Visitor Parking Dispute and Unreasonable Behaviour

[uoeno]

I expect this to escalate badly. My perception is that you are being aggressive and basically trying to bypass the rules in at least two ways.

As I said, I suspect the council actually answered the question "do you need planning permission to erect a for sale sign?" rather than giving you permission to erect a sign on land maintained at public expense, but in any case it is clearly an attempt to to find a loophole in the lease.

Right. I'm being aggressive by not causing a problem and acting appropriately to my own preservation. I'm self-employed; that means no sick days, no sick pay, no paid holidays and if I'm not working, no income.

Your point around "finding a loophole in the lease" and your erroneous assumption around my conversation with the council are irrelevant nonsense. I'm fully aware what the connotations of the conversation were, given that it was actually me who had it, not you, and as I have seen the Land Registry documentation confirming that the land is not covered by the lease, I am satisfied that I am not doing anything wrong by using it in this way.

[uoeno]

Perhaps you would be better off finding a more suitable property as clearly this one is no longer suitable. By the sounds of it, all parties would see this as a good solution.

Just because your circumstances change, trying to bend the lease to suit this is probably not the best way of maintaining good relationships with your neighbours. Perhaps if you had asked for permission first, rather than acting entitled, a more reasonable response might have been forthcoming.

I AM "entitled" to maintain my own health. Particularly when I am not causing any actual problems by doing so. The property is up for sale. Thanks for your "advice". Really helpful and profound.

[Jon66]

Well no, you're not actually, because you are in breach of your lease . . .

[scot22]

Everyone is entitled to maintain their own health. The means of doing so may be disputed but it is a reasonable motivation.

[Macromia]

Everyone is entitled to maintain their own health. The means of doing so may be disputed but it is a reasonable motivation.

It is a reasonable motivation, but the OP does not seem to have gone about this in the correct way. If the OP's lease does not allow them to park in the visitor bays, they should not be doing so under any circumstances without prior permission.
If they had asked for permission first, or had used the option of moving their vehicle to the visitor bay only when actually loading/unloading, perhaps this would have been accepted. They do not seem to have asked permission first, and seem to (incorrectly) assume that they have a right to breach the lease because of a health issue.

If a leaseholder has a health issue, and asks for permission to temporarily do something that is outside of the terms of their lease because of this, I would consider a freeholder/managing agent to be unreasonable if they refused this under circumstances where it would have little effect on other leaseholders/residents.
On the other hand, if the freeholder/managing agent allows one leaseholder to breach the lease (even in a small way) without prior permission, they are potentially setting a precedent which might make it more difficult to enforce future breaches, even if these breaches are more intrusive.

The OP states that one of the directors apparently previously used the visitors bays while they had a health issue but, if the is the case, we do not know the circumstances, or whether permission was asked, and granted, beforehand.

[scot22]

You are absolutely right. Perhaps a limitation of forums is generally being unable to have a full picture.

[Macromia]

Not having the full picture isn't just a problem with forums. Most people typically only tell the parts of a story that they consider important, and their recall of the details will invariably favour their side.

[uoeno]

Not having the full picture isn't just a problem with forums. Most people typically only tell the parts of a story that they consider important, and their recall of the details will invariably favour their side.

I've told the full story. I'm not interested in being viewed favourably by strangers on the internet; the original request was asking if there was any legitimate action that could be taken against me, which I've not received any answer to as yet - seems a couple of members of this forum are here only to judge and not to provide anything which can reasonably be construed as advice.

I'm going to assume that the director in question had not asked for permission to use the VP bays, because when presented with this question, the managing agent had the opportunity to state he had sought permission, but instead chose to ignore the question.

[uoeno]

Well no, you're not actually, because you are in breach of your lease . . .

OK mate thanks for your continued assistance, really appreciate your dedication in providing this invaluable insight.

You might find the Daily Mail comments section a more suitable outlet for your energy than an advice forum - it's perfect for people who just want to spout trite soundbites without nuance or consideration of context.

[Harwood]

OK mate thanks for your continued assistance, really appreciate your dedication in providing this invaluable insight.

You might find the Daily Mail comments section a more suitable outlet for your energy than an advice forum - it's perfect for people who just want to spout trite soundbites without nuance or consideration of context.

Strictly speaking he's correct.
Although you may not like what your'e reading, it doesn't change what is in your lease and the legally binding contract you entered into.

Sorry, not what you want to hear.

[Macromia]

I've told the full story.

I doubt it.
Most people don't intentionally leave out important details, they leave them out because either (i) they don't consider the details to be important, (ii) their personal recollection of certain details is flawed, or (iii) they didn't know the details in the first place.

I have no doubt that you've told what you believe is the full story.

I'm not interested in being viewed favourably by strangers on the internet; the original request was asking if there was any legitimate action that could be taken against me, which I've not received any answer to as yet - seems a couple of members of this forum are here only to judge and not to provide anything which can reasonably be construed as advice.

The way that you have replied to some of the comments that have been left probably hasn't helped, but you have received answers to your question - they just haven't specifically spelt it out.

It sounds like you are in breach of your lease, and that means that legal action could potentially be started that could (hypothetically at least) lead to your lease being forfeited.
In reality, even if a tribunal agreed that you were in breach of your lease, you would be given the opportunity to 'correct the breach' (i.e. stop parking in visitors spaces), but if you are taken to a tribunal and found to be in breach of your lease you could end up owing a considerable amount in legal costs.

You might be able to argue that some sort of precedent has previously been set, or that you are being treated unfairly in having this rule enforced against you when it hasn't been enforced against other leaseholders, but that line of argument will fail if the others who have used visitor spaces had obtained prior permission that you were unaware of.
I very much doubt that you have a case for harassment (or for a breach of data protection) because, if the person emailing you is a director of the RMC they have a valid reason to contact you if you are potentially in breach of your lease and, as a director of the RMC, can reply to any communications that you sent to the RMC using an email address that you have provided to the RMC.

I'm going to assume that the director in question had not asked for permission to use the VP bays, because when presented with this question, the managing agent had the opportunity to state he had sought permission, but instead chose to ignore the question.

An assumption won't help you if this goes to a tribunal.
You don't know that permission hadn't been granted in advance, and they might be able to produce evidence that permission had been granted.

[scot22]

Excellent advice as usual. I hope OP will acknowledge in the same spirit.

[Jon66]

I think an apology is in order for op's attitude actually, but clearly the advice is not what he wanted to hear, so the advice is 'wrong' and goes unacknowledged.