PCN for parking on own property, from parking company contracted by building management company.

1505grandad

What is the full name of the claimant stated on the claim form?

Coupon-mad

The allegation in the POC doesn't match any term on that sign does it?

Fruitcake

If the OP is a leaseholder/part leaseholder, then the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, Part IV, Section 37 is applicable. This requires an application by a majority of parties be made before an amendment of a lease can take place, and has strict requirements about a majority approval of all landlords and tenants affected before approval can be given.

Ask whoever employed the unregulated private parking when such an application was made, and what was the result. If no such application has ever been approved, then the lease as originally written must stand.

Landlord and Tenant Act 1987

FUDbyDesign

Coupon-mad said:

The allegation in the POC doesn't match any term on that sign does it?

You're right, the POC looks like a generic template.  As you say, the wording doesn't match up with the posted signage.  Is there a requirement that the POC be worded to be 100% specific and accurate?  If so, big fail.

Coupon-mad

Yes it arguably scuppers the claim.

You can't be pursued in court for a term that doesn't exist, therefore cannot have been breached!

FUDbyDesign

Fruitcake said:

If the OP is a leaseholder/part leaseholder, then the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, Part IV, Section 37 is applicable. This requires an application by a majority of parties be made before an amendment of a lease can take place, and has strict requirements about a majority approval of all landlords and tenants affected before approval can be given.

Ask whoever employed the unregulated private parking when such an application was made, and what was the result. If no such application has ever been approved, then the lease as originally written must stand.

Landlord and Tenant Act 1987

I'm a leaseholder with a share of the freehold.  The decision was apparently made at an AGM attended by 20% of the leaseholders, and no others were consulted.  What I'd originally thought was the appointment of a PPC would require an amedment to the leasehold which, as you say, requires the approval of a qualified majority.  However, an advisor at the Leasholder Advisory Service (I think it was them I spoke to) told me that's not the case and that the management company have exercised their delegated authority to appoint a third party as they see fit in order to maintain the upkeep of the property and grounds, just like with cleaners, gardeners, etc.  The key difference in my view is that the PPC is hidering my right to enjoy the use of my property.  

We want to ditch the management company actually, but that's a whole other discussion.

h2g2

It's very different to cleaners & gardeners.

The management company (probably) has a duty on it to keep the common areas clean.

Your parking space is (probably) not part of the common areas, so any duty or rights the management company has regarding the common areas is not applicable to the parking spaces.

Even if the parking space is defined to be part of the common area:

The parking signs say "Max 4 hour stay" and "No return within 24 hours". Would the management company have the power to apply similar rules to a corridor? Could they tell you that, once you've used a corridor, you can't use it again for 24 hours? I would make it easier to keep the corridors clean!

PDJAM

FUDbyDesign said:

I'm a leaseholder with a share of the freehold.  The decision was apparently made at an AGM attended by 20% of the leaseholders, and no others were consulted.  What I'd originally thought was the appointment of a PPC would require an amedment to the leasehold which, as you say, requires the approval of a qualified majority.  However, an advisor at the Leasholder Advisory Service (I think it was them I spoke to) told me that's not the case and that the management company have exercised their delegated authority to appoint a third party as they see fit in order to maintain the upkeep of the property and grounds, just like with cleaners, gardeners, etc.  The key difference in my view is that the PPC is hidering my right to enjoy the use of my property.  

We want to ditch the management company actually, but that's a whole other discussion.

I am also a leaseholder with a share of the freehold and this was the advice I received from the LAS:

The starting point in respect of the parking charges is your lease. If your lease specifies that you have the right to park or allocates a parking space, then they cannot employ a parking control company and charge you for parking there, unless there is clause in the lease which allows this.

Further, if your lease provides you with an unfettered right to park, then this cannot be altered later, for instance by requiring a permit to park.

In the case of Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] it was held that the parking company could not override the tenant’s right to park by requiring a permit to park.

In Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016] it was held that the parking company could not override the tenant’s right to park by requiring a permit to park. If Link or CPML (the management company) want to have any right to manage the parking on the Landowner's property, the deeds would have to be altered to state this for the whole site.

I would advise asking your landlord to provide the clause in your lease that states that they can introduce a parking control company which can charge you for parking. I would also advise that you tell your landlord that your lease has primacy over any parking management contracts.

If they continue to insist that administration charges are payable, then as you have advised that you are going through the protocol, if the matter is not resolved and they take you to court, you could ask the judge to transfer the case to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (FTT), so that they can determine whether the charge is payable.

KoalaMSEF

MA often wants to shift the responsibility to the PPC. Don't let them. This is between leaseholder and MA per the lease. PPC is an unrelated third party, which has no place in the lease. 

MA tends to point out a sweep clause and insist that they have the right to appoint a PPC, which they don't. 

The landlord/freeholder needs to be involved to get this sorted. 

Coupon-mad

PDJAM said:

FUDbyDesign said:

I'm a leaseholder with a share of the freehold.  The decision was apparently made at an AGM attended by 20% of the leaseholders, and no others were consulted.  What I'd originally thought was the appointment of a PPC would require an amedment to the leasehold which, as you say, requires the approval of a qualified majority.  However, an advisor at the Leasholder Advisory Service (I think it was them I spoke to) told me that's not the case and that the management company have exercised their delegated authority to appoint a third party as they see fit in order to maintain the upkeep of the property and grounds, just like with cleaners, gardeners, etc.  The key difference in my view is that the PPC is hidering my right to enjoy the use of my property.  

We want to ditch the management company actually, but that's a whole other discussion.

I am also a leaseholder with a share of the freehold and this was the advice I received from the LAS:

The starting point in respect of the parking charges is your lease. If your lease specifies that you have the right to park or allocates a parking space, then they cannot employ a parking control company and charge you for parking there, unless there is clause in the lease which allows this.

Further, if your lease provides you with an unfettered right to park, then this cannot be altered later, for instance by requiring a permit to park.

In the case of Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] it was held that the parking company could not override the tenant’s right to park by requiring a permit to park.

In Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016] it was held that the parking company could not override the tenant’s right to park by requiring a permit to park. If Link or CPML (the management company) want to have any right to manage the parking on the Landowner's property, the deeds would have to be altered to state this for the whole site.

I would advise asking your landlord to provide the clause in your lease that states that they can introduce a parking control company which can charge you for parking. I would also advise that you tell your landlord that your lease has primacy over any parking management contracts.

If they continue to insist that administration charges are payable, then as you have advised that you are going through the protocol, if the matter is not resolved and they take you to court, you could ask the judge to transfer the case to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (FTT), so that they can determine whether the charge is payable.

Wow that was a great response from the LAS!

I think the OP should ask why their adviser told them what we say is a pile of steaming codswallop.