One Parking Solutions Windscreen PCN - private flat bays, share of freehold . - Durrington, West Sussex.

[iamgnome]

Alright, an update. MA has responded with the contract. I haven't read the whole thing yet, but it seems to be signed by the management company. This may mean the PNC is invalid right?

However, I need to double check that it is the management company and not the dormant freehold company. How would I know which one is which?

I can see all the leaseholders have 1 share each in the management company. In the lease it's referred to as the landlord, whereas the other company is the 'association'. Your steer here would be helpful.

Lastly, MA is p'd off that I'm challenging him and is refusing to cancel the PCN. He suggests I appeal, haha. I'll keep being a nuisance, but it looks like I'll need to wait for NTK. So any thoughts on a defence?

Cheers

[lolerz]

MA can sign on behalf of the freehold company (that's what you pay them for) but the actual contract must between the freehold company and the PPC.

 

If it isn't, then yes unlawful contract.

[lolerz]

I wouldn't worry on a defence yet. If you get the NTK you simply ignore it and all future correspondence until/unless you get a letter of claim. Then we'll deal with it.

[iamgnome]

Thanks lolerz, so I just need to figure out the terminology here. What is the freehold company?

The company that takes my service charge is referred to as the landlord (and is the PPC client). But the titles etc seem to be with the other company, which has barely any money in it.

Noted on the NTK point.

[lolerz]

Freehold company is the entity who owns the freehold for the land. It's rare that'll be the management company.

 

Easy way to find out is to type the name of your development on to companies house and look for the company/companies registered to your managing agents address

[iamgnome]

Hmm... Both seem to have the same address... Any other way to check?

[Ethel Street]

If the MA has sent you the whole contract then it must state who the parties to the contract are. It wouldn't be a legal contract if it didn't. Who is named in the contract document?

[iamgnome]

So, it's the company referred to as "the landlord" in my lease. This is the same company that takes my service charge.

As mentioned there seems to be two companies that I have a share of, but unsure which one is the freehold company.

Edited March 12 by iamgnome

[lolerz]

Re: Same address: Normal.

 

Re: Contract. This must state that the client is the freehold company as they own the land.

[iamgnome]

Alright I'll do some more investigating to figure it out.

Let's say the contract is between the freehold company and PCC, then how screwed am I?

[lolerz]

Not screwed at all really.

[iamgnome]

Understood. Okay then I'll wait on the letter of claim, if they send it. Let's see what they do... Will keep you updated.

Edited March 12 by iamgnome

[lookinforinfo]

If you  post up the contract there may be a couple of other things in it  that will help you win the argument. We see a fair amount of contracts over the years so are used to finding the loopholes.......................

[lolerz]

Agree with @lookinforinfo, they just beat me to it!

Scan up a copy of the contract and we'll be able to advise further. I imagine we'll be able to spot fairly quickly who the MA has signed on behalf of, as well as spot any other issues

[iamgnome]

Alright, will send over a sanitised contract when I next get on a PC. Cheers for looking.

[dx100uk]

the only thing you need to redact is your details.

if it doesnt name you or id you via say any ref numbers, it doesnt need redacting at all

dx

[lookinforinfo]

i have just come across an old case like yours which should give you lots of hope and a breach of GDPR at the end of it.

Parking Prankster: Tenancy Agreement not overruled by Parking signage

PARKING-PRANKSTER.BLOGSPOT.COM

---

Pace Recovery and Storage v Mr N C6GF14F0 16/09/2016 Croydon. Mr N had the temerity to park outside his own home, in his own parking space...

 

[iamgnome]

Thanks dx and lookinforinfo. I had a look at the above case, and it does indeed seem promising.

Also as promised, I've attached a sanitised version of the contract, lease and deed of variation.

Based on the info so far, this PNC seems like it may be unenforceable, given that I've not appealed and will follow the process outlined on this website.

HOWEVER, I have a feeling that if I keep parking in the bays, despite ignoring PNCS, then there might be the possibility that I'm breaching the lease.

I wonder what you guys might think about that…

 

Lease.pdf Deed of Variation.pdf OPS contract.pdf

Edited March 16 by iamgnome

[lolerz]

unfortunately, regarding the OPS contract, you've most likely redacted the most useful bit here.

I would assume that what is in that involves the location of where the car park is but it's important we see this (minus the main address, obviously). If it doesn't have that then the "contract" they've provided is bogroll.

Can you please provide a little less redaction. If the name of your development is on there redact that and your address ONLY (do NOT redact anything else, especially if part of the name of the signature includes "Freehold" or "Management company") 

Can you also name which section of the lease/DoV you believe you will be breaking if you continue to park please, 

[lookinforinfo]

I read their contract and interestingly they say they observe their ATA Code of Conduct. They then say that they will apply for planning permission-which I am sure they haven't. Could be worth checking the local Council planning portal which would give you a stick to beat your MA with as to why OPS were brought in.

[iamgnome]

lolerz - thanks, there is no mention of the exact location of the car park/bay, only the name of the development (which is the first line of the address). Sounds like it could be bogroll.

Signature is the MA's name, no mention of freehold in the signature itself. After some digging, I can also confirm now that the 'client' is the freehold company (NOT management company), so it seems like the MA got that bit right.

The specific part of the lease that worries me is what I mentioned in the OP (see below).

'No vehicles shall be parked within the grounds of the
Property otherwise than in the garage forming part of the
demised premises or in any other part of the Property
previously approved in writing by the Landlord for that
purpose'

lookinforinfo - thanks, what's an ATA Code of Conduct? Also, I'm pretty sure they haven't applied for planning permission, so I'll investigate. Surely, OPS have no authority to apply for planning permission in a private residential zone?

 

Edited March 17 by iamgnome

[FTMDave]

1 hour ago, iamgnome said:

in any other part of the Property

previously approved in writing by the Landlord for that
purpose'

That sounds very much like a parking bay to me, presuming the parking bays are marked as such.

[iamgnome]

Thanks FTMDave the bays are not marked as such, but they're referred to in seperate 'management rules' which could easily be construed as written approval to use them.

Otherwise, why are we parking there and having to follow this daft 1 hour policy with the PPC (OPS)?

 

[FTMDave]

Maybe I'm thick but what exactly are residents supposed to do now?  Get a permit, park for one hour and then move their car off the estate before they can come back after more than one hour, rinse & repeat?

[lolerz]

Park their cars in the garage is the most common answer for leaseholds.

The only issue is that the garages were built for cars from 50 years ago and modern safety advancements mean that even small hatchbacks won't fit any more.

I doubt OPS will be stupid enough to carry this on any further.