Management company refuse to stop Parking Company ticketing on our space |
Management company refuse to stop Parking Company ticketing on our space |
Fri, 9 Aug 2019 - 16:23
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17 Joined: 18 Jun 2019 Member No.: 104,352 |
Following a number of PCN's issued on our parking space, outlined on our deeds and detailed in our leasehold, we have written to the Parking company advising that they can no longer issue tickets on our space and that we will be invoicing them for incenvenience if they continue to issue invalid tickets. They have said that they will not accept this unless agreed by the management company.
We have now recieved an email from management company saying that they do not accept this quoting a clause in our lease which gives them as landlords and owners of the freehold, absolute descretion in the management of the building and all of the land including the carpark, for the comfort, safety and benefit of all owners. and that the decision to instruct the PCN was made by shareholders over 10 years ago (before we owned the apartment). To change it we would have to propose and have it voted on by all shareholders Would be interested to hear thoughts? Can they do this? surely court action against people for parking in their own space cannot be considered as for the benefit of all owners? We wouldn't have a problem with this system except that they still issue tickets even when a permit is displayed. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Fri, 9 Aug 2019 - 16:23
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Fri, 9 Aug 2019 - 16:42
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,506 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
What, exactly, does your lease say about parking?
The lease cannot be varied by the parking company’s signs. Which parking company? -------------------- RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it. |
|
|
Sat, 10 Aug 2019 - 08:31
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17 Joined: 18 Jun 2019 Member No.: 104,352 |
What, exactly, does your lease say about parking? The lease cannot be varied by the parking company’s signs. Which parking company? Thanks JIc The company is Armtrac. I have just been through the lease document with a fine tooth comb! The only reference I can find to parking is in the definitions and interpretation. 'The premises' means all the first floor flat with parking space known as XXXXX shown for the purpose of identification only edged red on the plan numbered one and 2 Our numbered space is outlined in red on the plans The only other clause that I can see that could effect this is within the tenants covenants: at all times to observe and perform all regulations that the landlord may from time to time in its absolute discretion think fit to make for the management care and cleanliness of the building and the comfort safety and convenience of all its occupants. (the 'building' is defined as the land and premises owned by the landlord) the landlord covenant includes: To permit the tenant peacably and quietly to hold and enjoy the premises without any interuption or disturbance from or by the landlord or those claiming under it |
|
|
Sat, 10 Aug 2019 - 11:00
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 145 Joined: 2 Jun 2018 Member No.: 98,224 |
I have just been Court for the same alleged contravention. 2 Aug 2019
If you have Land Registry Title Deeds outlining in Red your ‘Demised Premises’ then you have Exclusive Possession. You are the Landholder. (Not the Landowner) No third party can interfere with your rights. You are the authorised user of the Parking Space by virtue of your Lease. You do not need anyone’s sanction to park Vehicle Control Services had their case against me dismissed within 5 mins by the Judge Further, your management company cannot enter you into any contract with a third party. The arrangement exists between the management co & said parking Company. They cannot impose or make you follow their ill thought out car park scheme |
|
|
Sat, 10 Aug 2019 - 11:59
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17 Joined: 18 Jun 2019 Member No.: 104,352 |
I have just been Court for the same alleged contravention. 2 Aug 2019 If you have Land Registry Title Deeds outlining in Red your ‘Demised Premises’ then you have Exclusive Possession. You are the Landholder. (Not the Landowner) No third party can interfere with your rights. You are the authorised user of the Parking Space by virtue of your Lease. You do not need anyone’s sanction to park Vehicle Control Services had their case against me dismissed within 5 mins by the Judge Further, your management company cannot enter you into any contract with a third party. The arrangement exists between the management co & said parking Company. They cannot impose or make you follow their ill thought out car park scheme Great thank you so much for your feedback and advice Pearlofwisdom! I thought this was the case but just wanted to be sure before I reply with a cease and desist letter. You wording also helps me to explain it to them (again). Feeling relieved that you case was dismissed within 5 mins and hoping that our will be the same. |
|
|
Sat, 10 Aug 2019 - 12:15
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
If you have Land Registry Title Deeds outlining in Red your ‘Demised Premises’ then you have Exclusive Possession. You are the Landholder. (Not the Landowner) No third party can interfere with your rights. They cannot impose or make you follow their ill thought out car park scheme That rather depends on the terms of the lease(s) in place. A lessee holds an inferior estate subject to the reservations made by the lessor. You seem to be implying hard and fast rules derived from your single case into situations that could be very different. That is dangerous. The Court of Appeal upheld parking regulations in a development in Montrose Court Holdings v Shamash. The general principle seems to be that so long as the lease reserves the right to make regulations and the regulations made do not amount to a derogation from grant then they can be imposed. -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Sat, 10 Aug 2019 - 13:23
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17 Joined: 18 Jun 2019 Member No.: 104,352 |
If you have Land Registry Title Deeds outlining in Red your ‘Demised Premises’ then you have Exclusive Possession. You are the Landholder. (Not the Landowner) No third party can interfere with your rights. They cannot impose or make you follow their ill thought out car park scheme That rather depends on the terms of the lease(s) in place. A lessee holds an inferior estate subject to the reservations made by the lessor. You seem to be implying hard and fast rules derived from your single case into situations that could be very different. That is dangerous. The Court of Appeal upheld parking regulations in a development in Montrose Court Holdings v Shamash. The general principle seems to be that so long as the lease reserves the right to make regulations and the regulations made do not amounmat to a derogation from grant then they can be imposed. Having read this case, it would seem very different from ours. It talks about the right to park on a service road. In our case we are addressing the right to park in our own space which is part of our 'premises' and not a shared or communal area that is used by others. The boundary of the space is marked on the plans and we were parked within that boundary. The space is not a communal area or a parking space that can be used by anyone other than us and so there is no reason for it to be managed for the good of all leaseholders. Surely the case you have mentioned would have no relevance tc our case? |
|
|
Sat, 10 Aug 2019 - 13:26
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
Surely the case you have mentioned would have no relevance tc our case? I don’t know enough about your case to comment. However, you seem to have grasped the relevant point, even though the point I was making was that it isn’t as black and white as the inaptly named pearls of wisdom suggested. -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Sat, 10 Aug 2019 - 15:24
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 145 Joined: 2 Jun 2018 Member No.: 98,224 |
If you have Land Registry Title Deeds outlining in Red your ‘Demised Premises’ then you have Exclusive Possession. You are the Landholder. (Not the Landowner) No third party can interfere with your rights. They cannot impose or make you follow their ill thought out car park scheme That rather depends on the terms of the lease(s) in place. A lessee holds an inferior estate subject to the reservations made by the lessor. You seem to be implying hard and fast rules derived from your single case into situations that could be very different. That is dangerous. The Court of Appeal upheld parking regulations in a development in Montrose Court Holdings v Shamash. The general principle seems to be that so long as the lease reserves the right to make regulations and the regulations made do not amounmat to a derogation from grant then they can be imposed. Having read this case, it would seem very different from ours. It talks about the right to park on a service road. In our case we are addressing the right to park in our own space which is part of our 'premises' and not a shared or communal area that is used by others. The boundary of the space is marked on the plans and we were parked within that boundary. The space is not a communal area or a parking space that can be used by anyone other than us and so there is no reason for it to be managed for the good of all leaseholders. Surely the case you have mentioned would have no relevance tc our case? My case related to 2 in number Demised parking spaces "The Premises " ( not an access or estate road or casual parking within The Lessor's Estate)) The general principle seems to be that so long as the lease reserves the right to make regulations and the regulations made do not amounmat to a derogation from grant then they can be imposed. Derogation from grant:- The obligation not to derogate from grant is automatically implied into leases. It embodies the general legal principle that if one party agrees to give a benefit to another party those parties should not do anything that substantially deprives the other of the benefit. This covenant is typically relied upon by tenants to prevent landlords from doing something that renders the property materially less fit for the purposes for which the lease was granted and prevents the tenant from enjoying the property There was nothing in my Lease which states the above. I would say our cases are almost similar - unless your Lease contains the above. (Which I doubt) The Judge was quite clear and held up my Land Reg Title Deed clearly showing my 2 Demised spaces in Red. He was succinct in summarizing that VCS had no authority to issue PCN's Their Barrister held up his hand and said " You have the better of me Sir" - he had no argument. Tyson987 - Do you have same Title. Do you have a Plan showing or outlining 'The Premises' in red? Does your Lease allow the Lessor to make changes and therefore reduce/remove your Parking rights as Lesse ? Does your Lease say you must display a permit to park? Regards Pearl 'Not' so wise according to Southpaw82 [i]the point I was making was that it isn’t as black and white as the inaptly named pearls of wisdom suggested. Only trying to share and be helpful Dear This post has been edited by Pearlofwisdom: Sat, 10 Aug 2019 - 15:36 |
|
|
Sat, 10 Aug 2019 - 15:45
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 145 Joined: 2 Jun 2018 Member No.: 98,224 |
Following a number of PCN's issued on our parking space, outlined on our deeds and detailed in our leasehold, we have written to the Parking company advising that they can no longer issue tickets on our space and that we will be invoicing them for incenvenience if they continue to issue invalid tickets. They have said that they will not accept this unless agreed by the management company. We have now recieved an email from management company saying that they do not accept this quoting a clause in our lease which gives them as landlords and owners of the freehold, absolute descretion in the management of the building and all of the land including the carpark, for the comfort, safety and benefit of all owners. and that the decision to instruct the PCN was made by shareholders over 10 years ago (before we owned the apartment). To change it we would have to propose and have it voted on by all shareholders Would be interested to hear thoughts? Can they do this? surely court action against people for parking in their own space cannot be considered as for the benefit of all owners? We wouldn't have a problem with this system except that they still issue tickets even when a permit is displayed. Who is the Management Company? Are they named in the Lease document as Landlord / Freeholder ? |
|
|
Sat, 10 Aug 2019 - 15:45
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
The general principle seems to be that so long as the lease reserves the right to make regulations and the regulations made do not amounmat to a derogation from grant then they can be imposed. Derogation from grant:- The obligation not to derogate from grant is automatically implied into leases. It embodies the general legal principle that if one party agrees to give a benefit to another party those parties should not do anything that substantially deprives the other of the benefit. This covenant is typically relied upon by tenants to prevent landlords from doing something that renders the property materially less fit for the purposes for which the lease was granted and prevents the tenant from enjoying the property There was nothing in my Lease which states the above. There was nothing in your lease that states what? QUOTE Their Barrister held up his hand and said " You have the better of me Sir" - he had no argument. VCS sent a barrister to a small claims case? Who was it? QUOTE Tyson987 - Do you have same Title. Do you have a Plan showing or outlining 'The Premises' in red? That’s not vital. The extent of the demised premises will be set out in the lease and normally any plan will attempt to illustrate that but is normally subject to the description in the lease; there are exceptions. It shouldn’t be difficult for the OP to know whether the parking space is part of the demise or not. QUOTE Does your Lease say you must display a permit to park? That would be unusual and would normally be done by reserving a power to make regulations to govern parking. I’d not expect something as simple as a requirement to display a permit to be in the lease itself, particularly if it is a long lease. QUOTE Only trying to share and be helpful Dear Good, you won’t mind if I try to help you try be helpful then. -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Sun, 11 Aug 2019 - 14:33
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17 Joined: 18 Jun 2019 Member No.: 104,352 |
If you have Land Registry Title Deeds outlining in Red your ‘Demised Premises’ then you have Exclusive Possession. You are the Landholder. (Not the Landowner) No third party can interfere with your rights. They cannot impose or make you follow their ill thought out car park scheme That rather depends on the terms of the lease(s) in place. A lessee holds an inferior estate subject to the reservations made by the lessor. You seem to be implying hard and fast rules derived from your single case into situations that could be very different. That is dangerous. The Court of Appeal upheld parking regulations in a development in Montrose Court Holdings v Shamash. The general principle seems to be that so long as the lease reserves the right to make regulations and the regulations made do not amounmat to a derogation from grant then they can be imposed. Having read this case, it would seem very different from ours. It talks about the right to park on a service road. In our case we are addressing the right to park in our own space which is part of our 'premises' and not a shared or communal area that is used by others. The boundary of the space is marked on the plans and we were parked within that boundary. The space is not a communal area or a parking space that can be used by anyone other than us and so there is no reason for it to be managed for the good of all leaseholders. Surely the case you have mentioned would have no relevance tc our case? My case related to 2 in number Demised parking spaces "The Premises " ( not an access or estate road or casual parking within The Lessor's Estate)) The general principle seems to be that so long as the lease reserves the right to make regulations and the regulations made do not amounmat to a derogation from grant then they can be imposed. Derogation from grant:- The obligation not to derogate from grant is automatically implied into leases. It embodies the general legal principle that if one party agrees to give a benefit to another party those parties should not do anything that substantially deprives the other of the benefit. This covenant is typically relied upon by tenants to prevent landlords from doing something that renders the property materially less fit for the purposes for which the lease was granted and prevents the tenant from enjoying the property There was nothing in my Lease which states the above. I would say our cases are almost similar - unless your Lease contains the above. (Which I doubt) The Judge was quite clear and held up my Land Reg Title Deed clearly showing my 2 Demised spaces in Red. He was succinct in summarizing that VCS had no authority to issue PCN's Their Barrister held up his hand and said " You have the better of me Sir" - he had no argument. Tyson987 - Do you have same Title. Do you have a Plan showing or outlining 'The Premises' in red? Does your Lease allow the Lessor to make changes and therefore reduce/remove your Parking rights as Lesse ? Does your Lease say you must display a permit to park? Regards Pearl 'Not' so wise according to Southpaw82 the point I was making was that it isn’t as black and white as the inaptly named pearls of wisdom suggested. Only trying to share and be helpful Dear Thanks Pearlofwisdom,Southpaw appreciate all and any advice and experience you can offer. My answers to your questions below. Do you have same Title. Do you have a Plan showing or outlining 'The Premises' in red? Yes the premises is outlined in red including the individual numbered parking space that goes with the apartment. Does your Lease allow the Lessor to make changes and therefore reduce/remove your Parking rights as Lesse ? No I cannot see anything in there that allows lessor to make changes. Does your Lease say you must display a permit to park? No, no mention of parking permits at all. The only clause that I can see that could affect it is... [i]The tenant covenants with the landlord to: at all times to observe and perform all regulations that the landlord may from time to time in its absolute discretion think fit to make for the management care and cleanliness of the building and the comfort, safety and convenience of all its occupants The managment company is the landowner. The shareholders of the management company are the leaseholders of the apartments in the block in equal parts. So we can have a say by voting on the management of the carpark but they say this will need to go to the next AGM nearly a year away. In the meantime they are continuing to issue and chase payment for these penalty charges for us and a lot of other residents. This post has been edited by tyson987: Sun, 11 Aug 2019 - 14:35 |
|
|
Mon, 12 Aug 2019 - 11:53
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Is the landlord the MC? If "no", then the MC cannot make such regulations. Its a surprise the MC are the actual Freeholder - are you absolutely certain on that?
Is requiring a permit to be displayed, and failing to do so meaning you powe a third party part of a "management care...."? I wouldnt say so - that removes your right ot park *unless* you display a perimt, when the lease makes no such provision. Where is te regulation, and how was it agreed? Given it was supposedly brought in BEFORE you bought, how were you notified of such? Did you sign anything? |
|
|
Mon, 12 Aug 2019 - 11:59
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Requiring a resident to display a permit may come under the
QUOTE at all times to observe and perform all regulations that the landlord may from time to time in its absolute discretion think fit to make for the management care and cleanliness of the building and the comfort safety and convenience of all its occupants. (the 'building' is defined as the land and premises owned by the landlord) clause, allowing a stranger to the agreement (Armtrac) to collect £100 for the pleasure of telling you that you forgot would not. If anything it would be for the landlord to sue for failing to adhere to that 'regulation'. -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Mon, 12 Aug 2019 - 12:33
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Id simply instruct the MC to cease interfering with your right to peaceful enjoyment, which includes their agent trespassing in your space, and that if they continue to breach your lease you will sue them and gain an injunction against them and their agent.
Instruct the PPCs ATA to investigate as, given this is YOUR demised space, YOU are the landholder and the PPC does not hold a contract with YOU. |
|
|
Wed, 14 Aug 2019 - 16:52
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 17 Joined: 18 Jun 2019 Member No.: 104,352 |
Thank you nosferatu1001 and The Rookie for your help.
I have now sent a letter to both PPC and management company asking them to stop ticketing and demands for money or I will be taking further action. Hopefully if we get a favourable judgement with the upcoming court cases, they may get the message. Will keep you posted on how we get on! |
|
|
Tue, 20 Aug 2019 - 07:52
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,283 Joined: 5 Jan 2012 Member No.: 52,178 |
On a thread on MSE, there is a court case for "own space" parking (without permit), where it was reported:
QUOTE The main argument that the Judge summarized on was that there was no consideration in the contract. The point is that the parties must exchange something of value. Consideration is needed so that both parties incur some sort of burden or obligation in the agreement. PPC could not offer me anything of value as I was already parked in my own demised parking bay, so no contract could exist. Likewise, you have the right to park, so no one can impose an additional "contract" on you. If anything, you could be in breach of your lease, but how is the remedy for that to pay a third party some sum of money? If your household insurance includes legal cover, you could investigate whether it would cover having someone resolve this dispute (before it escalates). |
|
|
Wed, 21 Aug 2019 - 06:51
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
asking them to stop ticketing and demands for money You should be 'telling' not 'asking'! -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 18:08 |