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.

Parking at my apartment

Options
13567…10

Comments

  • nosferatu1001
    nosferatu1001 Posts: 12,961 Forumite
    First Post First Anniversary Name Dropper
    Options
    Parking poles in bays would work, if there is actually a problem

    Tell the MA you are not a party o tthe scheme, withdraw any implied consent for them to enter your space, which extends to their agents, and any tickets in future will be regarded as prima facie evidence of trespass.

    You suggest that, as your lease contains no provision enabling the MA to bind you to contracting with a third party to enjoy your demised property, nor to pay them a penalty sum should you fail to abide by their arbitrary rules, the MA cancels the ticket and instructs teh PPC to cease its harassment of you.

    Failure to do so may require you to use all legal remedies available, including an injunction and a claim for the tort of intereference with your lease, trespass to property and goods, harassment and misuse of your data. THis is their sole warning.
  • beamerguy
    beamerguy Posts: 17,587 Forumite
    First Anniversary Photogenic Name Dropper First Post
    Options
    I just wonder how many MA's around the country
    understand this ???
  • LawlessGoose
    LawlessGoose Posts: 57 Forumite
    Options
    nosferatu1001 wrote: »
    Parking poles in bays would work, if there is actually a problem

    That's a very good point that I hadn't thought of. A pole that can be lowered into the ground and fixed upright when the bay is not in use and the keys given to each resident. But that wouldn't make anyone any money :o
  • LawlessGoose
    LawlessGoose Posts: 57 Forumite
    Options
    "That the Leaseholder and the persons deriving title under the Leaseholder will at all times comply with such reasonable regulations as the Landlord may make from time to time relating to the use of the Building and the Common Parts the putting out of refuse for removal and such other matters as the Landlord considers necessary or desirable for the purpose of securing the safety orderliness or cleanliness of the Building the Common Parts or the Estate or the comfort or conveniences of the tenants of the Building or the efficient or economical performance by the Landlord of its obligations under this Lease"
  • nosferatu1001
    nosferatu1001 Posts: 12,961 Forumite
    First Post First Anniversary Name Dropper
    Options
    Nope, but it shows that "but we need a PPC" is a crap arguemnt
    No, no you dont.

    Yes, REASONABLE regulations
    It isnt a common part, its your demised space
    It has nothing to do with safety, orderliness or cleanliness.
    It isnt for your comfort or convenience.
    The landlord hasnt made them
  • LawlessGoose
    LawlessGoose Posts: 57 Forumite
    edited 21 August 2018 at 12:27PM
    Options
    The definitions in the lease are:

    Landlord - the MA
    Leaseholder - me
    The building - means the building situate on the property consisting of 61 apartments including the premises and including the common parts within the building
    The estate - means the land now or formerly comprises in the above title number
    The premises - [the apartment's address] on the first floor of the building which is shown in red on the plan 1...

    The apartment is in plan 1 and the parking space is in plan 2.

    The parking space is probably part of the estate so it may fall under the category of orderliness of the estate. My thoughts would be is it reasonable to hire a PPC and was the orderliness bad enough to warrant corrective action and if so, was a PPC the best action.

    But to split hairs, as I think nosferatu1001 has pointed out, the clause only says it can dictate use of the building and common parts but not use of the estate, where the parking space is.
  • nigelbb
    nigelbb Posts: 3,790 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Options
    LawlessGoose wrote: »
    The definitions in the lease are:

    Landlord - the MA
    Leaseholder - me
    The building - means the building situate on the property consisting of 61 apartments including the premises and including the common parts within the building
    The estate - means the land now or formerly comprises in the above title number
    The premises - [the apartment's address] on the first floor of the building which is shown in red on the plan 1...

    The apartment is in plan 1 and the parking space is in plan 2.

    The parking space is probably part of the estate so it may fall under the category of orderliness of the estate. My thoughts would be is it reasonable to hire a PPC and was the orderliness bad enough to warrant corrective action and if so, was a PPC the best action.

    But to split hairs, as I think nosferatu1001 has pointed out, the clause only says it can dictate use of the building and common parts but not use of the estate, where the parking space is.
    It doesn't matter where it's located your parking space belongs to you just as much as your living room or bathroom.

    If it's not in the lease you cannot be charged extra to use your parking space any more than you can be charged £100 for taking a bath.
  • LawlessGoose
    LawlessGoose Posts: 57 Forumite
    edited 21 August 2018 at 12:40PM
    Options
    "The right to use the parking space allocated for the time being to the Premises the parking space allocated at the time hereof being that shown marked on Plan 2 annexed hereto with the number corresponding to the plot number of the Premises [can be changed if a disabled space is required] "
  • LawlessGoose
    LawlessGoose Posts: 57 Forumite
    Options
    The landlord/ma is a "charitable industrial and provident society" as opposed to a regular company. Could that make a difference to how they should operate?
  • NeilCr
    NeilCr Posts: 4,430 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post
    edited 21 August 2018 at 1:52PM
    Options
    LawlessGoose wrote: »
    That's a very good point that I hadn't thought of. A pole that can be lowered into the ground and fixed upright when the bay is not in use and the keys given to each resident. But that wouldn't make anyone any money :o

    Parking posts have worked very well in one of our car parks. We gave residents the choice of having them or not. They did have to pay for them but we got a deal

    Only problem is that they do get knocked down quite a bit. You might end up needing CCTV to catch the culprits! I am not an expert so there may be car parks where, because of angles etc, they wouldn't be such a good idea

    To re-iterate I am no fan of PPCs - I am just trying to point out reasons they could be introduced. From what I know they are usually bought in following pressure and complaints from residents either to the MA or the freeholder. I am not saying they are the right solution, though. If we ever did end up going down the PPC path (and we do have issues with parking outside of the bays) then I would go for self ticketing and ensure the PPC was never on site

    I do hear what you say about being left alone and I agree. Problem is though when others act selfishly and impact on those who "follow the rules"

    To be honest, in your case, looks like non PPC measures were used and didn't work and the MA/freeholder has cranked up through further options. Not parking posts though!
This discussion has been closed.
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343.3K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.7K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173.1K Life & Family
  • 248K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards