Resident Parking

Dear MA,

Thank you for confirming my right (otherwise known as a grant) to use the common areas, where you have stated:

All residents have a right to use the common areas

I see that you go on to give this opinion, with no source or legal backing:

but this does not supersede the parking control arrangements which were reviewed in consultation with residents last year.

On the contrary, it is my honest believe that my primacy of contract, my grant to use the common areas, does supersede any arrangement you have come to, without due diligence or even Googling the reputation of this ex-clamper firm, which has immediately created a nuisance by penalising residents.

This is a derogation from grant. Even if the landlord (or the Managing Agents but only if allowed under the terms of the lease) can make regulations for the 'comfort and convenience' of lessees, this does not cover entering into agreements with firms whose modus operandi and agenda aims to actually penalise those residents you might have been led to believe, are receiving a service. Imposing an aggressive third party on residents is unacceptable and not excused by any clauses in any agreement.

The fact that my tenancy agreement is silent about extra 'charges' or 'permit' obligations works in my favour, not yours.

Since there has been no variation of the residents' agreements under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 you cannot impose this charging regime via a back door method of 'signs and permits'. I understand that for such a variation to have been agreed by the residents, 75% of the parties must have consented and not more than 10% must not have objected to any proposed material change (which this most certainly is).

PCM present a significantly detrimental material change and provide no service that is for the comfort and convenience of the residents here. I do not recognise any authority from the parking company you have chosen to impose upon residents. For the avoidance of doubt, I have entered into no contract with PCM and no variation of my tenancy agreement has occurred. You cannot just allow a third party (notoriously litigious and aggressive) firm to put some signs up and pretend that overrides my rights.

If it is your belief that I am wrong, please show me your evidence of:

- the clause that allows you as Managing Agents to impose this nuisance upon residents, and

- all letters sent to residents about this regime, specifically warning them about extra £100 charges, and

- the consultation undertaken by the landlord and the percentages of responses in agreement, or otherwise.

- how much of the proceeds of paid 'parking charges' is given back to the landlord/Managing Agent under the contract?

- how this is to be used for the convenience of the residents or shared with them/deducted from the service charges? If not, how are you planning to use the bounty paid (if any) and did you mention that figure, in the communications with residents?

As I understand it, the law requires that leaseholders (including tenants of private sector properties) paying variable service charges must be consulted before a landlord enters into a long-term agreement for the provision of services.

I would draw your attention to case number D7GF307F - UKCPM v Mr D - before Deputy District Judge Skelly on 1st February 2018 at Clerkenwell, a similar thin excuse of an argument from a private parking firm inflicting a nuisance on residents & visitors was dismissed. When not sitting as a Judge, DDJ Skelly is a barrister specialising in property law. The managing agents were named as a party to the lease, and there was a clause which said that they could make regulations for the 'comfort and convenience' of lessees. However, this could not excuse a change as intrusive and onerous as to override the grant of free resident/visitor parking, effectively restricting and charging for a right previously enjoyed, without the required consensus and deed of variation. The Judge remarked that this would be like the agents suddenly stipulating that residents had to hang a Union Jack out of the window whenever they were at home. Even if a few residents went along with it, such imposition (and certainly a three figure charge for supposed breach of an obligation that is unsupported in lease agreements) is a nuisance, clearly unreasonable and not in the interests of the consumer.

Kindly note my formal objection to the nuisance you have inflicted upon me as tenant, and show me the consultation you mention took place, including all letters explaining the regime/permits and all response percentages, including the numbers of ''no reply''. In the meantime, I am sending a copy of this letter to:

A - PCM, so that they are fully aware that they are trespassing against my vehicle and that I have accepted no 'contract'.

B - my MP, Mr/Mrs xxx xxxxxxx who has been appraised of the 2nd February 2018 Parliamentary debate about private parking firms and is now well aware of the issues, where the House concluded: ''we need to crack down on these rogue companies. They are an absolute disgrace to this country. Ordinary motorists and ordinary residents should not have to put up with this''.

C - Trading Standards, to investigate why a firm like PCM, with their (easy to find) horrendous reputation, were imposed without proper consultation at this location, causing detriment and loss to residents who are all entitled to expect due diligence from their Managing Agents and peaceful enjoyment of their property.


Yours faithfully,