PCM Now Controlling Estate Parking

grey_moose

Hello, I’m looking for some advice on what I can do to prevent PCM managing the estate I live on. The estate is a mix of houses and apartment blocks and I own one of the apartments. With the apartment comes one designated bay, however we are a two car household and the road parking has been essential to us being able to live here.

Late last month the management company held an AGM and appointed two ‘residential directors’ who would act on the estates behalf. However without any prior consent, they’ve approved to appoint PCM as parking management. This I could deal with if we weren’t only given two passes (1x Permanent, 1x Visitor). This obviously means we now cannot have any visitors unless they pay for parking elsewhere and walk to ours. We think this is hugely unfair and will ruin the quality of life and freedom we have here. 

Previously the management company has provided permits as a deterrent for those parking here to walk into town or their place of work. With these permits, we were given 2x permanent and 1x visitor which was, although not ideal, still enough. 

I’m assuming the minority have shouted the loudest and caused the company to implement these parking restrictions at the detriment to those who have two cars and live in the flats. 

So my question is what can I do? The most peaceful option is to suck it up and never have visitors, which seems horrendously unfair. Other amicable options are to apply for another permanent permit but I can’t imagine a frankly rogue and controversial system like PCM are likely to approve.

The other options that I’ve read on this and other forums is to take a legal stand. I can’t see the entire estate reversing PCM’s new policy but, for example, if I refuse to acknowledge the parking company have jurisdiction over my registered (clearly on the leasehold) parking bay. That would then free the two permits to be use for one car to park on the road and free the visitor parking. Similarly to the case of Roger Davey v UKPC.

My other options are to cite the management company are breaching the leasehold and tenancy agreement rights to peaceful enjoyment and for failing to undertake a consultation under the Landlord & Tenant Act.M AND/OR must have such variation approved by at least 75% of the leaseholders, pursuant to s37 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1987.*

*To clarify, these are purely from research online and I’m not sure if these would stand up in my specific case.

Any support or templates on what to write would be great. 

artyboy

I'd strongly suggest you have this post moved over to the Parking board on this forum, where you are much more likely to get useful advice, especially as regards your own demised parking space...

grey_moose

Thanks, how do I move this? Apologies, I’m new!

Grizebeck

Yes you need to get rid of this awful company
They are not wanted or neede
@Browntoa can you move this please

eddddy

The starting point would be to read your lease to see what rights to parking it gives you. (For example, only 1 car, or only 2 cars or no restriction on number of cars or whatever.)

The new arrangements should not restrict any of those rights.

grey_moose

eddddy said:

The starting point would be to read your lease to see what rights to parking it gives you. (For example, only 1 car, or only 2 cars or no restriction on number of cars or whatever.)

The new arrangements should not restrict any of those rights.

Thanks for your reply! The lease states: “ the parking space edged red and numbered such alternative parking space as the Landlord shall from time to time designate acting reasonably.”

The lease therefore suggests one car but we’d use the road parking for the last two years. I would argue though, that the space provided is then part of the lease and cannot be governed by an external body. It would therefore be illegal for PCM to put anything on my car as they’d be trespassing on my property. Again, citing the Davey v UKPC case.

The fact the building management company also initially gave us two passes suggests that common sense was being used at the time. The local town is small and to expect all 96 flats to be one vehicle families is crazy.

Im happy to pay for an extra permit, but companies such as PCM only bring misery to residents after the initial phase of getting the few bad eggs out in my opinion.

eddddy

Just to focus in on some points you make:

grey_moose said:

Thanks for your reply! The lease states: “ the parking space edged red and numbered such alternative parking space as the Landlord shall from time to time designate acting reasonably.”

So, unless the landlord backs down, you'd probably need to go to court to demonstrate that the landlord isn't acting reasonably in their designation of parking places - and get an injunction telling them to stop.

(That might be expensive if you end up losing and/or don't get your costs back. It might be less risky to wait until you get a Parking Charge Notice, and challenge that in court. )

grey_moose said:

The lease therefore suggests one car but we’d use the road parking for the last two years. I would argue though, that the space provided is then part of the lease and cannot be governed by an external body. 

Let's look at a 'black and white' case. If the lease says you can park one car, by parking 2 cars for 2 years, you've been breaching the lease for 2 years.

Breaching a lease for 2 years doesn't change the terms of the lease to make the breach allowed.

grey_moose said:

The fact the building management company also initially gave us two passes...

This would probably throw up lots of legal arguments.

By giving you 2 passes, has the landlord given you consent to breach your lease (by parking 2 cars)?

If the landlord has done that, they've probably breached everyone else's leases by giving you consent.

grey_moose said:

The local town is small and to expect all 96 flats to be one vehicle families is crazy.

That's not a good argument to put forward.

A court would say "in that case, you're the crazy one for buying a flat with only one parking space."

grey_moose said:

It would therefore be illegal for PCM to put anything on my car as they’d be trespassing on my property. Again, citing the Davey v UKPC case.

As long as your lease demises the parking space to you. With some leases, the parking space belongs to the freeholder, but you are given the exclusive right to park in it.

grey_moose said:

...failing to undertake a consultation under the Landlord & Tenant Act.M AND/OR must have such variation approved by at least 75% of the leaseholders, pursuant to s37 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1987.*

*To clarify, these are purely from research online and I’m not sure if these would stand up in my specific case.

There's a lot of nonsense written about that online.

I think somebody read one sentence of a court ruling, and added their own layers and layers of myth around it.

The bottom line is: You would know if you (or a previous owner) had signed a Deed of Variation for your lease.




Realistically, you can make representations to the landlord (write them letters etc), in the hope that they will change their minds. But taking legal action to 'force' them to change is likely to be very expensive, if you lose.

It might be easier for you to carry-on doing whatever you believe your lease allows you to do - and if you end up receiving a Parking Charge Notice, challenge it in court.

grey_moose

@eddddy - Thanks so much for this reply. Appreciate the straight to point answers and it feels as though we'll have no leg to stand on really. I really appreciate you taking the time to help and if it's not too much trouble, could you just clarify a couple of things for me:

eddddy said:

So, unless the landlord backs down, you'd probably need to go to court to demonstrate that the landlord isn't acting reasonably in their designation of parking places - and get an injunction telling them to stop.

(That might be expensive if you end up losing and/or don't get your costs back. It might be less risky to wait until you get a Parking Charge Notice, and challenge that in court. )

Arguably a court ruling might think that having to display a permit for a leasehold place is reasonable as well, therefore I'd be likely to lose?

To clarify as well, I assume the management company gave everyone two permanent and one visitor pass. We did not ask for those and were given them. I then assumed it was common sense most people would have two cars. The road parking was always said to have been overflow for residents and visitors, there's a lot of it as well. However, I've not got this in writing so again, wouldn't help me much.

If you could explain a deed of variation as well, that'd be great. I'm unaware of one being signed. Would this therefore work for or against me?

eddddy said:

It might be easier for you to carry-on doing whatever you believe your lease allows you to do - and if you end up receiving a Parking Charge Notice, challenge it in court.

In the case of the above, by challenging a notice in court. What would I then need to do/say to challenge and hopefully get a good outcome? Would the outcome then remove PCM from my space or the entire estate?

As mentioned, for ease I'm looking to just be granted another permit but the management company. As much as there's not much I can legally do, it feels quite unjust that our whole living arrangement has been so restricted over the choices of a few people one evening! 

h2g2

Arguably a court ruling might think that having to display a permit for a leasehold place is reasonable as well, therefore I'd be likely to lose?

They can always argue this, but it would be an uphill battle for them. There is plenty of case law on your side.

As leaseholder with exclusive possession of the parking space you can argue that you are the "owner or occupier" as understood by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. As such PCM can only create contracts with drivers on your space with your explicit consent.

Kettle vs Bloomfold Ltd is a high court case ruling that removing or reducing access to parking is not reasonable.

In Link vs Mrs P the judge openly stated in her ruling that charging for the parking space, even by means of a penalty charge for non-display of a permit, would require a variation to the lease.

Changing the rules after a contract (in this case the leasehold agreement) has been formed is difficult, and adding a new penalty charge that was not in the original contract isn't likely to pass muster.

The way you can sell this is that previously you had a permit only as an administrative courtesy but at no point did you accept paying extra charges for use of your demised space and parking charges are included in that.

Since PCM's terms typically say £100 + £70 "debt recovery" if unpaid, per 24 hour period, you could easily challenge the reasonableness of a daily penalty charge that's similar magnitude to an annual ground rent. (Possibly higher: if your ground rent is £500/annum, and your flat's floor area is 4x that of the parking space - which would be small - the ground rent for the parking space itself could reasonably be said to be £100. Is it then reasonable to impose a term with penalty charges of up to (and yes, this is a bit sensationalist) £170 * 365 = £62,050 per year on a £100/year space?

I'm in your situation and have instructed legal representation after the managing agents refused to udge.

grey_moose

@h2g2 - That's all very supportive, thanks for your insight. Would you, and any others that see this, suggest I seek to remove PCM altogether from governing my single space and/or the estate, rather than seek a second permanent permit? As I'll be unlikely to get that as I'd be over-stepping the original leasehold agreement.

h2g2

Yes, definitely get them removed if you can. When they moved in at my place I wrote to them explaining I owned my space and have exclusive possession. They agreed to an "opt-out" on my space and then issued me PCNs anyway (outcomes pending).

Go after the management company and landlord (if they're different) as well as PCM, making your legal rights clear. We can help you with that. PCM are most likely to say they are lawfully appointed and to take up the complaint with their client. Hopefully the client will listen to reason, although that's not been the case in my situation it has worked elsewhere.