Leaseholder's family.

Woodstock1953

We recently formed a company and bought the freehold to our flats. Eleven of us are now shareholders, but three leaseholders did not want to buy a share of the freehold.

Relatives of one of the remaining leaseholders are demanding that the Company provide a dedicated Disabled parking bay to enable them to to visit their dad (he has a blue badge - not the realatives).

Five shareholders also have blue badges and do not have dedicated spaces - we only have 8 parking spaces anyway, and these are taken up by the 8 car-owning residents. There is not the capacity for vistor parking.

The Dad does not drive, does not have a licence, rarely leaves the house, but the relatives are planning to buy him a car - tax and insure it in his name - which will then just take up a space...relatives will be named drivers on the policy.

We feel this is unfair to residents with cars, plus it could be regarded as 'fronting' (?). We were also under the impression that blue badges are not designed for use in residential private car parks, and do not 'trump' everyone else's rights.

The car park is private property, as indicated on the entrance sign, and it belongs to the Company.

MasterG83

None of the spaces currently allocated, IE, first come first served ?

Its an interesting discussion, if they decided to go further then as a company you may be legally required to provide a dedicated disabled bay.

I am a freehold resident in a block of 16 flats, each flat has one allocated space, two of the flats have two cars and use the two Visitors bays constantly, another frustration, particularly as i have an EV and they are also EV charging spaces.

user1977

Blue badges don't themselves mean a thing on private land, but there are (potentially wider) Equality Act responsibilities on those providing services, which I expect could stretch to freeholders. But I doubt that means they need to find him a parking space in an already full car park.

I suspect you're barking up the wrong tree about "fronting" though, there's nothing wrong with a car owner taking out insurance where somebody else is driving, as long as the facts are disclosed to the insurer. None of the freeholders' business anyway!

WIAWSNB

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6673830/leaseholders-family

As I understand it, the 11 directors make the democratic decisions for the whole property, following the terms of the lease, and that would include parking. I presume the deeds/leases are clear there are currently no allocated spaces, so fc-fs? If so, they do not have to change anything, unless they agree to. And any change would - I understand - require writing in to the deeds.

But changes to laws and 'rights' also need to be considered, such as with disabilities and pets. However, BBadges do not apply to private land. And, a BBadge does not imply or determine a dedicated space - it just isn't what it's for. If the fellow was an actual driver with a car, and 'needed' to rely on having an available space, then he'd possibly have more of a chance, and could possibly 'force' this issue by taking legal action, citing 'equality' or 'human' rights or whatevs. Absolutely no idea of how successful he could be, but I suspect not at all. Ie, no more likely than insisting a stairlift was added to the communal stairwell.

A BB has to be used by the actual holder, in order to let them park, or be picked up, or be dropped off, but a third party cannot use it to allow them to visit. This is very clear, and for them use it as they suggest would be an actionable breach; https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/benefits/sick-or-disabled-people-and-carers/help-for-disabled-travellers1/blue-badge-scheme/using-your-blue-badge/

There is a duty to try and accommodate individual needs, but given the highly restricted existing parking situation, I cannot see any claim by them being remotely successful. Also, in the unlikely event that they try, it would be made clear that the BBadge is being misused, in that it is not providing parking to assist the holder, as well as it not applying to private land.

Does the ManCo have access to a legal helpline, say as part of the buildings insurance? If not, seriously consider adding it to guard against future attempts at 'entitlement'.

Personally, if I were one of the directors, I'd ask my fellows what they think, and when they decide 'not a chance', then you pass that info on, and leave it at that. If the family foolishly tries to challenge, it'll be at significant legal cost to them, before they'll almost certainly fail. And if any of them turns up in their car to visit, wielding the cove's BB thinking it'll allow them to park, then you record this and report them.

born_again

If you do, then when the car is moved, any of the other 5 BB holders could park in the space 😜

Woodstock1953

Thank you everyone for your replies. The Lease does not mention allocated parking - nor does it mention visitors' parking allocation. But it does say that usage of the car park is, by and large, at the Lessors (the Company's) discretion.

It was decided at a recent EGM of share-of-the-freeholders, not to allow visitors to use the car park - except for emergency vehicles and emergency situations - as this was denying a resident a place to park.

The relatives are threatening legal action against the Company as they maintain that their Dad owns two parking spaces (he doesn't, we've checked the lease) so they themselves can park where they feel like parking.

An added complication is that the relatives now want their Dad to buy a share of the freehold. Twice he was offered this, but said he didn't want it. The relatives do not have POA so we assume that is a no-no.

I wasn't aware that legal advice could be tagged onto the Buildings Insurance (thank you, WIAWSNB), we'll check that out when go to renew.

Albermarle

Where there is a marked out disabled space in a public street outside a house, then anybody can still park in it. Not just BB holders who do not live there, but anybody.

The disabled space is not legally enforceable and it is more of a request to ask people not to park there.

In public car parks I think you can be fined for parking in a disabled space without a blue badge.

Not sure though what the legalities would be in the case of a private car park as in this instance.

A BB has to be used by the actual holder, in order to let them park, or be picked up, or be dropped off, but a third party cannot use it to allow them to visit.

This is correct- using a BB when the owner of the BB is not present, can be the subject of a penalty/loss of BB. Except when it is quick drop off/pick up.

An added complication is that the relatives now want their Dad to buy a share of the freehold. Twice he was offered this, but said he didn't want it. The relatives do not have POA so we assume that is a no-no.

If the Dad requests this directly, then you would have to consider it of course. Otherwise it is a no no.

WIAWSNB

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82055699#Comment_82055699

Not an added complication - he will still be outnumbered in any decision.

The relatives are misguided, either ignorant or entitled. Since the ManCo is pretty clear about what the leases say about parking - nothing - then it's their decision how to arrange it.

If the codger does buy his portion of the FH - make sure he pays all the legal costs - he will still only be one vote.

As for the relatives, personally I'd be suggesting to not engage further after delivering the 'non' to their 'request'. Let them waste their money trying to pursue this legally.

Some people...

eddddy

Woodstock1953 said

An added complication is that the relatives now want their Dad to buy a share of the freehold.

The company's Articles of Association should specify the rules for who can own a share (e.g. whether you have to be a leaseholder.) It's possible that there are no rules, so that anybody can own a share.

Then the existing shareholders have to decide if they want to sell a share - and if so, what price they want.

What would the company do with the money? Distribute it amongst the existing shareholders?

There might be tax considerations for the company and the existing shareholders.

The relatives do not have POA so we assume that is a no-no.

Are you saying that the dad doesn't have the mental capacity to make decisions?

If the dad has mental capacity, and wants to buy a share, no POA would be required.

HobgoblinBT

The shareholders could use money raised from the sale of one share to erect a sign advising “Parking for residents only”

ExEstateAgent

Regardless of who owns the freehold the lease still applies. Whatever the lease states regarding parking still applies. Just refer them to their lease.