youknowwho wrote: » You don't need legislation for there to be challenges, and there have been plenty of challenges throughout the country, a local solicitor would have a better idea. But as the matters are minor they are only dealt with in the district court and small claims court so there is no case law. For a matter to make it to the circuit court the value of the case must exceed 6k. As for legislation, there's plenty, it's property law. If you enter a property without a licence it's trespass. The owner can clamp a vehicle in order to create a lien on your property until you discharge a debt - they just have to clearly signpost the fact. Given the debate here I gather the signs are clear.
matt-dublin wrote: » Because there's no real legal basis for a challenge until there is any legislation.
DD9090 wrote: » No matt it's not, it's far from sound, it has never been challenged as far as I can see?
matt-dublin wrote: » Why, it's sound legal advice. If it was illegal we and many management companies around the country wouldn't be doing it
DD9090 wrote: » In that case I'd seek a refund.
matt-dublin wrote: » Yes
DD9090 wrote: » Lads and ladies, You can can try jazz it up as much as you like but a third party interfering with my private property because someone else didn't pay a bill won't have a leg to stand on in a courtroom. Was there legal advice given on this?
youknowwho wrote: » If your landlord agreed to cover your electricity in your rent but then fail to pay any electricity bills, do you think the supplier would hesitate in disconnecting you. Your landlord can't provide you with a service which he/she is not entitled to, no more than I can sell you something I don't own. By not paying his/her fees he /she is refusing to pay for rubbish collection, insurance and his/her parking space - the parking spaces do not belong to the property, rather your landlord has a licence for it. If your landlord loses their licence they cannot pass a benefit to you - regardless of what your agreement says. A judge wouldn't laugh at the case given the seriousness of the matter across the state. He may probe the lawfulness of the clamping but he will most certainly tell you that your claim and any action lie under your rental agreement - sue your landlord.
DD9090 wrote: » You're clutching at straws here..... I pay my FULL rent each month, what he does with it is his business and none of mine. As I said, it would be a fun day in a courtroom and if anyone ends up going please give me a shout.
Maudi wrote: » The tennants are more than happy with where they live..the tennants are p...ed of with your thinly veiled threats at clamping and being used as a pawn between the likes of you and your desperate grab at money and the landlords...your very obvious post makes it very clear you have no interest in any sort of community spirit..its all about leverage against landlords using parking as your latest threat to extort money..what next?? Hypothetical question..Please .dont reply..
Stall The Ball 101 wrote: » But your contract is between you and your landlord and he doesn't own the land outside the property that is rented, so I don't think he is obliged to provide parking for his tenant on someone else's land.
DD9090 wrote: » This is where there will be trouble in my opinion. My landlord has paid thankfully, however, if he didn't I would not be held hostage in the middle and would have gone to court for the criminal damage or whatnot just to see the judge laugh it out of court. The agreement or contract of fees are between the agent and landlord, so therefor I am an innocent person caught in the middle. Contract = agent and landlord not me.
banbam wrote: » All tenants should ask if their landlords have paid their apartment management fees(if not, then parking, bins, etc, will become an issue for the tenant). Landlords should take responsibility for their apartments and not put the tenant in the position of being clamped, by not having a parling disc.
matt-dublin wrote: » @astro I think names may have been given out but not sure but even if they weren't they shouldn't have been handed via door drop. THey should have been published as a set of accounts at an AGM.
9.1 Can Management Companies disclose to all members details of those property owners/members that have not paid service charges ? In general, no. This is personal data of the members concerned and should not be disclosed without their consent or unless such disclosure is explicitly provided for in the memorandum and articles of association of the company as a condition of membership.
Rosina1969 wrote: » Is there actually any problem with parking in the clamping areas - I've never noticed any problems. Seems like a very heavy handed approach for something that isnt a problem? Would suspect it's not really to do with parking at all.
Stall The Ball 101 wrote: » It's one way, so are you saying there will be no parking along the greens because that would cause total mayhem..
astrofluff wrote: » The first part of Charlesland Wood has an exceptional amount of cars parked. It might not look too bad as everyone finds a place to park in the evenings, but there is a number of people who park immediately on corners and obstruct pedestrian crossing points. While there are no double-yellows, there are solid white lines in the centre of the road - not many people would notice this when parking but it is something drivers should know about and adhere to refraining from parking at such locations. It will be interesting to see if anyone gets clamped when parking opposite a solid white line - disc or no disc.
matt-dublin wrote: » absolutely, in the crescent I think we've like 60 odd spaces for 48 apartments
matt-dublin wrote: » no not all of charlesland, the crescent and one other estate I think. there was another estate who originally had clamping.
Stall The Ball 101 wrote: » All of Charlesland development how do you know this ?
