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

tomstickland

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.

It looks like the LL paid for a parking permit. In my opinion the OP isn't entitled to anything back, considering that they paid for and received a parking space. The AST might no longer be valid, I can agree on that.

zebulon

Ewarwoowar2 wrote: »

[everything]

What you say is what OP wants to hear - but I do not read this story the same way as you either....

I think OP you're in a good position to negotiate an early AST termination but I would say it is void, or there was fraud etc...

the only thing is that the new AST had the extra cost - and I really believe the AST should have been changed to mention that £25 of the cost was for parking permit (although you wanted a parking space...)

it will all depends on what you have in writting... emails requesting parking SPACE ??

I know there is this 'oral agreement' but at the end of the day....

Jorgan_2

Voyager2002 wrote: »

Why this obsession with your car? You live in an area with excellent bus services, and surely you are physically capable of riding a bicycle!

Stop making yourself miserable; get rid of your car; and enjoy life in your beautiful new flat. I refuse to believe that a tin box on wheels is a good enough reason to go through the upheaval of moving house.

It all depends on whether Bob needs his car for work, not just getting to one place, but out & about as well.

Also to some people, their car may also be a hobby, it may be a tin box on wheels to you, but to some one else it could be a stunning two door coupe, something they have wanted to own for a long time.

zebulon

Jorgan wrote: »

It all depends on whether Bob needs his car for work, not just getting to one place, but out & about as well.

Also to some people, their car may also be a hobby, it may be a tin box on wheels to you, but to some one else it could be a stunning two door coupe, something they have wanted to own for a long time.

but then you need to be able to afford your hobby...because from what I can read OP could get a space, but they go very expensive, as other people are ready to pay more than he can, but OP seems to really need a car
so OP is pxxxxd off now at everyone (LL, agent, managing company, yob in the street etc) ... because he was too naive to not get things written formely and precisely.
OP i don't blame you for being naive, before reading this forum I would have never start wanting to get everything done in writting, taking pics etc etc when it comes to renting!

silvercar

The shame of it is that, with a few repossessions in the complex, there will be properties with parking spaces not currently being used.

Tomstickland, wasn't it you that bought a property and then afterwards found it had a garage with it?

Somerset

Ewarwoowar2 wrote: »

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.
Agreed

The flat doesn't come with a parking space. Therefore, the AST is void.
The flat did come with a space. This space was used since the AST started ie approx four months. It NOW doesn't have a space.

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.
Incorrect. Please read the OP's posts. He has been parking in the car park for the last four months with no problems - he had effectively a residents permit to park. This was provided by the LL. The cost of £50 p.m. was split 50:50. The OP paid £25 p.m. more on his AST - The L/L provided the permit.

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.
Reread the OP's posts. The L/L purchased the 'right' for his tenant to park in the car park - cost £50 p.m.

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.
The OP has already posted that the cost of parking was £50 p.m. This £50 was paid to the management company direct by the L/L. Because the tenant needed a space, the tenant agreed to pay an additional £25 p.m. over the rent cost, and the L/L would cover the other £25.

The L/L I would assume is currently not paying this £50 pm to the management company, since the management company will no longer sell him/her the permit. From this point the £25 pm payable by the tenant no longer applies but that isn't the problem - he needs a space.

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.
The OP has a good case to break the contract if an acceptable alternative isn't provided. Having just been to Court on a different matter, I was warned by my legal counsel that I had a duty to mitigate my losses. Judges don't like plaintiffs racking up costs - they won't grant them. I wouldn't rate his chances of getting £60 per day ( ticket ) for the next month and a half agreed as quantom damages. He can always try though !

Best of luck to the OP though - he sounds completely stressed.

rozeepozee

bobbarley wrote: »

I did read the whole lease before I signed it, but never thought at the time to ask them to add that there should be a parking space, never crossed my mind. As mentioned they verbally agreed that there would be one.

I did speak to a friend studying business law who believes this still counts, I'm not so sure myself though.

No time to read all the answers so don't know if this has been addressed already but... A verbal contract is still legally binding. Your problem is proving there is a verbal agreement. The fact that they gave you a permit might help you as this may indicate an inference that you were entitled to a parking space. You can only be compensated for what you've lost which is the future use of a parking space. If you can't resolve this amicably by being released from the lease or your LL finding alternative parking for you, a strongly worded solicitor's letter might help push her towards allowing you to leave and compensating you for any extra expense in the meantime.

If this doesn't work and you wanted to make a case in court I suspect the fact that you signed a lease that made no mention of a parking space means you've not got the strongest case.

tbs624

Originally Posted by OP
"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. "

Ewarwoowar2 wrote: »

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.

Based on this info, the LL never had any right to parking.

You are still jumping to conclusions... AFAIAA for there to be fraud by false representation the representation has to be untrue or misleading, and the person making the representation has to have known that it is, or might be, untrue. If the LL has use of a car parking space, and the management company agreed that s/he could the pass the use of that on to a tenant, there is no clear-cut case that s/he had lied about anything.

Ewarwoowar2 wrote: »

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.

The management company changed the rules. It does not means that there was fraud - originally, the set-up may have worked out ok and then they needed to change it.


As I said in my first post I can understand that the OP would be angry, but if you are a solicitor you would surely recommend to any client that they checked contract Ts & Cs before signing up, especially if something was as vital to them as this car parking space is to the OP, ie if the whole contract was conditional on this.

A_Nice_Englishman

Do we need to draw a distinction between a parking permit (which allows entry to the car park but not a particular - or indeed any - space) and a parking space which guarantees somewhere to leave your car?

I can see why the owners/management company are tightening up. If people are willing to pay £100 a month for a space a flat with one would be worth considerably more than one without

tomstickland

silvercar wrote: »

Tomstickland, wasn't it you that bought a property and then afterwards found it had a garage with it?

Yes. Even without the garage there were plentiful parking spaces.