So the Management Company that looks after the blocks of flats that I reside in wants to introduce a parking permit scheme with 1 permit per flat issued.

I objected to this, but they are referring to the definition of building:

"The Building" shall mean the building or buildings comprising flats described in Paragraph 6 of the Particulars including all external grounds roadways accessways amentity areas or other appurtenances of which the Lessor is proprietor being part of the land which is registered at H M Land Registry"

To this condition in the lease:

"The right for the Lessee to park one vehicle in the car parking area"

and to this condition in the lease:

"To conform to all reasonable regulations at any time specified by the Lessor for the management of the Building for the benefit of the lessees and occupiers generally"

They are going to employ a 3rd party to enforce the permit scheme with fines if a vehicle is parked without a permit.

Is there anything that I can do? The lease does not have any reference to permits nor does it have a clause about penalties if part of a lease is breached.

Your help is very much appreciated.

Mark

Suggest to the management company that if it's absolutely for the benefit of the lessees and occupiers then the car parking company maintain a whitelist of vehicles with a right to park and agree to cancel without argument any charge issued to a vehicle later shown to be legitimately parked by a lessee/occupier taking into account any minor oversights re. displaying the permit or temporary hired vehicles etc. etc.

If they don't want to agree to these options (and any others you can think of) then they aren't working for the benefit of the tenants

Any idea which PPC they have in mind? (Although they are all cut from the same cloth)

The PPC they are going to employ is ECP. Signs are already mounted on the walls. Just waiting for the permits to be issued now.

The issue is that there are two cars in my household and there is no car parking nearby as an alternative.

Sounds like they've already signed contracts and you're past the point of preventing it or at least getting the actually work for the residents.

Make sure any tickets are rigorously contested and make sure the whole block are aware of what to do when resident tickets inevitably start appearing.

What's the full and exact name of the company ?

Can't recall Euro Car Parks running car parks for residents

The bottom of the sign says "The contract is made with Open Parking which is the trading name of Imperial Civil Enforcement Solutions Ltd"

Not sure why it says ECP at the top.

ICES

An IPC member... no court record thus far.

Although you are only entitled to park 1 car in your lease.

As the lease says "The right for the Lessee to park one vehicle in the car parking area", you have no right to park more than one vehicle there. I am sorry to be the bearer of disappointing news, but my kids own a flat with exactly the same right - it is very common and, believe me when I say, problems do arise when someone forgets to display a permit.

As you have obviously realised, however, you do need to fight off the proposals for permits and ticketing. The reason why such regimes are introduced is because it is a money-making venture for the PPCs (and no doubt for the managing agents who will get commission from the PPCs).

Do warn your fellow leaseholders that they need to band together to fight off the proposals. Ask them what would be wrong with a whitelist of cars allowed to park rather than easily forgettable and losable permits. Ask them what would be wrong with a PIN- or card-operated barrier. Ask around to see if anyone would be interested in the leaseholders/residents themselves managing the parking. That way if the parking needs managing at all, any money raised from charges could go towards service charges. Whatever you do, do not allow the parasites in.

There are ways to fight. Although Lynnzer's templates cover residential parking after the introduction of a ticketing/charging regime, take a look at them anyway - a link can be found at the end of any of his posts. You can adapt the wording to use in letters of protest before any such regime is introduced. In addition, read some other residential parking posts and the Parking Prankster's stuff on residential parking on his website.

Also, check with the freeholder to see if he has signed on to the proposed regime. If the freeholder has, ask why he did not tell you of the plans before you purchased your lease. If the freeholder has not, the managing agents and the PPC are sunk (so long as the freeholder is willing to confirm his non-involvement.

If you do nothing at this stage, you will almost certainly win if you are taken to Court for not settling a ticket, but it can be a palaver and it could be hanging over your head for a long time.

Thanks for that link.

Yes, the deed does say one car only. However, we have been having two cars for more than 15 years without issues. This enforcement only started because other lazy residents can't be arsed to park in bays and there being a lot of dumped cars.

I wouldn't mind if there was alternative parking available within a reasonable walking distance, alas that is not the case.

Parking spaces are tight and the scheme allows for you to apply for a visitor's permit for those visiting the premises. I can foresee not being able to get a parking space if too many visitors are on the grounds.

I have read other topics here on the forum and from my understanding if there is no provision within the least for a penalty to be imposed or even a mention of parking enforcement, the enforcement can't be enforced. Does this apply to this case knowing the condition of one car per flat within the lease?

Ooops double post



Many thanks for your reply.

Unfortunately, I am one of only a very few lease holders that actually own and live in the property. The majority of the flats are rented out. I live in London that has a large variety of nationalities and there is definitely a language barrier in operation when attempting to speak to other residents.

Name Address Date

To the Managing Agent.

Sir,
I refer to the newly imposed parking arrangements you have introduced without acceptance by myself, or other residents no doubt.

Please take note that I do not accept them. My Lease is the Primary contract for the use of the premises and surrounding land which also covers parking matters.

There is no provision for further conditions being imposed to the Lease and you have been rash in your arrangements with the Parking Company. The actual word for such an action is Tortious Interference. I suggest you read up on it to avail yourself of the legal repercussions of your actions.

Whether or not you have concluded a contractual arrangement with the Parking Company is of little interest to me as any activity they take against me for the proper use of my assigned rights will be met with a claim of damages raised against you for your Tortious Interference with my leasehold rights.

I draw your attention to settled case law that entirely supports my position. I refer to to the case of Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011 (20th December, 2001) heard at the Royal Courts of Justice by LORD JUSTICE AULD, LORD JUSTICE ROBERT WALKER and SIR CHRISTOPHER SLADE where they found that a landlord cannot take away something given within a lease, specifically a derogation of parking rights already afforded within a lease.
As you are an agent acting on behalf of the Landowner you carry full responsibility for the derogation of, or interference to my rights.

The claim for damages occasioned is also settled Case Law: as evidenced by the case of Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Ltd [2013] All ER (D) 199

The property value of my premises would be negatively impacted by any imposed parking burden that carries a penalty regime so this notification is to set out to explain my own considerations.

The use of my personal data which the Parking Company may obtain from the DVLA for an alleged contravention of a condition imposed against my unfettered use of my Lease will also result in a claim of damages for a breach of the DPA against the Parking Management Company as they have no reasonable cause to access my details when I am not in breach of a condition within my lease.

I will not use, or accept any permit supplied. I do not have a requirement to do so within my lease, not does it set any financial penalty for some non contravention to the conditions you are responsible for letting loose on me. In fact a contravention of my lease is actionable ONLY as a breach of contract to the terms of my lease, not to a quite separate action from a Parking Company you have contracted with, presumably on a commission basis based on their takings from the site.

You will see you have chosen unwisely to bring in a scheme that is detrimental to my, and other residents, lease-holder rights and I wish to serve you notice at the onset of this situation so you cannot cry about not being informed appropriately if I do manage to collect a parking ticket and pursue a claim against you.

However you want to prevail in this matter is entirely down to you. If you have already contracted with the Parking Company then you may well have scuppered your boats as they may impose a penalty for early cancellation. That is not my problem.

If you feel that you may set up a voluntary scheme to prevent the ticketing of genuine resident's cars then I suggest you do that forthwith.

----------------------

Find out if the Managing Agent is a member of an association such as this.

If they are then let me know. I will draft up a complaint against them.
I will in any case put word out to this association and any others I find about such things so they can perhaps send out a nrewsletter to their memebers to advise against parking management contracts.

Thanks for your very detailed reply

But wouldn't the Management Company then not refer to this clause in the lease "And conform to all reasonable regulations at any time specified by the Lessor for the management of the Building for the benefit of the Lessess and occupiers generally". The term "regulations" is not described in the lease.

The Management Companies website shows that they are members of both RICS and ARMA.

The Management Company appears to be cracking a nut with a sledgehammer but I am very wary that the lease only allows for 1 car to be parked.

I already mentioned to the Management Company that by introducing visitor permits that this is against the lease because then more than 1 car is allowed to be parked per flat. They didn't respond to this nor to the request to have a permanent visitor permit for my wife that who can be seen as a permanent visitor to the flat (the lease is in my name only). I effectively gave them a get out clause but they are not having any of it.

The imposition of a private parking company is far from reasonable

But do they also define "reasonable" and "benefit"? A regulation that results in significant charges to genuine occupiers can hardly be described as a benefit.

Thanks for the further replies.

How does this sound?

I would use Lynnzers full letter.

They are responsible for the actions of their agent, whatever they say, so they cant just wash their hands of their actions.

Even though it's factually incorrect?

Sounds crap to me. You are prolonging the situation and giving them room for manoeuvre.
Just send the damn letter I knocked up. I spend time making these up and give some considerable amount of thought into them.
If they do progress with the scheme and you get a ticket, as you will do, many times, then they have already been warned so you can go straight to a claim against them.

I'm now sending this to the Association so they can take heed and perhaps send out a newsletter to their members of how much they could lose as a result of claims in such instances.

I'm always willing to learn.
Please advise. Just throwing in an unhelpful one liner is no damn good to anyone.

If theyre allowed to park one car, but are parking two, theyre in breach of their lease, no?

I imagine this hinges on how many cars the poster had in the car park when ticketed.

It's hard to see how being charged for parking a car you were already permitted to park just because you forgot to display a piece of card is reasonable, it's a mute point whether a regulation and condition are the same thing? I'd suggest it's not wrong but maybe could be worded better.

The lease does not require me to display a permit and charging me to park a car, something already granted by my lease, is not a reasonable regulation.

I would have thought that, if the Lessor was to specify some regulations, they would need to do so in a fairly formal signed document which would then need to be distributed to those regulations to the Lessees. After all, effectively, it would surely be tantamount to an amendment to the lease. From what the OP says, it seems to be the management company/agents, not the Lessor, who is driving these changes. Apart from the bit about the Lessor being able to make regulations, the lease appears neither to place any obligation nor confer any right to make them.

Might it be a moot point as to whether or not a Lessor (whose interest until the leases expire is probably nothing more than ground rent of a few hundred pounds a year) could impose a ticketing/charging scheme resulting in potential charges of thousands of pounds a year for simply being unwilling to display a permit?

Buying freeholds could be well worth considering.

And that is the issue. We both work with me doing shifts. That means that when I am getting home, my wife is in the process of travelling to work. So, most of the time there is one car parked, albeit not necessarily mine.

With the refusal of the Management Company to issue more than 1 permit, there is a risk one of these cars will get ticketed despite no breach of the lease.

There are going to be times when both of our cars are parked on the grounds. However, there is no alternative parking nearby so we are stuck.

Bearing into mind that for over 15 years we have parked two cars on the grounds without issues, does this not set a precedent (not sure of the legal term of it)?

In line with your lease you'll just have to find somewhere to park or you will genuinely be a trespasser.

Noting that there is no right to a visitor space and if visitors place a resident in the position of having to park 'inappropriately' then its the resident that will get the invoice.

That of course means the PPC would like there to be as many visitors as possible!

Or alternatively dump the car outside the "car parking area" on the grounds. "car parking area" is not defined but you would have thought they are the marked bays.

But then again, the Management Company already said in their letter that cars parked on the service road will get a ticket too. But nowhere in the lease does it say you can't park a car outside of the marked bays. Parking outside the marked bays does not cause an obstruction.

If the Management Company wants us to stick to the letter of the lease by letting us park one car in the car parking area, then surely they can't complain that I park it elsewhere on the grounds? So I could park one car in the car parking area (as per the lease) and one elsewhere on the grounds and not break the lease?

A little far fetched perhaps?

Indeed, you could point out that the lease places no resatrictions on parking elsewhere, and so to ticket there would be fettering your rights to peaceful enjoyment.

Did you read Saeed v Plustrade?

Forget the '1 car' rule at the moment. Forget it.

The MA are trying to allow a third party to 'charge' for parking without a permit and thereby impose onerous terms, where at the moment, no charge, no permit requirement and no onerous terms exist.

This isn't just a case of the second car getting a PCN. Even if you parked ONE car you would run this onerous risk. These firms issue charges for:

- the permit slipping a little bit behind the shaded edge of the windscreen

- the permit being 'obscured' by rainwater (we have a case on the forum right now like that)

- the permit being 'obscured' by ice on the windscreen in winter (I wrote a defence for a case like that)

- a person continuing to display a blue permit when ScammersRUs have secretly changed to green permits over Christmas when people are away.

- a person parking in an unmarked place that ScammersRUs have secretly decided is no parking

- parking on a crack in the pavement

- any other excuse - you name it.

Also, what on earth are your visitors meant to do?

You need to steer this well away from even mentioning the '2 cars' thing. It's about the onerous terms, a penalty charge being imposed that never existed before, NOT for the contravention of 'parking a second car' (because no PPC has ever issued a PCN for that!) but in fact 'parking without displaying a permit because we said so'.

You need to attack it MUCH more in Lynnzer's style and read Saeed v Plustrade, which did (at first) also include a dispute over an imposed CHARGE for parking. Sadly that point was conceded before the appeal hearing I believe so it's not part of the judgment.

But you need to understand this is about derogation from grant for each single car previously allowed to park free.

Not park there obviously? The OP knew the conditions when they bought it and accepted them at that time.

But his single car will run the risk of a PCN anyway - that is the argument that this is derogation from grant, onerous terms imposed.

The burden of proof would lie on him though, he would have to show that adopting the car parking scheme wasn't an action a reasonable management company would take.

I consider that a wholly seperate argument myself.

The one is penalising him for something he's allowed to do ( under the terms of the lease) the other for something he's not allowed to do.

SRM has it bang to rights.
How in hell does a PPC even know how many cars a resident has? They don't keep white lists. If they did there would be a damn good number of PCN's that would be prevented.

The number of cars is a white elephant. It's the overall principle of ticketing that is the problem here. By introducing a scheme that effectively fails the "man on a London Omnibus" test for reasonableness they have gone one step too far.

In any case, the Code of Practice, operating charter or whatever they call it, the managing agent is running a risk of sanctions from his own professional body.
Their COP says:
(The Managing Agent) Should ensure the Lease terms are complied with and avoid imposing any restrictions that are not provided for within the Lease;

Lease Variations: Managing Agent Must "have appropriate instructions In Writing from the Client to act"

Contractor Appointment & Administration
When appointing a contractor the Managing Agent Must not exceed the authority given to them by the Client

It's a matter of opinion but I see them failing on all 3 of those.

You could take them to task and ask for evidence of their client issuing instructions. If they fail at that then report them to the Association

You could take them to task and ask for evidence of their client issuing instructions. If they fail at that then report them to the Association

I very much like that approach

The lease gives them the right to park one car in one parking space. It doesn't say that you cannot park another car on site. Perhaps?

Is the point not, as Lynnzer points out:

So, as well as the reasonableness test, while the lessor can apply "regulations", then surely such regulations cannot involve paying a third party money for their breach?
I think the letter could be slightly better worded in that respect.

But then, who am I to say?

They can adopt whatever scheme they want. However, they cannot force anyone to enter into a contract of parking with a third party. Trespass only.

--Churchmouse

I can't see how trespass could stack up. There's a leasehold right to be on the premises, by as many cars as needed, only not to park more than one at any one time. An interpretation of which car it is that has permission to park at any single time would be damn difficult to ascertain for legal consideration.

I've just sent an email to the only other Association for these companies that I could find. The first went to ARMA and this has been sent to IRPM.
The letter is in the Flame Pit, slightly modified for the IRPM though.

I think we need a more concentrated attack on managing agents. The more actions for tortious interference we can raise the better.
I cannot for one minute believe that at least a fair percentage of them are on the take for commissions and if proven (how can you even do that?) there's a massive conflict of interest.

As it stands right now though, once a contravention from the lease is involved by a leaseholder, he becomes subject to a breach of the lease, ie a breach of contract. The same applies by a deviation from the terms and conditions from the lease by a landlord, and any involvement by the MA in a totally independent action that reduces the lessees' rights are tortiuos interference. The MA isn't a signatory to the lease but they are allowing, indeed promoting the breach of it by the introduction of quite separate non agreed conditions.

So my recommendations right now must always be to find out which trade body the MA is aligned to and go into a complaint procedure following the process from the actual trade body. As well as claiming damages.

I sent a further email to the Management Company asking / stating:

(1) They imposed a restriction not provided for in the lease which goes against 3.3(b) of the code of conduct of their trade association
(2) Having parking with a permit only is a variation of the lease and I therefore asked them to provide written instructions of this from their client
(3) I asked for a copy of the tender document as they employed a contractor and I haven't seen any correspondence regarding this. I also asked them for a copy of the contract between them and the parking enforcement company
(4) I asked them what control measures they have in place that the duties of the parking enforcement company are completed to an acceptable standard
(5) I asked them why they don't have a complaints procedure in place if I want to complain about their contractor considering that the Management Company said they will not enter in discussion about any tickets issued

Apparently "who am I to say" applies to me too. I'm out.

My block's agents claims to be a member of ARMA, but also of 'ARLA' if that's relevant?

Further update.

The parking control scheme is coming into operation at the end of June. The management company is refusing to issue a second permit.

I asked them for the particulars of the freeholder so I can raise the matter direct with them, only for them to reply that they are the freeholder (my lease says the lessor is a different party but perhaps this has changed since?). I tried to do a land registry search but it is giving an error.

With regards visitor parking, you need to phone when a visitor arrives so that a virtual permit will be issued which needs to be renewed every two hours. How is that going to work when you're asleep and you have visitors staying over?

It is not to intended to work. If it did, they wouldn't make any money by scamming you.

That is TERRIBLE and unworkable.

I would be sending a LBA to the Managing Agent in the style of that written by LoadsofChildren123 on this thread on MSE:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5588292

And include a copy of Saeed v Plustrade, a parking case to illustrate the doctrine: ''a grantor shall not derogate from his grant''. They can't offer unfettered parking rights to residents/visitors on the one hand, then take it away later, with the other, and expose you to onerous charges.

The true identity of the landowner has to be found ASAP.

If you're comfortable about it, could you post the location address. You could miss out a house number but post the street and a post-code.
Some digging around to do.

Also keep going with objections. You need to build a case up for when it goes to court: LIKE THIS. I know there's nothing imminent but it'll happen sooner or later......

So get right back, say that this is entirely unreasonable and despite them saying they are the freeholder you just don't beleive them without them producing a copy of the Land Registry details.

As Managing Agents, they have a duty of transparency and you insist on the producing all contracts between themselves and their principal/landowner, as well as a copy of the contract with the PPC.

Inform them that their involvement is well outside the limits of reasonableness and that if they fail to give answers you will report them to ARMA.

I would also be tempted to tell them that without evidence of their principal's instructions to set up such a scheme you do not accept it and will not display a permit. Any consequent claims against you will be counter-claimed with them being added as vicariously liable for damages.

I asked them for the contract between them and the parking enforcement company but they have not produced this. I also asked what kind of tendering process was done and why we were not involved with this (like it does with most other tendering processes). With regards the latter, they are citing

"Also as regards the tendering process – where the cost does not equate to more than £250 per unit or over £100 per unit per annum as regards qualifying long term contracts – the requirement for tendering under the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1985 (as amended) do not apply"

The flats are located at postcode N9 7PY

I appreciate all of the replies so far. I have objected a number of occasions to the introduction of the scheme but it is falling on deaf ears.

No longer ask, demand it. State that as leaseholder you have an absolutely right to this contract, as the MA is there to assist free- and leaseholders.

Its ok if it falls on deaf ears. It just makes a bigger rod for their back, shold they be foolish enough to attempt court. It shows an entirely unreasonable attitude by the MA.

I'd stick my neck out and say that Ellis & Co aren't the landowners/landholders.
It's a damn big company but I don't think ownership is one of their portfolio businesses.

Write again. Address it to the Proprietor(s). YOU HAVE TO KEEP HECKLING THEM.
I can't find them on a Duedil search so it seems it's not a Ltd Co.

You need to keep on trying to get the Land Registry details too. The search for the location, ie Hickory Close doesn't throw anything useful up.
Take a shufti among this lot. It has all planning applications for Hickory Close. It might be useful to identify one that is relevant to your estate and then perhaps it will show details of the applicant.

I can see New Age properties involvement here as an agent too.
Here'a a map from the Planning Dept.

Clanmar Homes come out on this one associated to the other application.
They may just be the builder and perhaps sold them on but as they are leased I'd think they are still the landowners/lessors