# entitled to the use of 1.5 car spaces: Unallocated spaces full most of the time



## shesells (26 Jan 2013)

Our leases state that each unit is entitled to the use of 1.5 spaces (being one resident car and a share in visitor parking) in our development. We don't have allocated parking for residents or visitors but approximately 90% of the parking spaces are within the walls of the development (with two small bays one above and below the entrance)

For the past 9 years it has never been a problem to get parking in the 90% - the entrance is opposite a wooded area so it really is preferable to park within the walls. We flagged the 1.5 spaces with our solicitor at purchase (we have two cars) and she went and spoke to the developer's solicitor and was told the two cars wouldn't be a problem, there were ample spaces. Unfortunately we never got that in writing.

Fast forward to now. The 90% of spaces are pretty much always full, what's happened is more of the units are rented now and there are potentially two cars per bedroom depending on the tenants which is really putting pressure on spaces. I know at least 5 units in my block have 3 cars or more.

We had an EGM a few years ago about bringing in allocated parking but this was defeated for a number of reasons, and it turns out, our planning permission does not allow it anyway. 

Quite a few units have two cars like us, but there has always been enough room for this and still leave plenty of visitor parking. But the additional cars (next door to me have 5) means no spaces, and with an AGM looming, it's crunch time.

The MC are looking at the situation and contemplating bringing in permit parking and only issuing one residents permit per unit but that brings its own complications. They did look at contacting the units where it is obvious that there are 3 or more vehicles but how can you say "leases only allow 1.5 spaces but we turn a blind eye to two, any more than that is a problem". We don't have enough spaces to give every unit two spaces so there's a real problem.

Anyone have any suggestions for proposals we can make at the AGM?


----------



## lantus (27 Jan 2013)

A tricky problem as the 1.5 spaces is what would seem to be the root problem. You mention planning permission does not allow for allocated spaces? However the lease would seem to offer some sort of remedy if the OMC has rights to control the parking.

Will any potential permit system be enforced through clamping? If not then how will the OMC ensure that non permit holders dont take spaces?

I would look at how many car spaces there are per bedroom in the developement and see where you stand as a ratio. There may be a great number of one beds that balances things out. This does not exscuse the fact that couples may occupy these units and have 2 cars. However, in trying to reach a fair system it may be a way forward with any left over spaces given out on a first come first served basis. As the 1.5 spaces is an allowance for visitors then this shouldn't be an issue. I would abandon the idea of visitors allowance altogether at this stage.

The parking outside will become quite important and essential. (Is ther enough capacity with these spaces?) Is security an issue in these areas? Can anything be implemented to improve security here through the budget? Without seeing the areas its hard to comment. Are these external bays under the remit of the OMC?

Can anything be done to your existing car park to realise more spaces?

It only takes a few rental properties to skew the parking situation and as you point out some units may have 4 or 5 cars. It only takes a few of these to represent what would be a dozen 'normal' units which creates a lot of pressure. It's not fair on everyone as its a disproportionate grab of a limited resource by a single unit. Every unit should get a fair allocation, and bedrooms seems a reasonable starting point and then see where you go from there.

There will inevtiably be some losers but overall everyone will gain. Is there any other parking outside the development that could be used that people are not aware of?


----------



## Time (27 Jan 2013)

Clamping is dangerous game as it upsets everyone and leaves the OMC liable to legal action and potentially thousands in damages for negligence and vicarious liability for the actions of your clamping contractor.


----------



## lantus (27 Jan 2013)

Time said:


> Clamping is dangerous game as it upsets everyone and leaves the OMC liable to legal action and potentially thousands in damages for negligence and vicarious liability for the actions of your clamping contractor.


 
I totally agree but what is the method of enforcement? You could get a barrier that only allows the number plates of approved cars in but thats expensive to install and maintain. Or hand out parking tickets with unique identifiers? Edit: solutions are what we are looking for, we all know that clamping is less than ideal.

Once word goes around that there is no negative impact on having no permit then the system collapses and things will be no different. i.e. if I drive in tomorrow and park there than what can be done to 'encourage' me not to do so.

It doesn't sound like the development is gated but these are far too easy to get around anyway as codes can be shared and tags to open can be also shared, or people let in. It wont prevent access by more cars than are permitted.


----------



## Time (27 Jan 2013)

Barrier system with numberplate recognition cameras. Costly but effective.


----------



## shesells (28 Jan 2013)

Thanks for the feedback. Have done the maths and there are 176 bedrooms in 81 units and we have 120 total spaces including the outer bays. I guess we need to start by checking the different lease types to see if 1.5 is universal.

It may be that we have to introduce a permit/clamping combination. We have no gates (council policy is no new gated communities) and the entrance is narrow, and not suitable for erecting a barrier. There may be trouble ahead, I can't see a simple solution. In general the non resident landlords' only concern is getting their rent paid.


----------



## Time (28 Jan 2013)

Clamping will lead to legal action and the management company in real trouble if damages are awarded against it. Also the directors could be held liable for any illegal acts.


----------



## Dermot (28 Jan 2013)

Sorry shelsells about your awful predicament. I have often taken your advice on matters that you posted on.  I would tread carefully and would seek out very good legal advice before I would seek to have a clamping solution to your awful problem.  It is an awful predicament to be in. The situation is that you can enforce in any way even a two car per apartment rule never mind prohibiting 3 cars.  I know it is quite annoying but do you think it is going to continue being overcrowded.

If you think a permit system would work you might have to give an incentive to Apartment owners on their Management fee for only taking up one car space. You could offer 400 per car parking space given up or part thereof off the Management Fee and if you got 20 car spaces as a result of this it would cost 4000 and could be recouped from those who want the extra half car space to bring them up to 2 at a cost of 200. I have a feeling it would not work in practice but might get minds thinking.


----------



## shesells (28 Jan 2013)

We have decided to investigate introducing a permit system. We already have clamping to prevent people parking in areas other than parking spaces eg on paths or at gable ends, and haven't had any problems so far. We also have directors liability insurance and clamping was mandated by an AGM prior to introduction.

At the moment we can't see any alternative. Will see what proposals we get and then look at maybe bringing it in, the option would always be there to suspend it.


----------



## lantus (28 Jan 2013)

shesells said:


> Thanks for the feedback. Have done the maths and there are 176 bedrooms in 81 units and we have 120 total spaces including the outer bays. I guess we need to start by checking the different lease types to see if 1.5 is universal.
> 
> It may be that we have to introduce a permit/clamping combination. We have no gates (council policy is no new gated communities) and the entrance is narrow, and not suitable for erecting a barrier. There may be trouble ahead, I can't see a simple solution. In general the non resident landlords' only concern is getting their rent paid.


 
OK, so there are two challenges.

1. How to apportion the car spaces up between the units.
2. How to ensure any such system is enforceable and works.

A1. On the plus side every unit will get at least ONE space. If the lease permits one space per unit then can the OMC enforce any other number than that? People signed the lease docs so just like the service fee they have to pay up and accept it. The .5 is a temporary arrangement for visiting cars. Thats 39 spaces though which isn't ideal to just leave dormant. And currently they are being used almost exclusivley for residents anyway.

I wonder what the breakdown of bedrooms in the development is (1, 2, 3? beds) I would also consider undertaking a survey or all the owners/tenants as to their car ownership per each unit. This would give a very good idea of the current state of play but is a bit of hard work.

It may be just as harsh as giving the 'option' of a second space to the first 39 units that pay their service fee in full providing they can demonstrate that they have a second vehicle (or any car) registered in their name as the named tenants for that unit as provided by the unit owner as part of members register info for the MUD act.

Again is there any other space external that could be used as overflow? What if the OMC paid to rent a patch of land or tarmac or car park spaces somewhere close by which was then added to the service fee bill. (Could be tricky from a lease perspective.) But could also solve the problem. Everyone gets one space inside, first payers or priority cases like families get spaces inside and second cars for others go outside somewhere. Basically you need to create more spaces. Could be cheaper than an expensive gate system.



A2. Clamping is used in many developments quite successfully and they dont get sued or taken to court or any of the horrible things you imply may happen Time. It is however, deeply unpopular and not my first choice simply to control parking; needs must however. The lease will outline how much control the OMC can exert over parking control and a members vote may be needed to ratify it and get the community behind it.

Technical issues regarding gates limit options but possibly get a manufacturer in to go over it with you. Why not discuss the situation with the local coco and see what they say.


----------



## Time (28 Jan 2013)

See section 113 Road Traffic Act 1961. This also applies to private areas. 

If anyone interfered with my car I would sue to the fullest extent of the law.


----------



## shesells (28 Jan 2013)

We've previously met with the council, and neighbouring developments have applied for planning permission and had it refused. It's the council's stated policy not to approve the creating of new gated communities.

We're looking into various permutations of permit issuing, will see what comes of that.


----------



## ontour (28 Jan 2013)

Time said:


> See section 113 Road Traffic Act 1961. *This also applies to private areas. *



Time,  The act specifically refers to public areas:

"*113.*—(1) A person  shall not, without lawful authority or reasonable cause, interfere or  attempt to interfere with the mechanism of a mechanically propelled  vehicle while it is stationary* in a public place*, or get on or into or  attempt to get on or into the vehicle while it is so stationary."

It was my understanding that it could be argued that it applies to a private area if that private area is not clearly delineated e.g. gates/ barrier.

Is there case history that applies this to private areas?  I find it hard to believe that I could park in someones driveway and then sue them if they moved my car!

edit:  I see that the 84 amendment removed 'in a public place' - would still be interested to know if this has been tested.  I would argue that it is lawful for me to remove your car from my driveway!


----------



## Time (28 Jan 2013)

It has been tested and the clampers lost.


----------



## shesells (28 Jan 2013)

what if the clampers are acting for the management company enforcing a covenant of the lease e.g. an agreement not to park at gable ends


----------



## Time (29 Jan 2013)

Most likely unlawful.

There are other civil remedies available.


----------



## birdy (29 Jan 2013)

While its not the same as your problem, in our development, it was decided to issue permits to those who had paid their management fees, and any cars that are parked in designated spots without permits are clamped. This had an immediate impact on the fees being paid, and also people who parking where they shouldn't. for landlords, they are not going to have tennants very long if the tennants have no permits due to them not parking.

In your case OP, you issue permits for the allocated spacing, and the clampers will do the rest. In our place there are certain places you can not park - beside bin sheds etc where access is required, and these are well signed, if you park there you will be clamped. 

It really has worked very well.


----------



## ontour (29 Jan 2013)

Time said:


> It has been tested and the clampers lost.



would be really interested to read if you have the link please.


----------



## Time (29 Jan 2013)

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showpost.php?p=718757&postcount=2

[broken link removed] Think it is page 30 or thereabouts.


----------



## jdwex (29 Jan 2013)

birdy said:


> While its not the same as your problem, in our development, it was decided to issue permits to those who had paid their management fees, and any cars that are parked in designated spots without permits are clamped. .


It was brought in in our development. Landlord (original developer) wasn't paying service charges and brought the OMC and clamping company to court (circuit). I don't think it went to full trial but he ended up paying arrears and costs (judge wouldn't continue temporary injunction preventing clamping). 

You'd need legal advice regarding lease and company articles etc.


----------



## lantus (1 Feb 2013)

Shesells, just wondering if you've made any progress on this matter?


----------



## shesells (2 Feb 2013)

Waiting to hear back re permit parking. As another poster mentioned, it would have the benefit of encouraging fee payment as well as dealing in part with our parking situation. At least in theory it sounds like a good idea.


----------

