Gated housing estate, management company run by residents - parking space given to other house

TOMs WIFE

A relation of mine has a house for the last few years in a housing estate, where every house has 1 allocated parking space. There are also a small number of visitor spaces. The management company is run by residents as a limited company.

My relation does not drive, however friends and family park in their space when calling to him. Recently, other cars have been parking in his parking space, and he wrote to a rep on the local committee - who informed him that the committee decided to earn extra funds for the upkeep of the common area by seeing if houses with two cars would be interested in paying extra fees for parking. He was told that this was "agreed" and spaces were allocated to houses for spaces that "were not used regularly".

He is beyond upset at this, as his purchase of a house in the development came with a space (albeit I understand that the spaces are owned by the management company/hence the residents as a group) so not legally owned. However, this would impact on his property value, ability to rent a room out to someone with a car etc. Also, there was no mention of what happens if he DID start to park there every day - what would happen to the residents with 2 cars that paid some extra cash.

It all seems completely unfair, but would like a view on whether a management company can simply do this? Thanks.

GerardKeating

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058319860/gated-housing-estate-management-company-run-by-residents-parking-space-given-to-other-house

What kind of "meeting" was thus agreed at, if it was an AGM that your relation could/should have attended ?

thebiglad

If all residents currently not using a space obtain cars then they have issues but, perhaps the lease out of spaces is on a short term or limited rolling agreement so that they can be taken back. Unless your property is specifically assigned to a space then anyone can park there, you cannot expect to leave it vacant for occasional visitors. We have similar in our estate and in theory there are 1.5 spaces per property in the estate and permits are issued at a max of 2 per property. The deal is, you may not get to park outside of one's own property but, there will be parking in the estate somewhere.

This should/would have been discussed at AGM, did your relative attend? Perhaps they should consider attending in the future to hear what is planned for the estate and object if they so wish. They could also propose themselves to join the committee.

I would suggest they put the hypothetical situation to the Board that car ownership of residents outstrips the spaces - what is the plan to remove external parking permits/leases.

It is not clear where you estate is but, could people be parking during the day to travel into work and therefore when the majority of residents/visitors are home, the spaces are freed up.

of course, the response may be that, as with my estate there are sufficient spaces around, go find one that may not be at your front door.

TOMs WIFE

Thanks. They said it was agreed at a management company "committee meeting".

Each house has an allocated lettered space. He requires some supervision from family so wouldn't be able to voice opinions at the management company, but we should decide on how to approach that. In terms of the AGM, hypothetically, if all residents were "using" their allocated spaces, except for my relation, could the AGM decide something like this - I need to get the Memo/Articles of association but I recall seeing something specifying one space per house allocated in there. It seems very unreasonable that someone that has their space there for visiting friends and relatives can lose the space, but someone renting a whole house there can have their tenants parking there without issue (and technically make money on the space as part of the monthly rent).

Not "regularly" using the space is a very arbitrary means of taking something like a space away, and he bought the house in the knowledge of having an allocated space.

thebiglad

If the spaces have a letter on and that is allocated to a property then I don't see how they can be leased out by the management company, regardless of use.

The AGM could decide nearly anything, it is proposed by the committee and voted on by those present (or by submission of a proxy vote) and depending on structure, majority carries.

The committee must act in the best interest of all residents, they clearly think generating revenue is realistic and would not impact on the residents - was their meeting recorded in minutes and if so as an owner of a property, can they request the minutes also.

Seems like a big decision for the committee without AGM, they must have worked through some review of numbers of 'vacant' spaces to reach their decision - need to see what that was and, whether it was flawed.

Your relative firstly needs to confer with the solicitor who acted on his behalf when buying the property. Ask what reference in the purchase contract there is in relation to the car park space. In most cases that I am aware of the ground remains the property of the OMC but it is lease to the unit owner for their exclusive use. At the very least, your relative should be entitled to the funds raised by someone else using it as it is his space to use, and let be used, not the OMCs.

I would suggest you get your relative to send a registered letter to the Managing Agent stating that no permission was given for them to assign the space to someone else, or to receive payment for doing so, and that if they do not cease, legal proceedings will follow.

Ive been an OMC Director for many years, and seen some strange goings on, but that is taking the pi$$

TOMs WIFE

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121290210#Comment_121290210

Thanks, will look at doing that. I was involved in the purchase and don't recall directly seeing a space being part of the purchase contract, more that there was an allocated space in the management company rules and regulations. The Managing Agent in this case is the residents themselves, and I am worried that if my relation is the only one not "regulary" using his space, that they (at AGM etc.) could simply vote him out of a space. Also, threating the Managing Agent (i.e. the other house owners) could come across as "threatening the neighbours"? But a space or use of a space is a very valuable commodity and I think placing (even with AGM approval) mandatory minimum usage on it is a step too far!

Someone said to me we should just park a car in his space for a few days to send out a signal that he is "using" it, albeit not the driver himself, but that's only messing, I'd prefer to get it formally fixed if possible for him.

TOMs WIFE

So...UPDATE:

I got the "House Rules", and some other various leaflets that had been delivered over the last couple of years.

1.      He got a notice on purchase of the house from the management company stating "Your parking space will be "X".

2.      The “House Rules” state that “There is ONE allocated car parking space per house, therefore the houses are unsuitable for resident owners/renters with more than one car ownership. This car parking space is allocated by the management company to the resident of the property who owns a car. The car parking space is not included in the sale of the house. Car parking privileges can be withdrawn if resident owners/renters do not respect the house rules. There are three car parking spaces for visitors of resident owners/renters.”

3.      There is a separate memo to residents, in relation to the gates into the complex, stating "any house that has a car is guaranteed one parking place for themselves and a visitor parking space for their visitors (3 visitor spots in total in the complex). It is imperative that only residents' cars are parked in the spaces allocated to them.”

4.      A separate newsletter states that residents should remember that "there is a SINGLE car parking space allocated to each house by the management company and this is the only allocation available. If you have two vehicles then alternative parking arrangements need to be made for parking your second vehicle outside of the complex.”

So. There are various interpretations here. He's given an allocated space per house, but then suggests it's allocated to the resident who owns a car. My reading of that is if there are 3 residents, one will get a space allocated. It said it's not included in the "sale of the house" - which I presume is to clarify that you don't legally own it, rather than saying you have no automatic right to a space unless you have a car....

They've now changed the rule in Bullet No. 4, by allowing the houses with more than 1 car to pay a few quid extra for the privilege, at the expense of my relation, who doesn't own a car, but who would have had an expectation that the space would be free for visitors without relying on the 3 visitor spaces elsewhere in the complex.

I can only assume if he purchased a car tomorrow they'd have to give him back the allocation (and don't know what would happen to the people that had paid extra for its use).

Is it reasonable to only allocate you a space if you HAVE a car? I would have thought that once you have the house, how you use your allocated space should be up to you. If my relation rented out a room to someone with a car that would be easily arranged. So it seems to be a very unreasonable position to take in my view.

Thoughts welcomed.

Lenar3556

It appears that these parking spaces are not attached to the house which he purchased, and are instead held in a CLG structure, which he is likely a member.

This CLG possibly has considerable discretion when it comes to controlling the lands held within it.

It would be interesting to know the circumstances that have led up to it agreeing to depart from the previous practice of each house having an assigned parking space?

On the face of it, it would seem in very poor judgement, particularly without a poll of, and agreement of the members.

It would be interesting to see the company constitution.

How many houses are involved? Is the company financially solvent? Was this some kind of force majeure action that was taken out of necessity to secure urgently needed funds? Otherwise what are these additional revenues being used for?

TOMs WIFE

Thanks. Yes, it's a company limited by guarantee.

The circumstances quoted by them are that a couple of spaces were not regularly being used by some houses, so by allowing some houses with more than 1 car use them ("for an additional sum"), the coffers for the common ground maintenance would get a boost.

Only about 30 houses, e.g. 30 allocated spaces and 3 visitors.

Even if there was a vote (but they said committee decided), is it tenable for, say, 28 houses with 1 or more cars, to vote that a couple of houses with 2 cars can use someone else's space because they aren't using it enough. Not to mention mandating HOW/who uses it once the house owner has agreed it.

I don't know what they'd do with the funds collected if he just got a car tomorrow as he'd then be re-entitled!

buzz11

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058319860/gated-housing-estate-management-company-run-by-residents-parking-space-given-to-other-house

The primary document that sets out various rights & entitlements is the lease, this document will be in the deeds of the property so find that and all your questions will be answered.

Parking spaces are dealt with in a variety ways, my guess based on what you've described is that each house owner is "entitled to the exclusive use of one parking space which is allocated by the owner management company" or words to that effect. If thats the case, then your relation writes to the Owner Management Company (OMC) stating their rights and asking where is my dedicated space.

Will you come back with an update?

deirdremf

Buy a wreck of a car for €100 or so, the sort of thing that would "bring down the tone of the neighbourhood" and park it in his allotted space. Leave it there to rot for a month or two, and then offer to remove it for a cast iron guarantee regarding the space.

dubrov

It sounds like the parking spaces are common areas and the original way agreed to divide it up was to assign one space per unit with the rest becoming visitor spots.

Someone has decided to change this (maybe with good intentions) but it doesn't seem fair that members have to own a car to get their fair share of the common areas.

Just get on to the directors and explain the situation. If they refuse to allocate you a spot, you could always go the legal route but this may be costly. I can't see a court approving an arrangement that apportions common areas based on vehicle ownership though.

Your relation needs to attend AGMs to make sure they are aware of what is going on.

Lenar3556

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121292511#Comment_121292511

He more likely has a freehold interest in the house, and if so there wouldn’t be any lease involved.

It would be interesting to see the contract of sale though.

TOMs WIFE

Thanks all.

I have seen a "Deed of assignment" between the vendor and my relation when he purchased the property a few years ago.

It refers to "By a Lease" dated back in the 1600s for 999 years, then refers to an "Assignment" in 1987 between a builder and some couple who we do not know.  Then another Assignment in the 2000s stating that the scheduled property is now "vested in the Vendors for the unexpired of the Term". (The house was built in the 1990s).

The Deed of Assignment then states that in consideration of the purchase sum paid by the purchaser to the vendors, the Vendors "hereby grant and assign unto the purchaser all that and those the Scheduled Property to hold same unto and to the use of the purchaser for all the residue unxpired of the terms, subject to the covenants on the part of the Lessee and the conditions contained in the Lease in so far as the same relates or effects the Scheduled Property.......together with the easements, rights and privileges specified in the 1987 Assignment but subjec to the covenants therein contained..."

The "Schedule" simply refers to "All that and those the property known as (address) as more delineated on the map attached hereto and edged in red." (This map simply shows the house and garden).

I am curious as to what "rights and privileges" could have been specified in teh 1987 Assignment, but don't understand any of this.

Again, any thoughts welcomed, including on whether a case would win in terms of it being too much of an imposition on a householder to be told how they used their allocated space i.e. you can park there if you have a car, but your sister can't even if you want her to.

(Edit, thanks for those thoughts Duprov, I see the 2011 Act on these housing developments says the Circuit Court can make a judgement...)

Edit - thanks Buzz11 re "The primary document that sets out various rights & entitlements is the lease, this document will be in the deeds of the property so find that and all your questions will be answered." - the deeds are with the bank that gave the mortgage so could be awkward to do this...

Edit - my relations solicitor pre purchase asked the vendor solicitor to confirm "car parking arrangements" and the vendor solicitor stated "we are instructed that there is one allocated space per house with 3 visitor spaces". However, they probably just got told this by the sellers, so not sure if it's worth anything.

buzz11

Edit - thanks Buzz11 re "The primary document that sets out various rights & entitlements is the lease, this document will be in the deeds of the property so find that and all your questions will be answered." - the deeds are with the bank that gave the mortgage so could be awkward to do this...

Some options

-ask the bank to scan and send you copy of the documents you want

-ask the bank to send the full deeds to your relatives solicitor and you can review them in their office.

TOMs WIFE

Thanks buzz11.

Just to check - we are pretty confident that he doesn't OWN the parking space, the OMC does - so you think there would be still a lease that mentioned the parking spaces? Also, the lease stuff I posted before seems to suggest it's being going on for years, before the parking spaces ever existed?!

CrazyEric

If whomever is the most frequent visitor/carer put their car in your relatives name and then you could go back to the management company and say it is their car and they are entitled to the spot. Cheapest way round it I can see. Just make sure the insurance is done correctly.

TOMs WIFE

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121298403#Comment_121298403

Problem is they aren't necessarily arguing it has to be his car, they're saying the space is not being used regularly enough!

buzz11

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121298352#Comment_121298352

Yes he doesn’t own it but my hunch is he has rights to a dedicated space that’s allocated by the OMC - a very common provision

your description of how the OMC has handled this so far appears like they haven’t referred to the leases…that’s not too surprising.

goingnowhere

The typical solution is the lease contains a statement that the OMC grants you a licence to a car park space identified by X on attached map Y. There is normally provision for the OMC to vary this in certain circumstances but only if an alternative space is provided.

It's a source of great conflict at OMC's how spaces are assigned and you should immediately engage a solicitor to enforce your rights if any action impacts on your access to same. There is likely a planning condition which requires 1 space per unit to be provided so thats a good place to start

TOMs WIFE

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121300978#Comment_121300978

@goingnowhere Thanks. Will definitely check this out.

@goingnowhere @buzz11 What are your thoughts on the house rules bit that says "This car parking space is allocated by the management company to the resident of the property who owns a car. The car parking space is not included in the sale of the house. Car parking privileges can be withdrawn if resident owners/renters do not respect the house rules." - if the lease guarantees a space to be allocated, how can they remove "privileges"? (I'm guessing "not included in the sale of the house" doesn't mean you don't have an allocation, just that you can't sell the space yourself.)

Separately, if this provision (hopefully) exists, why would my relations solicitor have had to ask the vendor solicitor what the "car parking arrangements are" ? Wouldn't he have just seen it in the lease(s)? Ditto the vendor solicitor replying saying they were "instructed that there is 1 space allocated".

goingnowhere

In your case there is no lease or licence provision, or details of same are not known

Under licence conditions, yes access to a space could be denied if management fees are not paid etc, however house rules cannot take away rights you have in the lease/licence, again in your case its unclear if any legal basis for ownership or right of access to a space(s) is provided.

If the planning documents say 'provision shall be made for not less than 1 space per unit' or similar the house rules cannot conflict with this.

1. Request a copy of the AGM/EGM minutes where this was approved
2. Go back to the solicitors and figure out exactly what was given as assurance of a space, was a map provided and the space identified?
3. The planning conditions typically require 1 space per unit, easily checked
4. Typically there are planning or lease conditions which restrict use of spaces to residents of the development or may restrict them being rented out
5. Is there clamping etc in force?
6. Have the owner received a letter from the OMC concerning this?

This impacts the resale value so talk to a solicitor and put the OMC directors in a corner, hopefully with the planning situation. The compromise is that those with a space not used can optionally agreed to enter into an agreement with another owner to use the space (payment opens up more issues...) independent of the OMC

Ultimately its call an EGM outline the impact to resale value, compliance with planning and obtain a majority to reverse this. If this wasn't approved an AGM/EGM you can ignore it as the directors can't vary something like this without and AGM/EGM.

Long term solution is to fully legally solve this and get the OMC to issue licences for the car park spaces to each owner with a accompanying land registry approved map

TOMs WIFE

Thanks @goingnowhere

1. Will get the minutes if they exist (they said it was agreed at the "last Management committee meeting" - not sure if that is just the committee or an AGM, but will proceed to find out.
2. I have the solicitor email to the vendor solicitor asking what the car parking arrangements are, and just an email response saying 1 space per house. Only map that we have is the land registry showing the house marked out in red.
3. Can we get the planning conditions or does this need to be a solicitor?
4. Interesting point - do you think that this could mean that my relation could not let his mother park there when visiting if he doesn't have his own car (this ties in with the question of whether the OMC could mandate that you have to own a car to have a space)
5. No clamping.
6. So far, only the email from the accountant saying it was agreed as per bullet 1 above. They say a "newsletter" will issue to residents.

I am not sure about impacting the resale value, as my understanding is that this change only applies as long as he doesn't have a car. I am assuming he could buy a car tomorrow and this would be resolved. But he is never going to drive. But we want the space regardless as family to visit, without going there and finding the visitor spaces used up, and we are out in public parking while Johnny down the road parks his second car! Edit - Ohh... if he was selling and prospective buyers without a car, but who wanted a space for their family, that could affect the number of potential buyers or price.

On obtaining a majority at the AGM - on this particular point of a parking space, it would seem unfair that "25 houses" could outvote the "1 house" without a car and proceed to allow others use the space (which the OMC is charging for to add to the common ground sinking fund).

Thanks a mil for your input.

Mrs OBumble

A thought: could you pursue this from a disability discrimination angle? Your relative does not have the space regularly occupied because he does not have the capacity to drive. and because of this, he is being denied the right to have a caregiver etc use his space.

The threat of this approach could be enough to tip the MC into changing their mind.

TOMs WIFE

@Mrs OBumble that's certainly an angle we could try alright. Now, he hasn't got a formal disability, it's more on the undiagnosed spectrum. But neighbours would be aware of same and that family members visit. So it could be enough to get them to change their mind. Having said that, it probably makes sense to try and see the legals anyway, but this could be the interim solution in place perhaps.

893bet

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121302656#Comment_121302656

no wonder the country is fucked.

Scream discrimination when there is none.

TOMs WIFE

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121302770#Comment_121302770

Not sure what you are getting at, but @Mrs OBumble is referring to what I mentioned in an earlier post, that my relative requires family supervision, so what she is saying is, in effect, absolutely true.

893bet

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121302793#Comment_121302793

No she is trying to suggest “an angle” which is pure bullshit.

Do you think the management company are

a) removing his parking space as he has a disability?

b) removing it as its only used by visators, and there are visitor car spaces already and there are multiple other houses in need of a space and willing to pay for it.

Assumings it is B….

looksee

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121302263#Comment_121302263

Anyone can see planning permission documents. If they are oldish you may need to go to the Planning Office to look at them, but otherwise they are easily found on line.

TOMs WIFE

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121302828#Comment_121302828

I don't think she is trying to suggest an angle, more just that bringing up the fact that he has certain issues could result in the space just being given back, without having to go through all the legals on it. Whether or not it's use only by visitors gives them legal grounds to just give the allocated space to someone else is what the legals/lease etc. would have to show, as suggested by other posters.

893bet

she said “The threat of this approach could be enough to tip the MC into changing their mind”

so purely an angle.

And you say above you don’t think think she is suggesting an angle……But then your reply to her posts was “that’s an angle we could try……but he doesn’t have a disability”

hahahaha. He doesnt even have a disability. Ye have decided he is on a spectrum. This is pretty funny

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121302867#Comment_121302867

Just to be clear, based on the op’s account the OC board have discriminated against the unit owner based on the fact he doesn’t own a car. That discrimination is not illegal as it doesn’t fall within the 9 grounds, but they are discriminating none the less. If the op’s relative does have a medical issue and benefits from regular visits, as it is his space to park/let park, then he very much should be able to allow visitors to use it.

To be honest, what really disgusts me about this situation is not that the OMC reassigned the space based on need for parking, but that they did it for profit. So I have no issue with this “angle” being used, once the OMC are made aware of the disability, they then leave themselves open to an allegation of discrimination if they ignore it.

So judge if you want, but bear in mind that it is the OMC who are denying this man use of his allocated parking space.

Oscar_Madison

I’m so glad I don’t live in a managed apartment or housing complex- I’ve heard too many Nazi stories about the rules and penalties no less the costs involved - I’d never live in such a place

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121303006#Comment_121303006

Managing a MUD development is an absolute essential, as are rules and fees, without them the development would be a free for all and inevitably fall in to disrepair. It’s just that all OMCs occasionally make mistakes/bad decisions, it’s how they react that matters.

Victor

It might be interesting to see how this is treated in the company accounts.

Mrs OBumble

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121302867#Comment_121302867

AFAIK lawyers decide on which angle to use in a particular case all the time.

Indirect discrimination is very much a thing.

Now it may not be able to be proven in this situation - but it very much sounds like this owner is being discriminated against on a proxy for one of the illegal grounds.

TOMs WIFE

@buzz11 @goingnowhere UPDATE - we asked the solicitor that handled the sale a few years ago. His response was that "The issue of parking is a matter for the Management Company. Always remember that the residents make up the management company, and therefore they make up their own rules based on votes being taken at general meetings. Unfortunately, there is nothing on title that can assist xxx, and it is a matter between him and the management company."

I then asked for copies of the leases if any and was given various "indentures". In one of these documents, headed "Indenture" (file name is called "Assignment", there are a number of schedules.

The first and second schedule contains stuff like "all that and those that part of the lands in the barony of ... more particularly described and delineated on the plan annexed hereto and thereon edged red and known as (address).Second schedule - "Easements, rights and privileges granted to the sold land and any building thereon, full right and liberty for the purchaser his heirs, executors....in common with the vendor and all other persons who have or may have hereafter have the like right."

However, the FOURTH schedule, contains a paragraph as follows:

"PART 2 - "the right to use in common with the Owners and Occupiers of all other houses and their visitors, the garden, pleasure grounds, drives, paths, car parks and forecourts (including the right to park private motor cars or motor cycles the property of the Purchaser, members of this family or persons visiting the part of the retained property".

Am I reading this too positively - my understanding is that the retained property is the common grounds? But either way, seems to confer a right here? But the solicitor has said there is nothing to help.

However, the OMC may simply say he CAN park in his space if he gets a car, and his family can park in one of the visitor spots, if there is one available?

Thanks in advance.

goingnowhere

Yup this is good as it establishes you have access to the common areas and specifies a right to park a car. If the OMC frustrates that right you have grounds to complain

Its not specific about which space but it clearly establishes that you have the right and that cannot be removed by the OMC unless it were to vary the leases on all units and would require all owners to agree

The OMC is responsible for ensuring the rights in the schedule and those elsewhere are protected and if the OMC enters into an agreement to rent space(s) out of the pool of spaces then that space no longer exists and you cannot reasonably enforce your right and the OMC is undermining your right.

Again I would suggest you track down the planning details of the development which should be available online from the local authority and see what it says about parking, but as you have discovered you have no title or licence to the space. It would be advisable to press the OMC to issue licences to the spaces associated with a land registry approved map, this would NOT conflict with the schedule above and would solve the issue and add value/simplify sale in the future as this is always a sticking point

TOMs WIFE

Thanks @goingnowhere what if their defence was "Yep, no problem, we're not stopping you parking there - if you have a car, and if you get a car we'll stop the other person having use", but your family can use the visitor spots in line with the schedule?

Now, the reason they have withdrawn his space is because they are saying it is not being used by him "regularly" - but it is clear that the schedule clearly doesn't place an imposition of regular use on him. But the OMC may say, fine, you've won that one, if he gets a car he can have it back even if only occasionally used. But he won't ever have a car ....only family - and this brings me back to they could say the family can use a visitor space if available.

So, could the schedule wording "the purchaser, or member of their family" be deemed to refer to a parking space, IF that is the way that the OMC has divided such common grounds out?

I searched the DCC planning for the name of the estate and came up blank.

Seen as the solicitor doesn't seem to think there is anything can be done, what about my relation writing to the OMC stating:

"The relevant schedule in the lease outlines the right for me to use in common with the owners and occupiers of all other houses and my visitors, the right to park a car owned by me or members of my family in the common grounds. As the OMC has divided out the common grounds by way of individual spaces, I have the right to the use of one space for use by me or my family. Please note that the Lease does not impose any minimum use of the car parking facilities to ensure that this right continues to exist."

looksee

Go back to the planning and search Map, you should be able to find it, unless it was built before whatever date DCC went digital. If you find it but there is no planning reference on it you will have to go into the Planning Office and ask to see it. I've done this for a site and it is not a problem (though not with DCC).

TOMs WIFE

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121305474#Comment_121305474

Thanks.

I found the planning through archives. No specific mention of car parking allocation per house.

It does state: "The proposed communal open spaces, carparking areas, and access road within the site shall be retained in private ownership and maintained by a properly constituted management company to ensure the protection of residential amenities".

So, I am thinking, by imposing a minimum usage condition ("not being used regularly"), are they preventing access to the residential amenity. But again, they might say if he gets a car fine. But not for family. But schedule said "the right to park private motor cars or motor cycles the property of the Purchaser, members of this family or persons visiting the part of the retained property".

goingnowhere

You need to dig into the planning application as it should specify the parking arrangements in some detail

What you have is the permission/managers order to approve conditions, the first condition will almost always say the development shall be conducted per the supplied plans etc

You rights in the lease are unrestricted and unlimited within reason, e.g. access to the roof, it may be a common area but common sense says it is reasonable to deny you access

looksee

You could argue that "the right to park private motor cars or motor cycles the property of the Purchaser, members of this family or persons visiting the part of the retained property" gives you a right to a space - using the three spare spaces does not guarantee a space, it would be very easy for them all to be taken at any particular time, which the home owner has no control over. It could also be asked what does 'regularly' mean? If family, carers etc are attending the home then that is regular use. The committee would need to specify what 'regularly' means. Christmas comes regularly - once a year but it is regular.

The whole argument on the committee's part seems like complete nonsense. If someone else writes off their car and is left unable to replace it while they are, say, in hospital, how long does the committee wait before taking his space on the basis that it is not being used regularly?

dubrov

The original change was probably made in good faith. Someone probably suggested one way to raise funds was to rent out unused car parking spaces.

Just contact the OMC and explain the situation and why it impacts you.

They may just reverse it quickly without any fuss.

TOMs WIFE

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121310869#Comment_121310869

Will certainly try. I am not optimistic though, as they've already charged some people extra money and who are now parking there. They won't be too happy with a reversal. Stupid decision, altering something as contentious as parking, when every house had 1 space, nice and simple.

Thanks for all views from other posters. My biggest concern is why the solicitor didn't seem to think there was anything could be done. Would have thought he would have seen the lease wording and suggested it might work..

TOMs WIFE

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121305906#Comment_121305906

@goingnowhere yes, all i can see is a county council "Notification of Grant of Permission" with a Register Reference No. with conditions attached. Also a "P/xxx/year" reference on top of each page as well as the register reference. As it's prior to digital all they have is the condition letter. Does this mean we'd have to attend the council office for actually seeing the original plans?

Separately, a newsletter has now been dropped into each house (the week after my brother complained about the situation). It states that the management company have "rented a few spaces and the proceeds lodged to the company bank account." That this is on a "trial basis and will be reviewed in 6 months". It states that "please note that NO allocated space has been rented" - even though my relation was allocated a space. I think this is because they also refer to the House Rules which as well as saying "There is one allocated space per house", state that the space is given to the "resident who has a car". This is in the context of a paragraph that states that the development is not suitable for owners with more than 1 car, so I think it meant if there are 2 owners, the car owner or 1 car owner will get the allocation. NOT that if you have no car you get nothing!

And this wasn't agreed at an AGM in any event!

However, the management company also mention that visitor spaces must be for sole use of visitors, that they are not for use by residents as "this would be unfair to our residents who do not have a car and therefore do not have a dedicated car parking space". Now, I can't get the connection there - not having a car or your own space, is not affected by visitor parking, which every house can enjoy. I think they are trying to make it up as they go along. It struck me - how can this "trial" not be successful - the renters of the second space at my relations expense are hardly going to complain! And if my relation got a car tomorrow, they'd surely have to withdraw the rental monies they lodged, refund the new renter, and turf out the renters car - the whole thing is bonkers.

Finally, it struck me, if my relation wanted a friend to stay with them for a week, they couldn't even park in the visitor spaces - as the house rules state that visitor spaces are only for 1 overnight stay - any longer, the visitor has to park outside the complex in paid public parking!!

We are going to write to the management company, saying the space has been used for a few years by family as needed by him for visiting etc. , that we got an allocation letter, and that we want the space returned.

If they don't accede, second step may be to then use the lease arguments about fair use of common ground, or the planning materials if we can find that.

Or do people think that we should throw the kithen sink of arguments all in the first communciation i.e. include fair use of access to grounds according to lease etc.

TheAnalyst_

This is outrageous carry on. Absolute pricks.

TOMs WIFE

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121314633#Comment_121314633

Thanks! Unfortunately the 'banger' option would be a lot easier if my relative could drive. If we buy a car for this purpose, there's insurance etc. about how to even get a car there 😕

Hoping a first letter by registered post will get them back to their senses 😐️

GBX

See how the letter is received and dealt with.

With regards a car to park there - that could be arranged by somebody with relevant insurance - friend/relative. And if anybody was to question why it is there: One, its none of their business. Two, if you do reply, you can always say your relation bought something they always wanted and its nobodies business if its sitting there. Your relative doesn't question why anybody else's parks their car in a space, why is it of anybody's business if they have a car parked their.

TOMs WIFE

Thanks. On the car thing, yes, could probably work that out, but they'd likely say he didn't park it there as he doesn't drive and I think they probably know this. The letter in first instance, if they are going to be unreasonable then we'll have to up the ante.