Confusion over right to park in 'communal/visitor' bays within a boundary line

maman

From the Google photo posted, it seemed that maybe the allocated parking spaces were covered in a barn type building. Is this true of all the spaces? 🤔

I'd agree that a whole week is probably not reasonable. I'd say the visitor spaces were for occasional visitors and trades doing some work or delivery drivers. 

lilahloo

I'm going to be patient and wait for the next set of documents to come from LR.  Nothing will be achieved by replying to his letter - it wasn't from a solicitor.

Thank you everyone for taking time to give your advice - it has helped to 'speak' to people who aren't involved and have no bias.It also saved me some money because I didn't buy the LR docs from the wrong websites!!!

silvercar

Maybe worth searching the councils planning permission portal, that may hold the plans for the whole development.

Also, it’s not totally unheard of for Land Registry to allow the registration of something that is already registered to another plot. If this is the case they will assist in resolving the matter.

Jellynailer

Schwarzwald said:

 i would argue that parking there for a week throughout without moving your vehicle is not a reasonable period for communal parking spaces thar are to be used on first come first served.
But ultimately that is down to legal interpretation, but just "socially" ... i dont think that is the intended use case.

I agree.  I would think that parking for a visitor who does not stay overnight and for maintenance workers is reasonable.  I suggest that, when you do speak to No 69 (as per ThisIsWeird advice), you say that having checked the deeds you now understand this  That will,, hopefully make him feel happier about your legal right to park.  You could also ask for his help to inform the other neighbours that the spaces are not for parking a second car overnight as reasonable must also mean parking for emergencies at any time whether for emergency services or something like a water leak.

When you get the deeds do post a copy of the plan and also any clauses in the schedules that refer to nuisance.

ThisIsWeird

Jellynailer said:

I agree.  I would think that parking for a visitor who does not stay overnight and for maintenance workers is reasonable.  I suggest that, when you do speak to No 69 (as per ThisIsWeird advice), you say that having checked the deeds you now understand this  That will,, hopefully make him feel happier about your legal right to park.  You could also ask for his help to inform the other neighbours that the spaces are not for parking a second car overnight as reasonable must also mean parking for emergencies at any time whether for emergency services or something like a water leak.

I have to say, I largely disagree with what you and Silvercar reckon is the intended use of these spaces. 

These are certainly not assigned 'visitor' parking bays, nor are they intended for service or emergency vehicles. Nor are there any restrictions on overnight parking. None of that.

They appear to me to simply be 'spare' parking spaces, available to all those with that right shown in their deeds, to be used as and when required - if one happens to be available - but without taking the mick and over-staying should you be lucky enough to find one free.  

The OP's deeds seem clear; "The right when same shall be available to use on a first come first served basis to park a private motor vehicle or light commercial van for reasonable periods only in any of the communal parking areas shown coloured purple on the Plan..."

In essence, these are for the residents (those with that term in their deeds) to use as occasional, additional parking spaces, as long as they don't take the mick. 

For Lilahloo to have allowed his visitor to park there solidly for a week would have been wrong - the unbroken duration would likely have been considered 'unreasonable' for starters. But for Lilahloo to have given their own space to their visitor, and then Lilahloo use this entitled spare space, presumably on-and-off over that week - ie using the car for work and shopping and social purposes throughout that week, running the fair chance of being second-come-tough-lucked each time they vacate, is likely 'reasonable'. Lilahloo used that space, as entitled, when it was available each time.

It would have been churlish of any other resident to complain about this. Oh, one did - one who thinks they 'own' it outright.

I would not, therefore, give any quarter to this neighbour should you chance across them, until the facts are established; simply explain, with a smile, that you are 'looking into it, and will report back'.

RHemmings

silvercar said:

Maybe worth searching the councils planning permission portal, that may hold the plans for the whole development.

Also, it’s not totally unheard of for Land Registry to allow the registration of something that is already registered to another plot. If this is the case they will assist in resolving the matter.

I searched and I found nothing. A nearby school is being turned into residential property (or at least there is planning to), but I found nothing for the properties in question. 

Jellynailer

ThisIsWeird said:

Jellynailer said:

I agree.  I would think that parking for a visitor who does not stay overnight and for maintenance workers is reasonable.

'Lilahloo use this entitled spare space, presumably on-and-off over that week - ie using the car for work and shopping and social purposes throughout that week, running the fair chance of being second-come-tough-lucked each time they vacate, is likely 'reasonable'.

Oh dear, I reaise I made an assumption (which I try to avoid) but so has ThisIsWeird.  Please can lilahloo enlighten us and also give the ful date of their 1980 transfer deed (for future ref Bovis response).

One further comment that may be helpful.  Developers usually build in batches, selling them off while building the next batch.  Batch one could be just 1--6; or + 7 - 9 or more.  The first sale date in the LR title plans for 7 could help work this out.  69 - 71 are clearly built much later than the two P spaces were assigned.  Again, check the LR title. 

In the meantime, I cannot see that you have answered questions about estate management = the paved walkways at least.   Please check your deeds for 'maintenance, repar and renewal' while you wait for the LR mail.

ThisIsWeird

Jellynailer said:

Oh dear, I reaise I made an assumption (which I try to avoid) but so has ThisIsWeird.  Please can lilahloo enlighten us...

Yes, but I very cunningly pre-empted my assumption with 'presumably', so there.

Tbh, given the terms in the deeds, it would have been a bit churlish of any person to moan about what Lilahloo did on this rare occasion, even if he nabbed that space for a whole, unbroken, week, once in a blue moon; what the heck does 'reasonable' mean, anyhoo? Yes, Ll would have done 'wrong', but hey. Of course, if demand for these spaces is strong and constant, then fair do's - it would have rightly irked others, and Ll should be grovelling.

What seems clear here, tho', is that the neighbour has taken this event as a prompt to assert rights he most likely does not have, so the 'parking' incident is incidental.

And I would suggest that, until the facts are established, Ll should not make any concession at all.

Jellynailer

ThisIsWeird said:

Jellynailer said:

Oh dear, I reaise I made an assumption (which I try to avoid) but so has ThisIsWeird.  Please can lilahloo enlighten us...

Yes, but I very cunningly pre-empted my assumption with 'presumably', so there. wink:  

I cannot see how your responses to me are helpful to the OP noting that I had already asked for enlightenment.  I suggest you follow my example and wait for an update from lilahloo which will include a copy of No 69 plan + the relevant schedule if any.  If the latter, I can help her/him further based on my extensive experience of dealiing with a similar problem in my 1980s development by a cowboy builder.

ThisIsWeird

Jellynailer said:

I cannot see how your responses to me are helpful to the OP noting that I had already asked for enlightenment.  I suggest you follow my example and wait for an update from lilahloo which will include a copy of No 69 plan + the relevant schedule if any.  If the latter, I can help her/him further based on my extensive experience of dealiing with a similar problem in my 1980s development by a cowboy builder.

Au contraire. My responses throughout this thread have been nothing but helpful to the OP, as is always the intention. 

A cracking example being to suggest that the OP should offer zero concession to this neighbour other than, "Let's first establish the facts - that's what we both want, yes...?".

You asked the OP for enlightenment? Well, excuuuuse me - so did I, and others. But that didn't stop you suggesting to the OP that they should seek this neighbour's assistance to inform other neighbours that 'overnight' use of these spaces (only by visitors?) shouldn't be permitted. Where did that wee nugget come from?