Abuse of residential gated car park
Discussion
I live in a small development of flats (just under 30 properties) about 10 mins walk from the city centre. It's an area with a mix of residential and commercial housing, near a couple of main roads, and parking is at a premium. The actual street is residential on one side (my flats) and commercial on the other.
The flats/apartments where I live has it's own residential car park. You can probably guess where this is going.
When originally built (but long before I arrived on the scene) the development was built with an open car park and apparently everyone used to park in it, despite the warning signs about it being a private car park. Electrically driven, remote controlled gates were installed soon after and most non-entitled people couldn't park there anymore.
When I moved in however, one of the businesses over the road was using it as their own personal car park - as a digital communications specialist, they had either got hold of one of the gate fobs/blippers and presumably identified the frequency/signal and created their own to open the gates. After 2-3 years of complaining about this, the managing agent admitted that since they took over the management of the development a few years ago, they had not received (and not kept) any records about who had been given fobs over the years. It was decided, at the cost of the flat Management Company, to replace the gate controls with new fobs & receivers, as well as upgrade the security of the pedestrian access gates etc. This worked and to this day, the company can no longer get in the car park.
However, another business over the road, an accountant, has purchased one of the flats himself and rented it out. However, he parks in the car park himself every day. As do most of his staff (currently 2-3 cars, but gradually growing). And his clients.
The car park does not have numbered bays, but each property in the development is entitled to one space (this is specified in the lease), and nothing may be sub-let. There are only enough spaces for one per flat, plus a couple of spares for visitors. The car park is also not full as many residents do not have a car (close to town centre, public transport etc), but I object to the fact that this guy is using a car park for which we all pay upkeep, for his own business. He's obviously purchased his flat just to have "rights" to the car park and use it as his own company parking area. There's an increased risk of damage to vehicles in the car park from all his clients coming and going through the day (some of whom look decidedly unscrupulous, no matter how un-PC it is to say so), not to mention the extra wear and tear on the gates (one of which is now dragging on the ground, which may or may not be due to the fact they are probably being used twice as much than they would be if it were just residents using the car park).
The council introduced permit parking on the road outside which makes it easier to park there during the day, but this accountant (and his staff) seem unwilling to pay for the permits (and it's not through lack of money - the accountant changes brand new cars seemingly every 18 months or so). The managing agent has been instructed by the managing company to approach the accountant, but have been met at first with promises of compliance, later followed by abuse and shouting down the phone.
The managing agent of the flats doesn't seem to have much other idea on how to enforce the parking situation. I'm involved with the management company that instructs and liaises with the managing agent on the upkeep of the property. I'm happy to antagonise the accountant (I've politely approached him about the parking and yes, he's an arrogant a
hole), but I wouldn't want to antagonise him personally due to the risk of reprisal (mainly against my vehicle as I can't view the car park from my property).
In fact the managing agents seem powerless (or maybe just have no balls) to do anything about this guy. I've suggested putting evil sticky warning notices on side windows (the sort that don't come off without a mess) but apparently this can be construed as criminal damage?!! I've suggested taking on a parking enforcement company to clamp (and if necessary, lift) the offending blacklisted vehicles (obviously, once appropriate warning signs have been put up), but nobody seems willing to go down this route (which I thought ideal since I presume these things are self-financing from the penalty fees).
Instead, the managing agents' focus seems to be on prooving which property these cars are associated with before anything can be done, perhaps by identifying each vehicle that uses the car park legitimately with a tag containing the flat number, or a visitor pass containing the flat number (an unwelcome security risk, imho, not to mention being extremely time-consuming to enforce and maintain, as well as the high probablity of forgery of the tags or discs). However I fail to see the relevance of this given that the vehicles drive in off the street, park up, then their occupants immediately leave the development and walk into the commercial premises over the road. They are not owners, residents, or visitors to the flats (with the exception of the accountant himself, who is an owner, but presumably lets his allocated space as part of his flat letting).
Most of the flats are rented out on a short-term basis - it's rare for anyone to live there more than a couple of years, and so most people there don't give a st. There's only myself and one or two other involved owners/occupiers who are fed up with the situation and want it resolved.
Apologies for the essay, but I thought it relevant to cover all the detail up front.
Would appreciate any advice on getting the accountant's staff and clients "evicted" from the car park, or hearing from anyone else who has dealt with this situation. As a flat owner, I own a share of the communal grounds and it pisses me off to see my property being abused in this way.
The flats/apartments where I live has it's own residential car park. You can probably guess where this is going.
When originally built (but long before I arrived on the scene) the development was built with an open car park and apparently everyone used to park in it, despite the warning signs about it being a private car park. Electrically driven, remote controlled gates were installed soon after and most non-entitled people couldn't park there anymore.
When I moved in however, one of the businesses over the road was using it as their own personal car park - as a digital communications specialist, they had either got hold of one of the gate fobs/blippers and presumably identified the frequency/signal and created their own to open the gates. After 2-3 years of complaining about this, the managing agent admitted that since they took over the management of the development a few years ago, they had not received (and not kept) any records about who had been given fobs over the years. It was decided, at the cost of the flat Management Company, to replace the gate controls with new fobs & receivers, as well as upgrade the security of the pedestrian access gates etc. This worked and to this day, the company can no longer get in the car park.
However, another business over the road, an accountant, has purchased one of the flats himself and rented it out. However, he parks in the car park himself every day. As do most of his staff (currently 2-3 cars, but gradually growing). And his clients.
The car park does not have numbered bays, but each property in the development is entitled to one space (this is specified in the lease), and nothing may be sub-let. There are only enough spaces for one per flat, plus a couple of spares for visitors. The car park is also not full as many residents do not have a car (close to town centre, public transport etc), but I object to the fact that this guy is using a car park for which we all pay upkeep, for his own business. He's obviously purchased his flat just to have "rights" to the car park and use it as his own company parking area. There's an increased risk of damage to vehicles in the car park from all his clients coming and going through the day (some of whom look decidedly unscrupulous, no matter how un-PC it is to say so), not to mention the extra wear and tear on the gates (one of which is now dragging on the ground, which may or may not be due to the fact they are probably being used twice as much than they would be if it were just residents using the car park).
The council introduced permit parking on the road outside which makes it easier to park there during the day, but this accountant (and his staff) seem unwilling to pay for the permits (and it's not through lack of money - the accountant changes brand new cars seemingly every 18 months or so). The managing agent has been instructed by the managing company to approach the accountant, but have been met at first with promises of compliance, later followed by abuse and shouting down the phone.
The managing agent of the flats doesn't seem to have much other idea on how to enforce the parking situation. I'm involved with the management company that instructs and liaises with the managing agent on the upkeep of the property. I'm happy to antagonise the accountant (I've politely approached him about the parking and yes, he's an arrogant a
hole), but I wouldn't want to antagonise him personally due to the risk of reprisal (mainly against my vehicle as I can't view the car park from my property).In fact the managing agents seem powerless (or maybe just have no balls) to do anything about this guy. I've suggested putting evil sticky warning notices on side windows (the sort that don't come off without a mess) but apparently this can be construed as criminal damage?!! I've suggested taking on a parking enforcement company to clamp (and if necessary, lift) the offending blacklisted vehicles (obviously, once appropriate warning signs have been put up), but nobody seems willing to go down this route (which I thought ideal since I presume these things are self-financing from the penalty fees).
Instead, the managing agents' focus seems to be on prooving which property these cars are associated with before anything can be done, perhaps by identifying each vehicle that uses the car park legitimately with a tag containing the flat number, or a visitor pass containing the flat number (an unwelcome security risk, imho, not to mention being extremely time-consuming to enforce and maintain, as well as the high probablity of forgery of the tags or discs). However I fail to see the relevance of this given that the vehicles drive in off the street, park up, then their occupants immediately leave the development and walk into the commercial premises over the road. They are not owners, residents, or visitors to the flats (with the exception of the accountant himself, who is an owner, but presumably lets his allocated space as part of his flat letting).
Most of the flats are rented out on a short-term basis - it's rare for anyone to live there more than a couple of years, and so most people there don't give a s
t. There's only myself and one or two other involved owners/occupiers who are fed up with the situation and want it resolved.Apologies for the essay, but I thought it relevant to cover all the detail up front.
Would appreciate any advice on getting the accountant's staff and clients "evicted" from the car park, or hearing from anyone else who has dealt with this situation. As a flat owner, I own a share of the communal grounds and it pisses me off to see my property being abused in this way.
stroberaver said:
The car park does not have numbered bays, but each property in the development is entitled to one space (this is specified in the lease), and nothing may be sub-let. There are only enough spaces for one per flat, plus a couple of spares for visitors.
What exactly is in the lease?Is it a case of a specific space is allocated to each apartment and the issue is that the spaces themselves do not have any marking to show which apartment they belong to? (In that case which space belongs to which apartment should be shown on the plans)
Or is it a case that each apartment has the right to use one space, but which space is not specified?
Your course of action will depend on which of the above two is the case.
Six Fiend said:
Number each space for the relevant flat.
Locking post for each space.
Each flat gets keys to the post in their space.
Job done.
Very good suggestion!!Locking post for each space.
Each flat gets keys to the post in their space.
Job done.
I live in a similar set up only ours is worse because it is a block of 20 flats, half of them are 2 bedroom and there are only 20 parking spaces which was clearly a dreadful decision. I am amazed that planners can be so short sighted as all the flats were being marketed as ideal starter homes for small families and nearly all of my neighbours have two cars or a mix of bikes/cars. Finding a bike in your space is particularly annoying!
I can see how the accountant could gain access but how has he managed to get fobs for all his staff as well? And how on earth do his clients get in there?
Does he have a professional relationship with the digital communications company and has got them to clone the new fobs?
Individual lockable posts is the only practical way forward and that relies on everyone in the development using them properly.
Does he have a professional relationship with the digital communications company and has got them to clone the new fobs?
Individual lockable posts is the only practical way forward and that relies on everyone in the development using them properly.
Thanks for the replies 
Numbered spaces has been suggested, but it has a huge number of downsides compared to the flexibility and convenience of the current unmarked spaces. One or two two-car households would be unable to park, as would friends, family, landlords etc. - any two-car households present would just fill up the couple of unallocated visitors spaces, which during the day would just be used by the accountant's staff. There are lots of reasonable situations where the unmarked, flexible arrangement benefits everyone, and adds value & desirability to the properties. Despite two thirds of the properties being two-bedroom, the car park is not over-subscribed but I think that even those owners who were initially for the idea will soon turn against it when they realise they have nowhere to park when attending their property, carrying out work, having workmen in, etc.! Basically, is it right to punish everyone by taking away this luxury and convenience due to the actions of one owner? I would think not, and would like to keep this convenience myself, and find a solution that makes the accountant respect the car park. Also remember that many/most tenants are short term, most landlords are not local or interested as long as the rent keeps coming in, and most delegate everything to an equally disinterested/uninvolved letting agent. It's a bit of a battle to enforce/change anything, so an ideal solution would be one that targets those clearly using the car park to go to work over the road, without penalising the legit users who all benefit from the current system without exploiting it.
creampuff said:
Or is it a case that each apartment has the right to use one space, but which space is not specified
This one.Numbered spaces has been suggested, but it has a huge number of downsides compared to the flexibility and convenience of the current unmarked spaces. One or two two-car households would be unable to park, as would friends, family, landlords etc. - any two-car households present would just fill up the couple of unallocated visitors spaces, which during the day would just be used by the accountant's staff. There are lots of reasonable situations where the unmarked, flexible arrangement benefits everyone, and adds value & desirability to the properties. Despite two thirds of the properties being two-bedroom, the car park is not over-subscribed but I think that even those owners who were initially for the idea will soon turn against it when they realise they have nowhere to park when attending their property, carrying out work, having workmen in, etc.! Basically, is it right to punish everyone by taking away this luxury and convenience due to the actions of one owner? I would think not, and would like to keep this convenience myself, and find a solution that makes the accountant respect the car park. Also remember that many/most tenants are short term, most landlords are not local or interested as long as the rent keeps coming in, and most delegate everything to an equally disinterested/uninvolved letting agent. It's a bit of a battle to enforce/change anything, so an ideal solution would be one that targets those clearly using the car park to go to work over the road, without penalising the legit users who all benefit from the current system without exploiting it.
If you're feeling super plucky, you could arrange a meeting with the accountant over the phone and enquire about parking, since you'll be a travelling from a distance. I think however you might be met with 'park on the road like everyone else' perhaps. Maybe it's just regular client whom he's built up a relationship with where he's giving them the fobs?
Any chance you could get the model of the mechanism for the fob and locks? Does it have a manual keypad? It might have a readily documented admin PIN to override perhaps? Any other buttons on it which might allow this? It may well be that the fobs are easily available on ebay anyway?
Any chance you could get the model of the mechanism for the fob and locks? Does it have a manual keypad? It might have a readily documented admin PIN to override perhaps? Any other buttons on it which might allow this? It may well be that the fobs are easily available on ebay anyway?
Red Devil said:
I can see how the accountant could gain access but how has he managed to get fobs for all his staff as well? And how on earth do his clients get in there?
I believe the accountant's gate blipper lives in his commercial premises over the road. I've seen his staff park up on the road outside, go into the business to get the gates open, then pop back out and drive in before they automatically close again. The staff then exit the car park on foot through a pedestrian gate with a magnetic lock, but they have the numeric code to get through that also. The reverse process takes place at the end of the day - member of staff brings blipper with them to the car, opens gates, drives out, parks up and pops back in over the road to return the blipper.stroberaver said:
Thanks for the replies
Numbered spaces has been suggested, but it has a huge number of downsides compared to the flexibility and convenience of the current unmarked spaces. One or two two-car households would be unable to park, as would friends, family, landlords etc. - any two-car households present would just fill up the couple of unallocated visitors spaces, which during the day would just be used by the accountant's staff. There are lots of reasonable situations where the unmarked, flexible arrangement benefits everyone, and adds value & desirability to the properties. Despite two thirds of the properties being two-bedroom, the car park is not over-subscribed but I think that even those owners who were initially for the idea will soon turn against it when they realise they have nowhere to park when attending their property, carrying out work, having workmen in, etc.! Basically, is it right to punish everyone by taking away this luxury and convenience due to the actions of one owner? I would think not, and would like to keep this convenience myself, and find a solution that makes the accountant respect the car park. Also remember that many/most tenants are short term, most landlords are not local or interested as long as the rent keeps coming in, and most delegate everything to an equally disinterested/uninvolved letting agent. It's a bit of a battle to enforce/change anything, so an ideal solution would be one that targets those clearly using the car park to go to work over the road, without penalising the legit users who all benefit from the current system without exploiting it.
Numbering is still possible. Any flat that does not have a car can be approached by the two car owners who can negotiate for the second space (all owners/tenants so no sub-let issue). I turned down a rental once because of only one parking space, my wife and I both have cars. I looked for somewhere with two spaces or no restrictions.creampuff said:
Or is it a case that each apartment has the right to use one space, but which space is not specified
This one.Numbered spaces has been suggested, but it has a huge number of downsides compared to the flexibility and convenience of the current unmarked spaces. One or two two-car households would be unable to park, as would friends, family, landlords etc. - any two-car households present would just fill up the couple of unallocated visitors spaces, which during the day would just be used by the accountant's staff. There are lots of reasonable situations where the unmarked, flexible arrangement benefits everyone, and adds value & desirability to the properties. Despite two thirds of the properties being two-bedroom, the car park is not over-subscribed but I think that even those owners who were initially for the idea will soon turn against it when they realise they have nowhere to park when attending their property, carrying out work, having workmen in, etc.! Basically, is it right to punish everyone by taking away this luxury and convenience due to the actions of one owner? I would think not, and would like to keep this convenience myself, and find a solution that makes the accountant respect the car park. Also remember that many/most tenants are short term, most landlords are not local or interested as long as the rent keeps coming in, and most delegate everything to an equally disinterested/uninvolved letting agent. It's a bit of a battle to enforce/change anything, so an ideal solution would be one that targets those clearly using the car park to go to work over the road, without penalising the legit users who all benefit from the current system without exploiting it.
Numbering would I imagine be legally complicated, as to be legal (and it needs to be to stop the accountant), you'd have to change the deeds so that each flat has a designated space, not a right to park a car in the car park.
I've had similar issues with a car park that I used to manage as part of commercial premises. In the end we made an executive decision to employ clampers, and the offending parking dropped right off. One or two tenants did find out that these people can bite though, when they did not show passes or parked outside marked areas and this never went down well.
You've also got the problem that clamping is rumoured to be outlawed and you are left with recovering from the registered keeper and we all know how well that works.
Sadly with the abolition of clampers there is no effective remedy, and people like you are left up the creek.
I've had similar issues with a car park that I used to manage as part of commercial premises. In the end we made an executive decision to employ clampers, and the offending parking dropped right off. One or two tenants did find out that these people can bite though, when they did not show passes or parked outside marked areas and this never went down well.
You've also got the problem that clamping is rumoured to be outlawed and you are left with recovering from the registered keeper and we all know how well that works.
Sadly with the abolition of clampers there is no effective remedy, and people like you are left up the creek.
stroberaver said:
The reverse process takes place at the end of the day - member of staff brings blipper with them to the car, opens gates, drives out, parks up and pops back in over the road to return the blipper.
Is there much coming and going of residents at the same time? You could put a padlock on the gates and disappear for a while.A frequency jammer would be good fun.
surveyor said:
You've also got the problem that clamping is rumoured to be outlawed and you are left with recovering from the registered keeper and we all know how well that works.
Regarding clamping, a lot of people are not doing their homework. Look again at Section 54 (3) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. All that is needed is something like this. Note the sting in the tail. As long as it is present it can stay up indefinitely!When the relevant Commencement Order goes through be in no doubt that the RK will be pursuable. Assuming his/her details have not been deliberately falsified of course.
Red Devil said:
surveyor said:
You've also got the problem that clamping is rumoured to be outlawed and you are left with recovering from the registered keeper and we all know how well that works.
Regarding clamping, a lot of people are not doing their homework. Look again at Section 54 (3) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. All that is needed is something like this. Note the sting in the tail. As long as it is present it can stay up indefinitely!When the relevant Commencement Order goes through be in no doubt that the RK will be pursuable. Assuming his/her details have not been deliberately falsified of course.
I'm only looking at this on my 'phone so apologies if I've missed something but one flat - one space is presumably in the lease. Using more than one space would breach the terms of the lease so unless the accountant stops, the management company could terminate the lease? Any legal types think this might work?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff