Twenty year right of way rule – dedicated car parking space

WIAWSNB

maman said:

Unless I've missed something, this is a 'what if' question should Person A sell his house in the future. He isn't going to fall out with his now neighbours if/when he puts his house up for sale he just reminds them that his house has an allocated parking place and new owners may want to use it for themselves. 

I agree. The OP appears to be overthinking this.
But I can understand Sarah's concern, as 'A' has allowed the situation to continue for a considerable time, and some (unreasonable) folk may well tell themselves this entitlement can continue. 
But, 'allowing' this is one of the key words here. 'A' made the conscious decision to offer this kind favour; they always knew which space was actually theirs. It was done with implied permission. A knew what they were doing.
If the current parking space 'user' cannot recall that generous concession from 20-odd years back, then they've 'forgotten', either intentionally or not.
That should be A's position on this; "Of course the reason I allowed it was I could see that they would benefit more from it's nearby location."
I understand that any person attempting a PE claim would need to evidence that they used that space nigh-on exclusively for the 20+ year duration; a free-for-all wouldn't achieve this. A f-f-a also means that other house owners, and that includes A, would likely have used that space at times too. No-one will be able to evidence this to the contrary.
So I'm going to suggest that it is 99.99% certain that there will be zero success in any such PE claim by anyone. And any solicitor would disabuse them of this right away.
Whether an issue could arise from a petulant flat owner, however, is another issue, so it may be best that Sarah advises that A tackles this in one of the manners mentioned previously; a note on the screen just to say they're selling up, and the new owner may possibly wish to assert their rightful claim to their space.
Any comeback from this, then probably the first contact would be with the building management company. 
There is no way that any other user can claim use of this space, so A can do what they like, including obviously parking there themselves - which they may have to start doing in order to make their point.
A sign - and certainly a bollard (surely completely unnecessary) - would need ManCo approval.
This ain't a 'dispute', and shouldn't become one; it would simply be one person breaking the Buildings rules.ike a person beginning to park on your drive! It ain't a 'dispute', but it may be a situation you need to resolve with pressure if the person you are dealing with is completely unreasonable.
In this case, I'd hope the ManCo could do this with a simple letter. Ultimately, if you breach your lease terms, you can forfeit the lease. 
Sarah may wish to advise A that, over this long period, they clearly recall some conversations with flat residents (don't need to 'remember' specifically who) regarding this space and  saying that they "didn't mind letting them use it because...", and also, "I sometimes parked there myself when I had heavy shopping and stuff..."

GDB2222

If it’s just one particular person using your space, I’d recommend a written licence. Maybe, a small payment or agreed charitable donation. That way the users know where they are, and the owner can easily reclaim it. 

WIAWSNB

Or, A just tells the EA, "Yes there is an allocated parking space, but it's largely a free-for-all which I was ok with...", and that's that

Section62

"Twenty year right of way rule – dedicated car parking space"

A 'right of way' is a right of passage - to pass and repass over an area of land to access some other area of land.

Bringing a vehicle to a stand and leaving it in that position for a period of time is an act of parking.  Parking isn't passing and repassing.

If someone has been parking in a specific place for a period of time and wants to claim that as a right, the relevant law won't be that relating to rights of way.  (Except in relation to land which has to be crossed to get to the parking place, which sounds like already shared/communal access in this case)

I'd echo WIAWSNB's comment about needing ManCo or freeholder consent to put in a bollard.  The same likely applies for a sign.  Care also needs to be taken if installing a movable bollard in a public/shared/communal area as some types represent quite a significant trip hazard, and there's also potential for liability for expensive damage to third-party vehicles if the bollard isn't sufficiently conspicuous.

SarahB16

sheramber said:

'No ' is a complete sentence.

there is no nice way to say. they will counter any reason given.

if preferred then 'no, that doesn't work for me.

Thank you all for your really helpful replies.  I should add person A would prefer that nobody else parks in their allocated car parking space as they have their own car and would prefer their car to be in the safer car park. 

I think the reply above is what's needed if there are any discussions from the future residents of the flats (or even the other owners of the houses) regarding pooling of the car parking spaces.  

Person A was struggling with how best to say no.  

WIAWSNB

SarahB16 said:

sheramber said:

'No ' is a complete sentence.

there is no nice way to say. they will counter any reason given.

if preferred then 'no, that doesn't work for me.

Thank you all for your really helpful replies.  I should add person A would prefer that nobody else parks in their allocated car parking space as they have their own car and would prefer their car to be in the safer car park. 
I think the reply above is what's needed if there are any discussions from the future residents of the flats (or even the other owners of the houses) regarding pooling of the car parking spaces.  
Person A was struggling with how best to say no.  

Ok, that's a significantly different to what I'd previously understood. It seemed to me that 'A' was 'happy' to park further away as it allowed the more elderly flat owners easier access to their homes, but was simply becoming concerned about this becoming a prescriptive easement - which it won't do. 

Instead, A actually does want to use their own allocated space? 

I suspect this will be tricky in isolation; ie if A is the only one to try and enforce this, when everyone else is still going first-come-first-served.

What is the actual situation on the ground? Does one particular flat owner constantly use A's space? Or is it completely random?

For the former, then a chat if they meet, or a polite note on the windscreen should do the job. If it doesn't, it should be escalated to the ManCo. For the latter situation - a free-for-all - I think only the ManCo can sort this by messaging all the residents and telling them all to only use their own allocated spaces. Anyone reported as not complying can have pressure easily applied.

Or, A just leaves it. The house is being sold with an allocated space, and that is the simple fact. It doesn't matter if A decides to use their own space or not - it's still theirs. The new owner will have the same right, and they will have to sort it with the assistance of the ManCo if needed.

It's not dissimilar to the situation with my mil; she has an allocated - but unmarked - space, and would always park her car there. It wasn't a significant issue if someone else accidentally parked there on occasion whilst she was out - she'd just park nearby, and return her car on the next occasion. Had this become an 'issue', however, then a word to the ManCo would almost certainly have elicited a quick response from then - first a polite reminder to all residents, and then - if needed, and if the residents paid for it... - house number signs on each. She's since sold her car, and we park there when we visit - if it's empty. Often it's occupied, and we park elsewhere instead. When she comes to sell, it'll be with this allocated space - simples.

SarahB16

Instead, A actually does want to use their own allocated space? 

I suspect this will be tricky in isolation; ie if A is the only one to try and enforce this, when everyone else is still going first-come-first-served.

Yes, A does want to use their own allocated space that they have effectively paid for with the purchase of their house (yet to be built as still subject to planning permission as I am posting a very likely but currently hypothetical situation as A is worried about getting asked about the car parking spaces being pooled/shared).  Hence, you can see this could be a tricky situation and A is thinking ahead in case this question is posed to them.    

I suppose, rare one-offs are not the end of the world but ultimately A wishes to be able to park in their own car parking space and I think clear numbering showing it belongs to A's house may possibly be required if people park there after A says, 'nah, would prefer to just have my own space' if asked by fellow residents. 

This is why earlier on in this thread I say A doesn't wish to be made to feel guilty for parking in their allocated car parking space and would not wish to park in the car park which is further away as they view it as not as safe. 

WIAWSNB

SarahB16 said:

Instead, A actually does want to use their own allocated space? 

I suspect this will be tricky in isolation; ie if A is the only one to try and enforce this, when everyone else is still going first-come-first-served.

Yes, A does want to use their own allocated space that they have effectively paid for with the purchase of their house (yet to be built as still subject to planning permission as I am posting a very likely but currently hypothetical situation as A is worried about getting asked about the car parking spaces being pooled/shared).  Hence, you can see this could be a tricky situation and A is thinking ahead in case this question is posed to them.    
I suppose, rare one-offs are not the end of the world but ultimately A wishes to be able to park in their own car parking space and I think clear numbering showing it belongs to A's house may possibly be required if people park there after A says, 'nah, would prefer to just have my own space' if asked by fellow residents. 
This is why earlier on in this thread I say A doesn't wish to be made to feel guilty for parking in their allocated car parking space and would not wish to park in the car park which is further away as they view it as not as safe. 

Ok, different again! This house hasn't even been built yet?! 

Blimey. I think A is getting ahead of themselves here. I'd suggest that it's very likely the allocated spaces will be marked, likely by white numbering on the ground, or possibly a sign, and I also suspect that the developer will be very keen to enforce everything that is in the deeds, such as any +ve or -ve covenants, shared areas, even hanging out the washing! Parking will almost certainly be tightly controlled, as it can be an emotive as well as practical issue, and all the residents should have an expectation of conforming to these rules.

What did the '20-year' bit come from? 

Myci85

My advice would be that it is a waste of time and energy for anyone to worry so much about something that has not (and may never) happened. If it happens, worry about it then. 

saajan_12

SarahB16 said:

Instead, A actually does want to use their own allocated space? 

I suspect this will be tricky in isolation; ie if A is the only one to try and enforce this, when everyone else is still going first-come-first-served.

Yes, A does want to use their own allocated space that they have effectively paid for with the purchase of their house (yet to be built as still subject to planning permission as I am posting a very likely but currently hypothetical situation as A is worried about getting asked about the car parking spaces being pooled/shared).  

Goodness what a long winded thread about nothing!
- The 20 or so year rule about adverse possession if others use the space is irrelevant if the owner wants to maintain use of it. 
- The potential guilt trips about flat owners expecting to use a space marked to someone else is irrelevant if this hasn't been a long established tradition and there is no history of such an expectation. 

I'm all for planning ahead but golly I didn't have a plan for if someone might want my 3rd born child whenever it rains before even conceiving said child.