Cancellation from Landowner's perspective

il--ya

I am a director of a Residents' Management Company (RMC) managing two blocks of flats. Three years ago, a fellow director signed an agreement with Euro Parking Services for parking management without the required board approval. Our Articles of Association state that a quorum for decisions is two directors, so this agreement was made without proper authority.

Recently, I discovered this agreement while addressing a complaint from a resident who received a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on two occasions. The resident displayed a valid parking permit but was parked outside of the designated parking bay. Importantly, he was not parked on double yellow lines and did not obstruct the driveway, so he did not cause any nuisance.

The terms of the agreement with Euro Parking Services are quite restrictive, including automatic renewal clauses, communication restrictions with drivers, and Euro Parking Services’ absolute discretion over charge amounts and decisions. Their signage on site does specify restrictions on parking within marked bays.

I have attempted to send emails to Euro Parking Services requesting cancellation of these charges but have not received any replies. Getting through to them on the phone has also proven to be challenging.

What steps should I take to ensure any cancellation of charges is effective?

I am considering notifying Euro Parking Services of my intention to terminate the agreement as one possible avenue. Given that the agreement was signed without a quorum, I believe it is void. However, I am also exploring other options to cancel the specific charges levied against the residents, such as the appeals process and landowner challenge. As a director, I may be able to challenge the validity of the PCNs directly with Euro Parking Services, arguing that the parked car did not cause any nuisance. The other director is in agreement that the spaces can be used for parking and has no intention to penalise the resident for parking there.

Any advice or insights from those with experience from a landowner's perspective in similar situations would be greatly appreciated!

Grizebeck

Others will give a more detailed reply but if you could send me a copy of the agreement with any personal details removed that would be much appreciated!

Coupon-mad

You can trust @Grizebeck - who I know personally - to look over your document (but do redact personal info).

You need to end the contract as soon as you can (quorum decision needed of course).  Try to get the PCNs cancelled first but after that, END IT ASAP.

Do not replace them. You do not need a jumped up permit scheme. Absolutely not.

Also tell the victim resident in writing that the contract with Euro wasn't lawfully signed off by two RTM directors, thus there was never any valid landowner authority and they may use this email in evidence if defending a small claim.

And give the victim a link to this forum.

il--ya

We do need some parking enforcement, as our location is next to a school, and it becomes quite chaotic during term time. There was a good reason for hiring a parking management company initially.

If someone could advise me on a good, reputable, transparent, and responsive parking management company, I would greatly appreciate it.

I've created a PDF with all personal details edited out, but I'm unsure how to upload it here.

Grizebeck

You can upload it on Dropbox link.😃

Coupon-mad

il--ya said:

We do need some parking enforcement, as our location is next to a school, and it becomes quite chaotic during term time.

You don't.

You need a gate or cheap folding bollards.

il--ya

Grizebeck said:

You can upload it on Dropbox link.😃

I have shared it on Google Drive, but as a newbie, I’m unable to share a link.

Coupon-mad said:

il--ya said:

We do need some parking enforcement, as our location is next to a school, and it becomes quite chaotic during term time.

You don't.

You need a gate or cheap folding bollards.

This is a residential site, and people have deliveries, visitors, taxis, health visitors, tradespeople, emergencies, and so on. A gate is a much less favourable option in terms of convenience and ongoing maintenance costs, and bollards are even less practical.

Coupon-mad

I disagree.

You do not need a parking firm. Your own polite 'PRIVATE PARKING - RESIDENTS ONLY signs would work just as well.  Drivers can't tell the difference.

Also you as a RTM are required to ballot all leaseholders and freeholders before taking a step that causes them interference.

Grizebeck

Put the link in without the www etc 😀

h2g2

Just to check: are the parking spaces part of the demised properties?

If they are you likely can't act on behalf of the landowner with regard to those spaces. The landowner is the "owner or occupier" of the land, and a demised parking space is occupied by the leaseholder. Barring explicit wording in the lease it seems to me that the freeholder gave up their rights as landowner when they demised the space to the leaseholders in question.

il--ya

h2g2 said:

Just to check: are the parking spaces part of the demised properties?

If they are you likely can't act on behalf of the landowner with regard to those spaces. The landowner is the "owner or occupier" of the land, and a demised parking space is occupied by the leaseholder. Barring explicit wording in the lease it seems to me that the freeholder gave up their rights as landowner when they demised the space to the leaseholders in question.

The parking spaces are not demised to individual flat owners; they are shared on a first-come, first-served basis. The RMC is the leaseholder for the entire site, making us the occupiers of the parking spaces and the access road.

The PCNs in question were issued for parking outside the marked bays, which is not allowed under the terms of the flat owner's lease. However, given that the resident was acting on poor advice from another director, and considering the ongoing practice of people parking there without issue, as well as the fact that this resident has never been advised otherwise and did not cause any obstruction, I believe it would be unnecessarily harsh to penalise them on this occasion.