MASSIVE problem with our rented apartment, don't know what to do!

pinkshoes

Ewarwoowar2 wrote: »

Two bits of information are clear (unless the OP's lying):

1.The LL's been taking money from the OP for a parking space;
2.The LL doesn't have a parking space.

Therefore, irrelevant of motive, the LL wasn't entitled to charge for something she didn't have. And if I were the OP I'd want my money back.

The fact that nothing's in writing is irrelevant. The LL's been taking money from the OP for the parking space, the OP was issued with a fob or other parking access for a space not owned by the owner. The EA aren't denying this appended, they're just attempting to make it into an unfortunate incident that's the fault of no one. Well that's b0ll0cks. The OP made it clear to them that he/she needed parking. They EA gave them access to a parking space that the LL didn't own.

It would be obvious from the above to a small claims court that the OP was charged for a parking space.

Imagine that I rented a flat in the Mill. I knew that the office would give me as many parking passes as I requested ('cos the office didn't check). I then went round the other tenants and 'rented' them parking spaces which I didn't own. If I was caught, I'd certainly expect to be sued for the money back and I would also expect a call from the police.

Unless the EA led the LL to believe that she had a parking space, I don't see the difference here.

One definition of fraud is gaining money by false pretences. That's wants happened here.

But he's had a parking space up until now, so it's not fraud! In blocks of flats where the parking is run by another company, the LL would have had the right to rent a space for her tenant, but now the parking company have changed the rules, so she can no longer do this. The OP had nothing in writing stating he was entitled to a space, so nothing fraudulent. The OP couldn't rent the space, as he's not the owner, but the owner at the time could rent it, and she has the right to charge the OP whatever he's willing to pay!!

A mate in London has 1 parking space for his 2 bed flat, and then he rents a second space from the people who look after the parking. This parking is also shared with a local business. His second space could be taken away from him at short notice, and is not guaranteed. He knows this. (He rents it for his g/f so she can drive over, as she got mugged last year)

Ewarwoowar2

pinkshoes wrote: »

But he's had a parking space up until now, so it's not fraud! In blocks of flats where the parking is run by another company, the LL would have had the right to rent a space for her tenant, but now the parking company have changed the rules, so she can no longer do this. The OP had nothing in writing stating he was entitled to a space, so nothing fraudulent. The OP couldn't rent the space, as he's not the owner, but the owner at the time could rent it, and she has the right to charge the OP whatever he's willing to pay!!

From the information supplied (and that's all we have to go on), IMO the LL gained the access to parking by false pretences. She hadn't paid for a parking space and was charging the tenant for something she hadn't paid for herself i.e gaining money by false pretences = fraud.

OP wrote:

"When you moved in the land lady applied for a permit to the management company and was given one, however she never owned a space. Now they've changed the permits she can't get a new one. "

Based on this info, the LL never had any right to parking. The management company made a mistake by issuing a permit. They've now realised their mistake and retrieved the parking permits from the bogus LL's.

How can you charge someone for something you never had the right to have in the first place.

Catblue

It doesn't sound like fraud to me, either. Certainly not based on the information given.

The LL never said that she owned a parking place, merely that she could provide the OP with a parking permit for the car park. This was entirely true, and the OP has been parking there because (at that time) all the spaces were unallocated.

The LL may well have had to pay the management company for this parking permit. I would find it strange if the management company issued a parking permit and fob for no fee, particularly given the high value attached to parking in city centres. The management company are perhaps at fault for issuing a parking permit for a flat that does not own a space, but that isn't the LA's or the LL's fault.

The OP himself said that the complex is never full, so maybe the management company just let things ride rather than sort everything out at the beginning.

The mangagement company have now changed the rules and the previous parking permits are no longer valid.

Get over it. Move on.

Ewarwoowar2

OP wrote:

We told them we'd love to have it, but only if they can do us a parking space as I need my car. They came back and said they could, it'd be £25 a month more, so we agreed to it.

EA wrote:

"It isn't our fault, the blame really lies with the land lady and the management company"

The LL, or the EA as agent for the LL, gave representions to the OP that they owned a parking space, OP paid for the parking space and the LL financial benefited from the false representation. Sounds like fraud to me.

Catblue

Ewarwoowar2 wrote: »

The LL, or the EA as agent for the LL, gave represents to the OP that they owned a parking space, OP paid for the parking space and the LL financial benefited from the false representation. Sounds like fraud to me.

Even the OP (who knows more than you or me) does not say that the LL claimed to own a parking space.

There was no conversation regarding ownership (or implied ownership) that I can see in what has been written so far.

pennylane99

Ewarwoowar2 wrote: »

The LL, or the EA as agent for the LL, gave represents to the OP that they owned a parking space, OP paid for the parking space and the LL financial benefited from the false representation. Sounds like fraud to me.

from OP original post....

"When you moved in the land lady applied for a permit to the management company and was given one, however she never owned a space. Now they've changed the permits she can't get a new one. "

tomstickland

What's worse is out lease is up at the end of April, and the other half and I are on holiday at the time. They might tell us we have to leave, then we'll lose HUNDREDS on our holiday!

It's not too bad; you can move.

If the flat doesn't have car parking on the lease then the landlady made a mistake and you were lucky. The management company are doing the fair in allocating parking to those who own it.

In terms of a practical solution see if the management company will allocate you a temporary permit or waive the fines until you work something out.

Meanwhile look on the land registry to see who does own parking and see if you can rent it off them.

IMO the LL gained the access to parking by false pretences.

From what I've read it looks like the LL acted with the best intentions and were issued with a parking permit.

Somerset

Ewarwoowar2 wrote: »

The LL, or the EA as agent for the LL, gave represents to the OP that they owned a parking space, OP paid for the parking space and the LL financial benefited from the false representation. Sounds like fraud to me.

The LL or EA for the LL did not represent to the OP that the LL owned a parking space - they entered into an agreement to provide a parking space in order to facilitate an AST meeting this particular tenant's requirements. This landlord fully met his/her obligations up till the recent change.

The LL is now no longer able to provide the required space, because of changes by the management company, outside his/her control.

Imho the tenant is entitled to require the landlord to provide acceptable alternative parking OR the loss of the parking space is sufficient to end the AST as the landlord is no longer capable of providing what the AST details. The PROBLEM lies in the fact the AST did not specify a parking space.

It now depends on whether the OP has an honest or dishonest LL - whether they acknowledge the provision of a parking space was indeed part of the AST and is no fundemental to it, that the loss of the space is grounds to terminate the AST.

Ewarwoowar2

Somerset wrote: »

The LL or EA for the LL did not represent to the OP that the LL owned a parking space - they entered into an agreement to provide a parking space in order to facilitate an AST meeting this particular tenant's requirements. This landlord fully met his/her obligations up till the recent change.

When entering into the AST the LL, or the EA as agent for the LL, gave representations that the flat came with a parking space. From the info provided, the OP made it clear that the AST agreement was conditional upon the flat having a parking space.

The flat doesn't come with a parking space. Therefore, the AST is void.

The OP was paying for a parking space. It now turns out that the LL was only providing access to the parking area (for example to allow the OP unload his card). The OP had no right to park in the car park. The LL had no right to allow the OP to park in the car park. Therefore, the OP should be entitled to his money back.

If the LL did not pay for a car parking space, then why should she receive money from the OP for a car parking space. The money was received under false pretences.

In addition the LL is in breach of the oral contract to provide a car parking space. The OP is entitled to all loss as a result of that loss including the fines he/she has incurred.

Kez100

.....yes.....how would you suggest they prove it if LL and EA say that wasn't the agreement?

I'm more than happy to be convinced if you are an expert, but this sounds like very shaky ground to me and your advice very, very black and white for a situation where there is little or no apparant proof.

In addition, you say he is due all fines back as if he can now park there daily and not worry just claim for them. I can fully understand the first fine, but whatever happened to having to do your best to minimise losses (which I would understand to mean - park elsewhere where it is £15 a day and claim not get daily £60 fines).