Lease Problems - My right of access to my property

[Rick101]

I'd go whole hog and try an get 'parking'.

It's ridiculous that you can't park a private vehicle on your own private property provided it fits within the boundaries and does not encroach unduly on anyone else.

Please tell me it's not 7.5T

[Monty Python]

speedking31 said:

would suggest not mentioning parking at all in any communication. Use stationery or unloading.

I don't see how pencils will be of much use in this case (unless you stick them up your nose and say "wibble")

Edited by Monty Python on Wednesday 18th May 15:30

[Bill]

Rick101 said:

I'd go whole hog and try an get 'parking'.

It's ridiculous that you can't park a private vehicle on your own private property provided it fits within the boundaries and does not encroach unduly on anyone else.

Please tell me it's not 7.5T

This. Tell them its not a commercial vehicle, its a privately owned van.

[drdel]

If you don't already have one get an in-car camera (one you can swop between vehicles) and then if (or just in case) you have hassle you can prove how short a time you were loading/unloading and not parked when the vehicle was unattended.

[BMWBen]

slow_poke said:

Somewhere out there is Cade law on parking on a right of way which held parking is not allowed, but stopping to load/unload is permissible.

Relevant to you?

I think it would be most helpful. Do you have specifics?

[slow_poke]

BMWBen said:

slow_poke said:

Somewhere out there is Cade law on parking on a right of way which held parking is not allowed, but stopping to load/unload is permissible.

Relevant to you?

I think it would be most helpful. Do you have specifics?

well, Cade law was a typo..... case law. That's what I meant to type.

I don't have it at all, but you might try a query in the "Rights of Way" forum over on www.gardenlaw.co.uk. They should have the references at their fingertips.

[W124Bob]

Swap the van for something green, Saracen armoured car!

[BMWBen]

Latest update!

They've decided that dictionary.com is the legal precedent for parking, so I've pointed out that if it is that my van is not a commercial vehicle:

me said:

I was more hoping for legal precedent than your choice from dictionary.com. If you read the highway code you may note that parking and loading are treated differently, for example, you can stop on double yellow lines to load and unload but you can't park there. I would also argue that I'm not "leaving" my vehicle while loading and unloading, but loading and unloading it.

If we're going on dictionary definitions as the gold standard, then your parking regulations aren't legal or reasonable because you've changed the definition of commercial vehicle from "a vehicle used for carrying goods or fare-paying passengers" to one that is "designed" to do so and therefore changed the binding contract that is my lease.

I'm also baffled by the fact that the management company considers my activity to be unacceptable, whilst being perfectly happy to allow residents to have real commercial vehicles do exactly the same thing on site, with the only difference being that they don't directly own those vehicles. By that logic I can breach any of the clauses in my lease I fancy by contracting someone else to carry out the breach. It's a ridiculous and indefensible position.

We don't seem to be getting anywhere here, so for now I'll leave the matter like this:

I will use my right of access for occasional loading and unloading of my personal possessions from my vehicle. It shall be stationary and on the site for no more time than I need for those purposes. I consider this to be reasonable and permitted by my lease. Should the management company take any steps to forfeit my lease on grounds related to this access I will obviously resist and on success will seek to recover my legal fees from the company.

I'll see where that leaves me. I believe I also have the option to start action against them for failing to enforce the parking covenants against other leaseholders with regards to delivery vehicles, which definitely *are* commercial vehicles and are breaching the covenants on a daily basis.

[CGJ0]

BMWBen said:

I'll see where that leaves me. I believe I also have the option to start action against them for failing to enforce the parking covenants against other leaseholders with regards to delivery vehicles, which definitely *are* commercial vehicles and are breaching the covenants on a daily basis.

Good luck, sounds like you're dealing with a bunch of halfwits. I'd be on their side if you were permanently parking the vehicle up there but unloading/loading I just don't see how they can enforce that without being entirely unreasonable.

Surely you just need to sign the van over to someone in your family, the vehicle is therefore no longer yours and you are notionally hiring it off them for use in renovating your property and collecting items?

[BMWBen]

CGJ0 said:

BMWBen said:

I'll see where that leaves me. I believe I also have the option to start action against them for failing to enforce the parking covenants against other leaseholders with regards to delivery vehicles, which definitely *are* commercial vehicles and are breaching the covenants on a daily basis.

Good luck, sounds like you're dealing with a bunch of halfwits. I'd be on their side if you were permanently parking the vehicle up there but unloading/loading I just don't see how they can enforce that without being entirely unreasonable.

Surely you just need to sign the van over to someone in your family, the vehicle is therefore no longer yours and you are notionally hiring it off them for use in renovating your property and collecting items?

That's plan B! I really don't see why I should have to bother though...

[Red Devil]

BMWBen said:

I believe I also have the option to start action against them for failing to enforce the parking covenants against other leaseholders with regards to delivery vehicles, which definitely *are* commercial vehicles and are breaching the covenants on a daily basis.

I strongly suggest taking professional advice before you actively contemplate going down that road because I very much doubt that any judge would side with you. As another poster has already pointed out, delivery vehicles (e.g. those belonging to courier companies) are owned by third parties who are not bound by your lease.

Stick with your primary objective and don't fall overboard.

[FrankAbagnale]

I think I would just get on with life and ignore the threats. If the time ever comes that they enforce the lease i'd start to worry about it then.

I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of residents break a term in the lease on a daily basis.

[surveyor_101]

Red Devil said:

I strongly suggest taking professional advice before you actively contemplate going down that road because I very much doubt that any judge would side with you. As another poster has already pointed out, delivery vehicles (e.g. those belonging to courier companies) are owned by third parties who are not bound by your lease.

Stick with your primary objective and don't fall overboard.

Can't the OP check with the solicitor who did his conveyancing as this lease should of be gone through then.

If I was loading or unloading if poss don't park in your space as I from memory thats what the lease prohibits. Park outside the space if possible.

You could be a right old banger and stick it in your space if you feeling in the mood to wind them up.

[Bill]

surveyor_101 said:

You could be a right old banger and stick it in your space if you feeling in the mood to wind them up.

Or a battered 4x4 on massive knobbly tyres.


Painted dayglo orange with rattle cans for added effect.

[QuickQuack]

BMWBen said:

Latest update!

They've decided that dictionary.com is the legal precedent for parking, so I've pointed out that if it is that my van is not a commercial vehicle:

me said:

I was more hoping for legal precedent than your choice from dictionary.com. If you read the highway code you may note that parking and loading are treated differently, for example, you can stop on double yellow lines to load and unload but you can't park there. I would also argue that I'm not "leaving" my vehicle while loading and unloading, but loading and unloading it.

If we're going on dictionary definitions as the gold standard, then your parking regulations aren't legal or reasonable because you've changed the definition of commercial vehicle from "a vehicle used for carrying goods or fare-paying passengers" to one that is "designed" to do so and therefore changed the binding contract that is my lease.

I'm also baffled by the fact that the management company considers my activity to be unacceptable, whilst being perfectly happy to allow residents to have real commercial vehicles do exactly the same thing on site, with the only difference being that they don't directly own those vehicles. By that logic I can breach any of the clauses in my lease I fancy by contracting someone else to carry out the breach. It's a ridiculous and indefensible position.

We don't seem to be getting anywhere here, so for now I'll leave the matter like this:

I will use my right of access for occasional loading and unloading of my personal possessions from my vehicle. It shall be stationary and on the site for no more time than I need for those purposes. I consider this to be reasonable and permitted by my lease. Should the management company take any steps to forfeit my lease on grounds related to this access I will obviously resist and on success will seek to recover my legal fees from the company.

I'll see where that leaves me. I believe I also have the option to start action against them for failing to enforce the parking covenants against other leaseholders with regards to delivery vehicles, which definitely *are* commercial vehicles and are breaching the covenants on a daily basis.

Do any residents have a Hilux, L200, Navara or a similar pick up? Many people have them as an alternative to a 4x4 and use them as their daily car. Those vehicles are also technically designed to be commercial vehicles, therefore shouldn't be allowed on the estate either...

[TooMany2cvs]

QuickQuack said:

Do any residents have a Hilux, L200, Navara or a similar pick up? Many people have them as an alternative to a 4x4 and use them as their daily car. Those vehicles are also technically designed to be commercial vehicles, therefore shouldn't be allowed on the estate either...

Umm, nope. "Technically", they are legally dual-purpose vehicles, not commercials.

[QuickQuack]

TooMany2cvs said:

QuickQuack said:

Do any residents have a Hilux, L200, Navara or a similar pick up? Many people have them as an alternative to a 4x4 and use them as their daily car. Those vehicles are also technically designed to be commercial vehicles, therefore shouldn't be allowed on the estate either...

Umm, nope. "Technically", they are legally dual-purpose vehicles, not commercials.

But these idiots haven't gone with the legal definition of parking, have they? They've gone with dictionary.com therefore pointing this out would be fair game. This is purely to point out their own stupidity.

I know that in a court of law the legal definitions would apply.

[Who me ?]

ashleyman said:

At my home, which is part of a block of flats, any home owner has the right to be part of the residents association or be a management company director. Then they get to choose what does and does not happen to the property. If the same option is for you, maybe you can join or buy in and then you get a say on what changes are made. We don't have a clause for no commercial vehicles yet, but I know it's coming...

possibly things have changed, or it does not apply to associations which are solely owner occupier as opposed to an association that has a mix of bought and tenanted homes, where it is financial beneficial to the RA to include the clause in the Constitution that all "Residents of the area defined by estate/road/etc are members of the Association ,unless they opt out". Reason is that a lot of LA benefit from having an Association in areas and give grants ,dependant on member numbers . So standard RA Constitutions have this clause and annually the committee applies for a grant based on the total number. Worth checking out if you an automatic member of the local Association .

[ashleyman]

[quote=Who me ?]

possibly things have changed, or it does not apply to associations which are solely owner occupier as opposed to an association that has a mix of bought and tenanted homes, where it is financial beneficial to the RA to include the clause in the Constitution that all "Residents of the area defined by estate/road/etc are members of the Association ,unless they opt out". Reason is that a lot of LA benefit from having an Association in areas and give grants ,dependant on member numbers . So standard RA Constitutions have this clause and annually the committee applies for a grant based on the total number. Worth checking out if you an automatic member of the local Association .

[/quote]

I don't know how it works here, but what I do know is that any 'owner' of a property either resident or landlord has the right to become part of the Management Company on purchase of a property. Our properties come with a 'share of freehold' so many of the owners on site are 'directors' of this company that manage the land and buildings on the land.

I'm not sure how it works with the ops situation but it was just what happened here and that he should look into it. I know of many many developments where the RA own the freehold to the land and therefore they get ownership of land and can dictate lease terms (I think) and the residents don't get much of a choice as to what goes on.

[speedking31]

BMWBen said:

I will use my right of access for occasional loading and unloading of my personal possessions from my vehicle. It shall be stationary and on the site for no more time than I need for those purposes. I consider this to be reasonable and permitted by my lease.

Stop right there!

Why flag this up?

BMWBen said:

Should the management company take any steps to forfeit my lease on grounds related to this access I will obviously resist and on success will seek to recover my legal fees from the company.