Appointment of NPC for Residential Car Park

zapoi

I just received a letter from the management company providing a parking permit for my parking space for which comes with my flat on a 999 year lease.

My instincts tell me to reply to the management company asking them to kindly tell NPC that they do not have my permission to step in my parking space and doing so will be treated as trespass, and any letters to registered keepers will be treated as harassment.  

Is there any milage in this? or do the directors of the company that holds the freehold have the right to do this?  There's noting in the lease documents on it other than an outline of the parking space along with the outline of the flat.

Thanks
Zapoi

Coupon-mad

zapoi said:

I just received a letter from the management company providing a parking permit for my parking space for which comes with my flat on a 999 year lease.

My instincts tell me to reply to the management company asking them to kindly tell NPC that they do not have my permission to step in my parking space and doing so will be treated as trespass, and any letters to registered keepers will be treated as harassment.  

Is there any milage in this? or do the directors of the company that holds the freehold have the right to do this?  There's noting in the lease documents on it other than an outline of the parking space along with the outline of the flat.

Thanks
Zapoi

They  don't have that right.

STOP THEM NOW!

Get together with the other leaseholders (go and knock on doors this weekend) and together send the Managing agents a suitable version of the letter shown here (an oldie but a goodie):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5997200/pcm-company-introduced/p1

Let us know how that goes down!

zapoi

The scheme isn't planned for a couple of months so I have some time.  As I don't live at the property I've drafted the following letter to the MA and the other owner occupiers which my tenant has kindly agreed to post to each flat.

Dear Owner / Occupier,

 

I hope you are well. I’m reaching out about a recent change that affects all of us in our building – the new parking management scheme by National Car Parks (NCP). 

 

You might have noticed the new parking permits and rules introduced by NCP. While managing our parking space is important, this new system could bring some practical challenges, especially when we have visitors or service providers like cleaners, plumbers, or painters coming to our flats.

 

Under this scheme, we are limited to using only the parking permits provided, which might not cover situations when you have a service provider needing to park while working in your flat. This could be inconvenient, not only for us but also for anyone we hire to help us in our homes.

 

I’ve drafted a formal letter to our managing agent explaining why we think this scheme might not be the best fit for our needs and suggesting we look for a better solution. This letter is enclosed for you to read.

 

If you share these concerns and are the owner and wish to join us in signing this letter, please let me know. It’s important that our voices are heard on this matter, and there’s more impact when we act together.  If you are a tenant then please raise your concerns with your landlord and forward this to them and request that they sign.

 

You can reach me at via WhatsApp on […] if you want to talk about this further or if you’re ready to add your name to the letter.

 

Thanks for considering this. It’s through working together that we can make sure our building remains a comfortable and convenient place for all of us.

 

Best regards,

 

 

----------

 

Re: (address of properties - FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST NCP PARKING SCHEME)

 

To Whom It May Concern,

 

We, the undersigned residents of the above-mentioned property, hereby express our strong objection to the proposed 'parking management' scheme implemented by National Car Parks (NCP). This letter serves as a formal rejection of the unsolicited parking permits and associated terms.

 

Background:

On Friday, 12th January 2024, we received correspondence from yourselves indicating the commencement of a parking enforcement regime by NCP. This action, which allocates only one parking permit per flat, appears to be a hastily made decision without proper consultation with the majority of residents.

 

Legal Position - Derogation from Grant and Breach of L&T Act 1987:

Your actions in imposing this parking scheme represent a derogation from grant and a breach of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. The clause in our lease (7(b)) explicitly states: "To keep use and occupy the parking space for the parking of one private motor vehicle only and for no other purpose". Imposing additional restrictions or charges through NCP is inconsistent with these terms and is, therefore, unlawful.

 

Critical Point on Leaseholder Consent:

It is imperative to highlight that as per Section 37 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, for any variation in the terms of our leases to be valid, it requires the approval of at least 75% of the leaseholders. Importantly, if even 10% of leaseholders object, such a variation cannot proceed. In our case, this means that if just 3 leaseholders out of the total of 21 in our block object, the variation is invalid. We want to make it unequivocally clear that we have more than the necessary 10% of leaseholder objection to prevent the implementation of this parking scheme.

 

We demand the immediate removal of NCP from our property and the retraction of their enforcement signs. Any contract signed with NCP must be reconsidered, as the residents should not bear any costs resulting from this misguided decision.

 

Failure to resolve this issue amicably may compel us to seek legal recourse, including an injunction against NCP's operations. We would hold you, as the Managing Agent, responsible for any legal costs incurred in this process.

 

We urge you to seek legal advice and refrain from allowing NCP, or any other parking management firm, to enforce any terms on us during this period. The current parking regime is rejected by the majority of residents and leaseholders.

 

We request an immediate cessation of the NCP parking scheme. Failure to address this issue within the next 7 days will leave us no option but to initiate legal proceedings and seek an injunction, with all associated costs to be borne by you, the freeholder, or NCP as necessary.

 

While we strongly object to the current parking scheme imposed by NCP, we do acknowledge the issue of unauthorized vehicles using our parking spaces. However, any solution to this problem should be reasonable, practical, and, most importantly, gain the support of the required number of leaseholders as stipulated by law.

 

In this regard, we propose exploring alternative solutions, such as upgrading the access control system for the parking area. Such a system could provide a more effective and less intrusive way to manage parking, ensuring that only authorized vehicles have access. This approach could potentially address the issue of unauthorized parking without imposing the restrictive and unwelcome terms of the current NCP scheme.

 

We urge the management to consider this alternative and engage in a constructive dialogue with the leaseholders to find a solution that is agreeable to the necessary majority. Imposing a scheme without such consensus, as currently attempted, is not only legally untenable but also disregards the collective voice of the residents.

 

We look forward to a swift and satisfactory resolution to this matter.

 

Yours sincerely,

zapoi

small edit:

We request an immediate cessation of the NCP parking scheme. Failure to address this issue within the next 7 days will leave us no option but to initiate legal proceedings and seek an injunction, with all associated costs to be borne by you, as the managing agents, or NCP as necessary. It is crucial to understand that as managing agents, you have a responsibility to act in the best interests of all leaseholders and residents, and this current scheme appears to be in contradiction to that duty.

Le_Kirk

I hate "reaching out" maybe better written as "contacting you" but that's just me and "reaching out" sounds like an Americanism!

Coupon-mad

You said in your first post that it was NPC.

Not NCP (the latter being unlikely as they don't tend to do residential estates).

I's start with something like: 

I am the leaseholder of flat xx and I am contacting all residents to alert you to a very unwelcome and aggressive suggested change that affects all of us in our building – the unsolicited NPC parking scheme that will be foisted upon residents unless we clearly voice our objections now.

If you are the tenant please pass this straight to the flat owner because the leaseholders need to object immediately. All the car-driving residents here will be the 'sitting duck'  targets of predatory £100 PCNs, as these firms always do when let loose on residential sites.  Parking firms only make money when they ticket cars.  They are not going to provide any useful service to anyone on the estate and we were not consulted.

etc.

This 'it might not be very nice/could be a bit inconvenient' wording is far too weak:

"While managing our parking space is important, this new system could bring some practical challenges, especially when we have visitors or service providers like cleaners, plumbers, or painters coming to our flats.

Under this scheme, we are limited to using only the parking permits provided, which might not cover situations when you have a service provider needing to park while working in your flat. This could be inconvenient, not only for us but also for anyone we hire to help us in our homes."

Make no mistake, this is an horrendous threat.  The truth is your tenant is to be placed at risk of being sued for hundreds of pounds and SO ARE YOU every time you stop by to check the place/make a repair:

ALL RESIDENTS AND ALL VISITORS WILL BE THE TARGETS.

Here's a typical regime:

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/parking-company-handing-out-fines-7861742.amp

You do not need any 'management ' of your parking spaces.  This scheme will drive tenants away and potentially even lower the value of the properties, once the estate is known to be blighted by some aggressive ex-wheelclamper.

Have another look at the thread I linked.  You've got to be far more robust.

KeithP

zapoi said:

Failure to address this issue within the next 7 days will leave us no option but to initiate legal proceedings and seek an injunction, with all associated costs to be borne by you, as the managing agents, or NCP as necessary.

That's an interesting point, which may not have the desired effect.

As Managing Agents, isn't their only income currently from residents (probably via leaseholders)?

So if they suddenly get hit with all those 'associated costs', don't they just shrug their shoulders and increase their service charge to cover the potential shortfall?

zapoi

Thanks Keith / C-M, , Indeed they can put up there fees, but as each leaseholder is also a shareholder of the company that owns the freehold would not have to reappoint the same agency next year if they did inflate their fees to pass on costs on that occurred do to their mismanagement.

NCP / NPC - Good spot - unfortunately I don't have the letter anymore as it's in the post to tenant so I'll use generic terms.

I've found the "Coupon-Mad Uber Robust" setting in chatGPT and rewritten the cover letter which I'll send out tomorrow.

Dear Leaseholder or Tenant,

Urgent Action Required: Opposition to Aggressive Parking Management Scheme

As the landlord and leaseholder of flat xx, I am compelled to alert you to a critical and alarming development impacting our building – the introduction of a draconian parking management scheme by an external company.

This is not a minor inconvenience; it's a direct assault on our rights and freedoms as residents and leaseholders. The scheme imposes harsh £100 Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) for any perceived infringement, a predatory practice that could lead to significant financial penalties and legal complications.

Attention Tenants: It is imperative that you immediately forward this letter to your landlord. The stakes are high, and every leaseholder must be informed and involved in our collective response.

Research the detrimental effects of similar schemes, such as the one at “Paxton Drive Bristol,” to grasp the severity of what we're facing.

Enclosed is a strongly-worded letter outlining our united stance against this overbearing parking scheme and our readiness to take legal action if necessary. We must act swiftly to counter this aggressive move.

Legally, such drastic changes to our leases require the approval of at least 75% of leaseholders. Crucially, if 10% of leaseholders object, the scheme cannot proceed. This means just 3 leaseholders opposing in our building can halt this scheme. We need your voice and support now.

We demand not only the immediate withdrawal of this oppressive scheme but also a constructive dialogue with the managing agent to develop a fair and reasonable parking solution that respects the needs of everyone in our community.

Your immediate action is crucial. Whether you're a leaseholder or a tenant passing this message to your landlord, if you share our concerns and are ready to stand with us, please contact me at . . .

Time is of the essence. Together, we have the power to reject this unwelcome scheme and uphold the integrity of our community.

Thank you for taking swift and decisive action on this urgent issue. Our united front is our strength.

Sincerely,

Coupon-mad

That screams Chat GPT and they'll laugh at it (sorry). The English is so artificially littered with silly long words. Really hope you have not sent that to anyone?

Being honest: I'd bin that if it came through my letterbox.  I don't know why anyone uses Chat GPT except for maths.  It is appalling at writing.

as each leaseholder is also a shareholder of the company that owns the freehold.

Kick the parking firm out then - give a month's notice. Tell the MA they'll be sacked from the estate and you'll find another MA or manage it yourselves, if they don't cancel the PCN, and dump the ex-clamper.

Here's one like yours:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6499026/pcc-claiming-to-be-able-to-charge-me-for-parking-in-space-granted-to-me-via-leasehold

Fruitcake

Point out in your letter to other residents that anyone coming on to the property will be at risk of getting a £100 parking charge.

Once the PPC has stopped people from parking who should not be there, the only way they can make money is to go after everyone else.

Residents, tradespeople, food/goods delivery companies, medics (community nurses, midwives, doctors, even ambulances in full livery on a blue-light shout are not exempt), taxi/rideshare companies, visitors.

This is how residential sites get blacklisted by delivery companies and service providers.

zapoi

Thanks for the link to the similar thread.  Lots of useful stuff there. I particularly liked the point on failing to get consent for the advertising,  I've made a complaint to the council on that one.

I received enough signatures from the other leaseholders and the MA have confirmed that the scheme has been put on hold until they have had a conversation with us about our concerns.

I've reiterated all the concerns including that of an elderly leaseholder who doesn't want his family or carers to be fined for responding to his distress call in a medical emergency.  Also that we are united against any implementation of ex-clampers and will not consent to inviting scammers onto our property.

Hopefully that will be the end of the matter!

Thanks for all your help so far.