IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.
One Parking Solution - Rejected Appeal for parking in my own space
BreadedScampi
Posts: 37 Forumite
A month or so ago I received a parking ticket for parking in my own space. I am the leaseholder of a flat above the parking garage in question, which gives me access to 1 allocated parking space.
Recently the management company [STRIKE]brought on[/STRIKE] have renewed their contract with One Parking Solution, allowing them to enforce [STRIKE][/STRIKE][STRIKE]to start enforcing[/STRIKE] parking spaces. This was to prevent visitors from parking in residents' spaces. I was issued with a parking permit, but had forgotten to display it in time and duly received a parking charge for £100.
My leasehold agreement states the following under "Rights Granted":
In the Newbies sticky thread, under "Parking in your own space", there was a link to a blog by Parking Prankster who mentioned the idea of "Primacy of Contract".
I would like to use this argument in my appeal to Popla, but am not sure if I can due to that annoying clause in my leasehold agreement quoted above.
Would subject any Estate regulations give my estate management company the right to force me to display a parking permit, and now pursue me for £100?
I apologise if this has been covered somewhere, but I can't find anything of relevance to my particular leasehold agreement.
Thank you all in advance for your help and the great work you do on this forum.
Edit: Clarified second paragraph
Recently the management company [STRIKE]brought on[/STRIKE] have renewed their contract with One Parking Solution, allowing them to enforce [STRIKE][/STRIKE][STRIKE]to start enforcing[/STRIKE] parking spaces. This was to prevent visitors from parking in residents' spaces. I was issued with a parking permit, but had forgotten to display it in time and duly received a parking charge for £100.
My leasehold agreement states the following under "Rights Granted":
10. The right for the Lessee to park a single domestic private motor vehicle in the Parking Space numbered [x] and shown edged red on Plan 2 subject to any Estate regulations and subject to the right of the Lessor or Estate Management Company to vary the layout and/or position of the Parking Space as may reasonably be appropriate
In the Newbies sticky thread, under "Parking in your own space", there was a link to a blog by Parking Prankster who mentioned the idea of "Primacy of Contract".
The idea behind primacy of contract is that a contract cannot be unilaterally altered by one party without the permission of the other. In the case of residential parking, the lease is the key document. If this gives the resident the unfettered right to park then this cannot be altered later, for instance by requiring a permit to park.
I would like to use this argument in my appeal to Popla, but am not sure if I can due to that annoying clause in my leasehold agreement quoted above.
Would subject any Estate regulations give my estate management company the right to force me to display a parking permit, and now pursue me for £100?
I apologise if this has been covered somewhere, but I can't find anything of relevance to my particular leasehold agreement.
Thank you all in advance for your help and the great work you do on this forum.
Edit: Clarified second paragraph
0
Comments
-
Have you already appealed?
Did you name or imply the driver (please say no)?
OneParking can't hold keepers liable and probably never sent a NTK at all, but that only helps a keeper appellant to 100% win easily at POPLA. An admitted driver is going to have a harder job.Recently the management company brought on One Parking Solution
OPS are not there 'to stop visitors using your bays' you know...my GOD, you must object to this awful nuisance (an ex-clamper firm, what WERE they thinking?) immediately with the MA, and ask for proof of their compliance with the L&T Act, and get OPS kicked out asap.
See the Landlord & Tenant Act section about having to get 75% agreement (and not more than 10% objections) as a consensus to vary the leases, as mentioned in this thread where a scumbag PPC was beaten this week:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5723306&page=2The DJ's opening remarks were ''Mrs Cross, you may have some difficulty with this. The Defendant has a lease which grants her a right to park. I will hear any submission you wish to make on whether that term has been varied''.PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Have you already appealed?Did you name or imply the driver (please say no)?OneParking can't hold keepers liable and probably never sent a NTK at all
I will ask for proof from my management that they were compliant with the Landlord & Tenant Act. I fear they may have had this vote / consensus before I even owned the flat as there were signs up in the garage (I didn't take note of what they said, as we didn't need a permit when I first moved in). Perhaps they "paused" OPS from enforcing parking.
I should also mention that the section in which residents are allowed to park, is secured by an RFID-controlled garage door with a big red "PRIVATE PARKING - RESIDENTS ONLY" sign. I was given an access key to this, which makes the whole thing more laughable.0 -
In this case, I did receive a Notice To Keeper from them
The last OPS PCN we've seen did not have the wording needed under 9(2)f of the POFA Schedule 4 - go compare!PRIVATE 'PCN'? DON'T PAY BUT DON'T IGNORE IT (except N.Ireland).
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD0 -
Coupon-mad wrote: »Why the heck did the residents agree to this imposition, if it were me or my family we'd be up in arms at the very idea of letting any PPC loose to infest our property and fine us on any old excuse.
I suspect it may often be because residents are fed up to the back teeth with someone being in their parking space. In my experience Managing Companies/Agents tend not to do anything unless they have got quite a lot of ear bashing going on.
We did have this problem in one of our car parks. It was a real pain as there has been a building development going on opposite and we had work vans etc parking in residents spaces. No need for a PPC, though. We offered residents parking posts and that sorted out the problem very quickly.
Mind you we have had one or two knocked out of the ground by other residents and their careless driving!
:cool::cool:
ETA.
I think the difference between you and your family and your average "estate" resident is your knowledge of PPCs. Most people don't know about them or how they work. When I became a director of this estate our then managing agent said to me you will have three problems. Parking, noise and waste disposal. And she was right.
Folks get absolutely enraged by selfish parking - especially in their own spaces. I've had residents demanding that we clamp a car, have it towed away etc. You only need that to spread and you have a lot of pressure on the MA (you'll likely easily get your 75% if necessary) and the MA will then say the only reliable solution is ticketing/permits and they'll jump on it.
Sorry for the hijack but it's a general point about how PPCs get on private estates.0 -
I've had a response from the MA.The car park and the spaces within it are not part of your lease and there has been no change or variation to your lease. They remain the property of the freeholder and not the lessees and are managed for the Freeholder by the Management Company.
What you have within your lease is the right to park in a space determined by the freeholder, which can be changed to another space at anytime. Furthermore within the covenants allowing you the right to park is the stipulation that you adhere to any Estate regulations in force or brought into force.
This is what the parking enforcement is. It is an Estate regulation and no consolation was required under any legislation.
I would add that [estate] has had parking enforcement for many years, it just happens that the last company who did it, did not renew the contract and stopped coming, we simply reinstated it with a permit system other than a report system which was in place before.0 -
Furthermore within the covenants allowing you the right to park is the stipulation that you adhere to any Estate regulations in force or brought into force.
and
... subject to any Estate regulations and subject to the right of the Lessor or Estate Management Company to vary the layout and/or position of the Parking Space as may reasonably be appropriate
But they have to be reasonable. Appointing scamming ex-clampers who target residents is not. That is not just my opinion, it is Parliament's, read this
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-parking-control-dvla-suspension-misuse-of-data-a8325941.html
This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.
Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct
Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.
The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.
http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41
and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
Are you sure that you didn't imply that you were the driver? e.g. "I parked" instead of "the driver parked"0
-
There should be a law that you cannot be "fined" for parking in your own designated space.0
-
Are you sure that you didn't imply that you were the driver? e.g. "I parked" instead of "the driver parked"
Yes I'm fairly sure of that. I did refer to myself as the leaseholder who had access to the parking space, and the keeper of the vehicle. I messed up by not making a copy of my appeal to OPS.0 -
When I first read on this forum about the landlord and tenant act, I was jubilant. However, having read both sections 20 and 37, I can't see how it helps on here.
Section 20 seems to apply to when the landlord wants to vary the service charges or incur new expenditure, and section 37 seems to apply where 75% of the tenants/leaseholders want to vary the lease. Neither of these seems to apply here.
I am not a legal person and would welcome someone telling me I have got it wrong and referring me to the wording that confirms this.
In your case, I disagree when the MA writes "The car park and the spaces within it are not part of your lease" The lease clearly states "10. The right for the Lessee to park a single domestic private motor vehicle in the Parking Space numbered [x] and shown edged red on Plan 2 " That is a fundamental part of your lease and they would lose that argument in court.
However, I do take your point that the problem lies in what follows the above ".........................subject to any Estate regulations and subject to the right of the Lessor or Estate Management Company to vary the layout and/or position of the Parking Space as may reasonably be appropriate". That would seem to let them introduce parking management. But it is very arguable as they have imposed certain restrictions including penalty payments if you transgress recent t&cs.
If they are in any way paying for the PPC, then section 20 could apply, but most PPCs are willing to operate on a free, vulture basis, so unlikely.
I would still argue on the variations to the lease and right to free enjoyment as well as asking for what consultation, notification of changes letters and reasons behind bringing in a PPC to a gated area, but in the absence of any MSE contributor pointing us to the wording in the landlord and tenant act that applies, I wouldn't rely on the act, I am afraid.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343K Banking & Borrowing
- 250K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.6K Spending & Discounts
- 235.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards