, and that legislation also says that "An Administration Charge" must be reasonable.

So your argument might be that "charging you 2 parking permit fees isn't reasonable".  (But it really depends on the underlying facts.)


If you want to dispute "An Administration Charge" you would take your Freeholder / Management company to a First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) - and pay £100 fee.

If you win the case, the tribunal would order the Freeholder / Management company to refund the unreasonable amount - and usually the £100 tribunal fee as well.



Here's some more info:
https://www.lease-advice.org/lease-glossary/administration-charge/
https://www.lease-advice.org/faq/what-can-i-do-if-i-disagree-with-an-administration-charge/
https://www.lease-advice.org/advice-guide/service-charges-other-issues/



(But the situation could be completely different - if, for example, it's not the lease but some other contract that gives you the right to use the car park.)

Jenni_D

If your lease/AST already confers on you a right to park (perhaps even identifying a designated spot) without mention of parking enforcement, then the managing agent can't just introduce parking enforcement without first gaining agreement from a significant majority of tenants/residents/leaseholders. (Landlord & Tenants Act). They have no authority to unilaterally amend anyone's lease/deeds/AST.

If you locate your agreement, you might be served well to create a new thread in the Parking board. The guys there know all there is to know about the private parking arena.

andyuk2005

I've dug out the lease and can confirm there is nothing there indicating any right, or rules to parking in the car park. Closest thing I could find was that tenants cannot park commercial vehicles in the car park or other areas, but that's all there is!
I'll have to enquire with the housing association what gives them the right to impose restrictions and go from there.

Thanks for the help so far!

eddddy

Jenni_D said:

If your lease/AST already confers on you a right to park (perhaps even identifying a designated spot) without mention of parking enforcement, then the managing agent can't just introduce parking enforcement without first gaining agreement from a significant majority of tenants/residents/leaseholders. (Landlord & Tenants Act). They have no authority to unilaterally amend anyone's lease/deeds/AST.

The OP isn't really complaining about parking enforcement - or having their right to park interfered with.

It sounds like the OP is complaining about the costs of administration of the parking permit scheme. 

Presumably, the freeholder / management company wants leaseholders to display permits in their cars for administrative reasons. i.e.  So that they can more easily identify cars parked by non-residents and take action against the non-residents.

(Conceptually, it's similar to the idea of giving leaseholders a keycard to access the bin store. The intention is to stop non-residents using the bin store.)


The question is whether it's 'reasonable' to charge the individual leaseholders for the permit? (In the same way... Would it be reasonable to charge individual leaseholders for a keycard to access the bin store?)

And addressing the OP's specific question... is it 'reasonable' to charge individual leaseholders twice in one year for a permit?


The OP suggests that their lease doesn't specifically mention a requirement to issue parking permits to individual leaseholders. Therefore, I'm not sure that the freeholder / management company should be charging an admin fee to individual leaseholders.

Instead, if it's 'reasonable' to have a parking permit scheme, perhaps they should be taking the total cost of the permit scheme from Service Charge funds, so that all the leaseholders pay for it through their service charge.

Jenni_D

My response was still relevant ... if there's no authority for the managing agent to introduce parking enforcement, then there's no authority to require residents/tenants etc. to procure permits - at all, nevermind whenever the MA decides to change the parking company. That's why it is important to understand what your deeds/lease says.

@andyuk2005 you could also try posting on the Housing board - they'll likely be able to help you understand what your lease actually means.  

eddddy

I guess it depends on what precisely the OP is complaining about...

1. That the freeholder doesn't have the right to introduce a parking permit system
2. That the freeholder charges individual leaseholders for their parking permit
3. That the fee for the parking permit is unreasonably high
4. That charging 2 fees in a year has resulted in an unreasonably high fee

(I guess the OP could be pleased about point 1 above - because it helps to solve a parking problem. And is only complaining about point 4.)

Any or all of the above 4 points could be challenged in a single application to the first-tier tribunal - relating to unreasonable Administration Charges and/or unreasonable Service Charges.


To be pedantic, the OP would challenge point 1 when they receive a bill for a parking permit, or a bill for parking without a parking permit. The OP's argument would be that their lease doesn't require them to pay for a parking permit or to pay for parking.

The tribunal would decide whether it's 'reasonable' for the Freeholder to institute a parking permit scheme - based on the wording of the lease, plus any other evidence that the OP or the Freeholder submit.

Jenni_D

eddddy said:

(I guess the OP could be pleased about point 1 above - because it helps to solve a parking problem. 

Off topic, somewhat ... private parking companies rarely solve parking problems, at least long term. If there is a problem, and it is solved in a few weeks (usually), who do you think the parking company is going to target to maintain their revenue? (Many such schemes are introduced at no or little cost to the "land owner", so the parking company gets their revenue by issuing parking charge notices).