Move to allow parking only for owner occupiers in a flat block

Half_way · 1 July 2018 at 2:56PM

Do as Coupon mad mentions above, its important that all flats that could be affected by this are notified

varghesejim · 5 July 2018 at 7:13AM

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I would respond absolutely objecting, and pointing out that as a resident, you have already allowed your tenants to enjoy the same parking and other rights and easements as you enjoy as leaseholder.

Therefore (you can say) the Residents Association cannot remove this retrospectively and you intend to take them to a tribunal if they try, or if they impose other restrictions or charges that have a detrimental effect or nuisance for you and/or your tenants, and might lead to a case for damages if the rental value falls as a result.

Put a copy of that reply also, with an explanatory alarmed note, in the doors of all 24 flats with your phone number or email address and ask others to get in touch if they are concerned about this apparent attempt to vary the leases/erode the rights of residents and derogate from grant, which is unlawful. Not only that, such a regime would mean allowing an ex-clamper thug firm on site, and they are notorious for charging and suing residents; so bad is the problem for residents in such locations that it has been discussed in Parliament this year:

https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

Stir up a storm.

Slightly different but that's what I have done, twice, in my local roads to stop sheep-like people voting for a Council permit scheme that was painted as if it was a good thing. Voted out twice, and people agreed with me once they saw the real issues that the Council was not admitting would happen. All 'driveway' white H bar (parking allowed by the homeowner) lines would have been removed and replaced with double yellows, and the Council neglected to admit it. I told the local residents what would really happen and how the parking would be reduced and they'd pay for it in more ways than one.

People will follow blindly, if they are not told the disadvantages. And being told to display a permit or be sued, is not something any of them should be voting for. Add in IamEmanresu's observation, for good measure:

Frighten the locals and they will NOT agree to this.

Draft letter

To

The Directors,
...Association

Re: move to change parking arrangements in ....

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am the owner of .......which is currently rented out. I understand there is a voting happening on the subject of allowing only owner occupiers to park within the premises of ...... I strongly object to this idea.

As a resident, I have already allowed my tenants to enjoy the same parking and other rights and easements as I enjoy as leaseholder.

Therefore the Residents Association cannot remove this retrospectively and I intend to take them to a tribunal if they try, or if they impose other restrictions or charges that have a detrimental effect or nuisance for me and my tenants, and might lead to a case for damages if the rental value falls as a result.

I would also like to point out that attempt to enforce this parking restrictions among residents may lead to rifts between neighbours and in case if it leads to a formal dispute, it has to be declared to the solicitor at the time of sale of any flat in floral court. There is a strong possibility that this will lead to a fall in property value in floral court.

Regards

....

System · 5 July 2018 at 7:25AM

There is a strong possibility that this will lead to a fall in property value in floral court.

Like all contractual disputes, it will come down to the wording of the leases. If there is no restriction on the issue of renting and ancillary rights, then this is an attempt to remove a valuable amenity which in the case below was calculated at 5% of the property value. This leads to a basis for action in damages of 5% * number of flats, so worthwhile getting others to join in.

Gordon v Elizabeth Court (Bournemouth) Ltd [2012] EWHC (QB), [2012] All ER (D) 41 (May)
3 May 2012
The claimant had a right under her lease to garage one car in !!!8216;the space!!!8217; provided for that purpose beneath her block of flats. In February 2011, the landlord decided to trial a new parking system whereby spaces were taken on a first-come first-served basis. The claimant sought an injunction preventing the new parking system from being implemented and a declaration that she was entitled to the use of an allocated parking space. The county court dismissed the claim. The High Court allowed an appeal and granted a declaration that the tenant was entitled to the use of an allocated parking space.

.

NeilCr · 5 July 2018 at 7:58AM

I still think, as per the other thread, it is worth trying to find out what authority (as per lease/vote) they think they are using to get this through.

It would be able to make your challenge more focussed. As we said there, you are a shareholder in the company so are fully entitled to this information - plus minutes of meetings/AGMs.

In terms of garnering support from others you are hampered by being ((a fair way?) away from the site and that it may well be - as there is plenty of offsite parking which some use already - that many won't be that bothered. Which, I guess, is what they are relying on

It's worth pointing out that, certainly, on this board

- my way of approaching it is different to most. I tend to leave going in heavy until I've got all the facts and the more gentle way has failed!

Of course, that doesn't mean I am right.

[Deleted User] · 5 July 2018 at 8:08AM

Does the o/p have legal expenses cover with their home insurance for this property? It's normally a bolt-on for a small additional premium.

If so, there may be cover for professional legal advice on the property issues and prospective cover if litigation is required.

System · 5 July 2018 at 8:09AM

I tend to leave going in heavy until I've got all the facts and the more gentle way has failed!

@NeilCr. AIUI you will be familiar with Tribunals - either employment or benefits - which I assume you wouldn't tell a client that a Tribunal was "heavy".

As regards facts, everyone has them in the form of a lease.

The OP could spend a lot of time and money in an exchange of lawyer letters but the clear arbiter in these cases is the Tribunal as that is where the property experts are - as recognised by the courts themselves.

In the same way as employment/benefits claimants routinely use Tribunals, leaseholders do and should use the FTT

NeilCr · 5 July 2018 at 8:17AM

IamEmanresu wrote: »

@NeilCr. AIUI you will be familiar with Tribunals - either employment or benefits - which I assume you wouldn't tell a client that a Tribunal was "heavy".

As regards facts, everyone has them in the form of a lease.

The OP could spend a lot of time and money in an exchange of lawyer letters but the clear arbiter in these cases is the Tribunal as that is where the property experts are - as recognised by the courts themselves.

In the same way as employment/benefits claimants routinely use Tribunals, leaseholders do and should use the FTT

Indeed, I am

In the other thread, as I said, it was suggested that the OP tried to find out why they were acting as they were and what authority they were using. Nothing more than that. OP, by their own admission, has had no involvement or interest in the running of the estate up until now and there does seem to be a bit of a lack of information. Note - I am not blaming him for that!

My point was not that taking someone to Tribunal is heavy. I know it's not. It's threatening to do it, without knowing the full facts, that is, in IMHO, the heavy bit.

ETA

There is a bit more info in the other thread where the OP said a week ago he was going to be contacting the agent for more information on what authority was being used. I don't know if this was actually done.

Loadsofchildren123 · 5 July 2018 at 11:31AM

Yes, I'd ask them to explain what authority they are relying on as allowing them to introduce parking regulations which favour one set of owners over others.

Also put in that if they introduce these parking regulations they are breaching your right to Peaceful Enjoyment (look at your leasehold, it may say Quiet Enjoyment), and the right of Peaceful Enjoyment you have passed on to your tenant, and they have no right to do so.

I'd also be inclined to put a paragraph in about how residential parking controls is a very thorny subject because private parking companies are notorious for targeting genuine residents and not rogue parkers, so much so that it has recently been debated in Parliament in the context of proposed legislation to control the behaviour of the private parking companies. Then include the Deeps' link.

NeilCr · 5 July 2018 at 4:13PM

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

Yes, I'd ask them to explain what authority they are relying on as allowing them to introduce parking regulations which favour one set of owners over others.

Also put in that if they introduce these parking regulations they are breaching your right to Peaceful Enjoyment (look at your leasehold, it may say Quiet Enjoyment), and the right of Peaceful Enjoyment you have passed on to your tenant, and they have no right to do so.

I'd also be inclined to put a paragraph in about how residential parking controls is a very thorny subject because private parking companies are notorious for targeting genuine residents and not rogue parkers, so much so that it has recently been debated in Parliament in the context of proposed legislation to control the behaviour of the private parking companies. Then include the Deeps' link.

Thank you Loads of Children

That makes Loads of Sense :cool::cool:

OP. I would go down this line

Coupon-mad · 5 July 2018 at 4:25PM

I'd go down that line too, but adding the case that IamEmanresu cited which is so similar, and was upheld on appeal.

Move to allow parking only for owner occupiers in a flat block

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free