Car park charging me to leave, i own the space.

theTinker

Hey Guys.

I'm hoping someone could help me with a matter with some legal knowledge.

I live in an apartment complex above a car park. I own a car space (cost 10,000 inc with the purchase of the aparment) and it has the deed to it with my apartment deeds.

I have a card which i use to gain access. It lifts up a barrier.

However, last night I misplaced my card and couldn't get in. So I had to take a public ticket by pressing the button on the machine. It opens the barrier and lets me in.

However when i was leaving today, my normal card wouldnt work. I asked the attendant that works there to open it up and explained i had misplaced my card. However they tried to charge me for staying. I explained i'm a permenant resident, i own the land, and i have a free right of passage to it.
He kept repeating that i dont, that the car park managment get to make the rules. The argument went no where.

Anyway, can someone tell me if i am legally obliged to pay them? or if they are breaking the law by not allowing me to leave without charge?

I've only misplaced my card twice in 5 years so i felt this very unfair.

Squ

theTinker wrote: »

Hey Guys.

I'm hoping someone could help me with a matter with some legal knowledge.

I live in an apartment complex above a car park. I own a car space (cost 10,000 inc with the purchase of the aparment) and it has the deed to it with my apartment deeds.

I have a card which i use to gain access. It lifts up a barrier.

However, last night I misplaced my card and couldn't get in. So I had to take a public ticket by pressing the button on the machine. It opens the barrier and lets me in.

However when i was leaving today, my normal card wouldnt work. I asked the attendant that works there to open it up and explained i had misplaced my card. However they tried to charge me for staying. I explained i'm a permenant resident, i own the land, and i have a free right of passage to it.
He kept repeating that i dont, that the car park managment get to make the rules. The argument went no where.

Anyway, can someone tell me if i am legally obliged to pay them? or if they are breaking the law by not allowing me to leave without charge?

I've only misplaced my card twice in 5 years so i felt this very unfair.

I would have kept sthum about misplacing the card and just told them their equipment is faulty, demanded compensation for being delayed..

They'd have lifted the barrier quick enough im guessing

Though i dont know where you stand legally..

BrianD

Squ wrote: »

... demanded compensation for being delayed..

...

Though i dont know where you stand legally..

Hmmm. I'm always amazed by the Irish sense of entitlement.

There are really two options. Stand your ground and don't move 'till the barrier is lifted or pay the fee and either claim it back or put it down to the cost of misplacing your card.

It sounds that the car park has a public element to it and it's only reasonable that they have to apply the rules.

Squ

I was more saying that it'd get the barrier lifted quicker if he went on the offensive..

golden lane

if you own the land, and the right of way.....it is illegal for them to have a barrier across that way...........

Mr. Presentable

It's an anti passback on the card. You tried to use it twice to exit without using it to enter in between. You need to get the management company to unlock your card. It is designed to prevent you from passing your card through the barrier to let another car in.

If I understand what happened correctly.

Procrastastudy

I doubt he owns the land - even for the Car park space. If its an apartment complex its much more likely its on a long term lease.

I'm also frequently astounded by the number of, seemingly reasonable, people that think its a good idea to bully people for just trying to do their jobs when a letter to the management company explaining the situation is much more appropriate. The attendant didn't lose the card the OP did.

Paulw

You don't own the space. You are renting it, and it's just a long term lease (999 years maybe)?

Do your deeds expressly state that you have a right of way? I doubt it.

It does sound like the card has an anti-passback function. No entry = no exit. So, if the card doesn't work, then you need to have this issue fixed.

You entered the car park as a visitor (by taking a public ticket), and so you entered in to a contract to pay for parking.

That would be my understanding.

theTinker

golden lane wrote: »

If you own the land, and the right of way.....it is illegal for them to have a barrier across that way...........

Thats what I was thinking.

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

It's an anti passback on the card. You tried to use it twice to exit without using it to enter in between. You need to get the management company to unlock your card. It is designed to prevent you from passing your card through the barrier to let another car in.

If I understand what happened correctly.

Yes thats exactly what it was.

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

I doubt he owns the land - even for the Car park space. If its an apartment complex its much more likely its on a long term lease.

I'm also frequently astounded by the number of, seemingly reasonable, people that think its a good idea to bully people for just trying to do their jobs when a letter to the management company explaining the situation is much more appropriate. The attendant didn't lose the card the OP did.

I'd need to double check it, but my solicitor told me I own it during the buying process. I think he even said i could legally stick a pole into it to stop others parking on it (not that i have any desire to do that).

theTinker

Paulw wrote: »

You don't own the space. You are renting it, and it's just a long term lease (999 years maybe)?

Do your deeds expressly state that you have a right of way? I doubt it.

It does sound like the card has an anti-passback function. No entry = no exit. So, if the card doesn't work, then you need to have this issue fixed.

You entered the car park as a visitor (by taking a public ticket), and so you entered in to a contract to pay for parking.

That would be my understanding.

Can you recommend any way for me to deal with this in future. Obviously i dont plan to misplace my card. It hasnt happened in many years. However at 2am at night, I needed to get into my parking. They said i should of contacted them, but when i said it was 2am and they leave at 7pm.. they just had a blank surprised look at there face.

thebiglad

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

It's an anti passback on the card. You tried to use it twice to exit without using it to enter in between. You need to get the management company to unlock your card. It is designed to prevent you from passing your card through the barrier to let another car in.

If I understand what happened correctly.

Had this on barriers at work and if one was to tailgate another vehicle in it was not possible to exit - pretty the same problem, don't tag in/out and the opposite will not work next time.

Solution (and for future reference maybe) exit the vehicle, walk to the other barrier whether in/out and tag the card, it will then work as normal.

Alternatively get shirty with the guy on other end of the intercom and refuse to move - you may not win that one though

testicle

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

I doubt he owns the land - even for the Car park space. If its an apartment complex its much more likely its on a long term lease.

I'm also frequently astounded by the number of, seemingly reasonable, people that think its a good idea to bully people for just trying to do their jobs when a letter to the management company explaining the situation is much more appropriate. The attendant didn't lose the card the OP did.

Yes. I'm holding up everyone at the exit of the carpark while I write a letter to the management company and wait for their response to get them to open the barrier...

TheChizler

Do a Mr. Bean on it to reset the card!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2QmoNZP_-A

Paulw

theTinker wrote: »

Can you recommend any way for me to deal with this in future. Obviously i dont plan to misplace my card. It hasnt happened in many years. However at 2am at night, I needed to get into my parking. They said i should of contacted them, but when i said it was 2am and they leave at 7pm.. they just had a blank surprised look at there face.

If there is 24hr access, then there should be a 24hr support phone number that you can call?

Otherwise, your best bet is to not park in the complex that night.

Your card is your responsibility. It is not their fault you misplaced it. Unfortunately, you are in the wrong.

Try looking at it from their perspective. It is their job to provide secure parking. You attempted to bypass this security.

fasttalkerchat

Their barrier blocks your access to your property. If they don't remove it (or lift it) they are breaking the law.
In future you could hypothetically keep a socket set in your car to temporarily remove the barrier in case of emergancies.

Paulw

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Their barrier blocks your access to your property. If they don't remove it (or lift it) they are breaking the law.

It is not his property. He only has exclusive use of the parking space, as per the lease contract.

They are not breaking any law by having a barrier there. The car park seems to be a mix of public and private parking. Not just residential parking.

It is the OPs responsibility to have his access card and to use it properly to enter and exit the car park.

fasttalkerchat

Paulw wrote: »

It is not his property. He only has exclusive use of the parking space, as per the lease contract.

They are not breaking any law by having a barrier there. The car park seems to be a mix of public and private parking. Not just residential parking.

It is the OPs responsibility to have his access card and to use it properly to enter and exit the car park.

I own a car space (cost 10,000 inc with the purchase of the aparment) and it has the deed to it with my apartment deeds.

I was going by this line.

ldxo15wus6fpgm

Paulw wrote: »

It is not his property. He only has exclusive use of the parking space, as per the lease contract.

They are not breaking any law by having a barrier there. The car park seems to be a mix of public and private parking. Not just residential parking.

It is the OPs responsibility to have his access card and to use it properly to enter and exit the car park.

OP has stated that his solicitor told him he owns it. I think it's safe to say he does.
He therefore has a right of way (whether or not it is stated in the deeds etc.) until a court says otherwise

Paulw

Michael Gentle Chrysalis wrote: »

OP has stated that his solicitor told him he owns it. I think it's safe to say he does.
He therefore has a right of way (whether or not it is stated in the deeds etc.) until a court says otherwise

The op lives in an apt complex, so it's a very safe bet to assume that he is part of a management company, and does not own the space, but has a 999 year lease, and only has exclusive use of the space.

I'm sure the OP can come back and clarify.

MarkR

He owns (leases?) the space, but not everything from the barrier to the space. The management company allows access to that area for free via the card. No card, not free. Get it fixed and problem solved.

Procrastastudy

Michael Gentle Chrysalis wrote: »

OP has stated that his solicitor told him he owns it. I think it's safe to say he does.
He therefore has a right of way (whether or not it is stated in the deeds etc.) until a court says otherwise

I wouldn't make that assumption - I dont remember a long conversation about leasehold v freehold when I bought - thats not to say it didn't happen this was 6 years ago. If he does have a leasehold there's no reason why he couldn't put a pole there etc as its on a long term lease.

It would be a mighty odd arrangement to have a freehold on anything related to an apartment complex.

BTW OP my tone wasn't directed at you just the suggestion that having a go was the way forward which you didn't suggest.

fasttalkerchat

Would Lease vs. Freehold make any difference to right of way?

theTinker

thebiglad wrote: »

Solution (and for future reference maybe) exit the vehicle, walk to the other barrier whether in/out and tag the card, it will then work as normal.

Alternatively get shirty with the guy on other end of the intercom and refuse to move - you may not win that one though

I tried that the last time actually. The machine doesnt work unless there is a car at it. It might be pressure sensitive, but i couldnt trigger it with myself

Red Crow

You do not own the space. The management company of the complex provides you with this service. If you misplaced your card why didn't you identify it to the staff immediately? As someone there 5 years I'm sure you know that carparks have an inside/out system where a single card can't be used to exit twice is succession.

BrianD

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Would Lease vs. Freehold make any difference to right of way?

I would be interested to know. Something tells me that there would not be a right of way and that access would be conditional.

theTinker

Eli Manning wrote: »

You do not own the space. The management company of the complex provides you with this service. If you misplaced your card why didn't you identify it to the staff immediately? As someone there 5 years I'm sure you know that carparks have an inside/out system where a single card can't be used to exit twice is succession.

They go home at 7pm. It was close to 2am at night. As I could get into the park, I didnt want to ring someone in the middle of the night.

They used to be around all night, but cost cutting happened and they changed to a 7-7 hour system

Marcusm

I would expect in a multi user car park (commercial and residentil )that apartment residents would have been granted a leasehold interest in a denied space. Likewise they would have been granted rights of way over the other land to effect entry and egress subject to security arrangements to be put in place. In these circumstances, I think it was appropriate of the OP to effect entry by means of taking a commercial ticket but as he did not and had no intention of using a commercial space it is hard to see how he was liable for a fee - he had no intention to create legal relations with the operator of the commercial spaces. The OP cannot be subject to disproportionate barriers to his exercising his rights of way. If his card did not work, the operators of the car park should have permitted him egress, it cannot hold him as to do so would be anunlawful detention.

Aggravating the parking attendant is probably not the best way to get out, however.

While purely residential complexes might have unallocated parking, this would be unusual in mixed schemes, hence my conclusion that he likely has an explicit ease hod interest in the space. A parking space is useless without rights of way (both on foot and car) hene conclusion that these would be included in ease.

Procrastastudy

Marcusm wrote: »

If his card did not work, the operators of the car park should have permitted him egress, it cannot hold him as to do so would be anunlawful detention.

Can this apply to not letting his car out? I assume you are applying something along the lines of Warner v Riddiford (1858) 140 ER 1042?

Isn't there a requirement for false imprisonment to be absolute though? Sorry if I have false imprisonment confused with what you were suggesting.

Marcusm

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Can this apply to not letting his car out? I assume you are applying something along the lines of Warner v Riddiford (1858) 140 ER 1042?

Isn't there a requirement for false imprisonment to be absolute though? Sorry if I have false imprisonment confused with what you were suggesting.

Wouldn't that be common law/tort, here I'd go for s15 Non fatal etc and simply state that you are restricting my personal liberty. It would depend in part on whether a legal right to detain was asserted, perhaps.

BrianD

Wow, there are some extensive legal arguements and remedies for a guy who forgot his ticket.

The simple solution is for the guy to pay his way out. There are no human rights violations here. As the OP said, it's only twice that he's forgotten his pass.

Both the OP and the management firm want the orderly use of the car parking facility and rules have to be applied regarding access. The reason that the OP is provided with a pass/permit is so access to the spaces can be managed. There is no other purpose for it. Management can not be achieved if users forget their passes and it's not unreasonable that the lack of a pass/permit requires a fee to be paid instead.

Otherwise the onus is on the car park space owners is to put in place a back up system if their primary one fails and then one for the fella who forgets his pass and has no money, and one for the guy with no pass, no money and ...

Procrastastudy

Sincere apologies for introducing continuing a legal discussion to a thread in the legal discussion forums BrianD... Hang on a minute

jblack

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Their barrier blocks your access to your property. If they don't remove it (or lift it) they are breaking the law.
In future you could hypothetically keep a socket set in your car to temporarily remove the barrier in case of emergancies.

Unbelievable the amount of bulls**t in this thread.

BrianD

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Sincere apologies for introducing continuing a legal discussion to a thread in the legal discussion forums BrianD... Hang on a minute

Perhaps you should see the bigger picture. There are some circumstances where a legal remedy is not warranted and this is one of them. Sure this is a discussion board but even here the answer is still "no leg to stand on" and the legal route would be a waste of time and money. It is a disproportionate response.

In Ireland, we seem to have the propensity to "go legal" or threaten to do so to make amends for our own errors or omissions. This is waste of everybody's time.

All of the "legalistic solutions" put forward on this thread are really what one would call "clutching at straws".

Procrastastudy

BrianD wrote: »

Perhaps you should see the bigger picture. There are some circumstances where a legal remedy is not warranted and this is one of them. Sure this is a discussion board but even here the answer is still "no leg to stand on" and the legal route would be a waste of time and money. It is a disproportionate response.

In Ireland, we seem to have the propensity to "go legal" or threaten to do so to make amends for our own errors or omissions. This is waste of everybody's time.

All of the "legalistic solutions" put forward on this thread are really what one would call "clutching at straws".

I don't think anyone can accuse me of adding to threads with any great amount of legal knowledge BrianD

To be fair he did post in the LD forum and not motoring or personal issues forum. I'm not really sure the aim of this forum is to tell people what they should do - merely present them with the options. I'm sure the OP isn't going to seek a judicial review or anything or indeed was ever going to seriously take any form of legal action.

I'm sure all he was really looking for was a couple of cases to put in a letter and a bit of legislation to moan on about to the Car Park people. Well he has that now:

False imprisonment, wrongful detention and S15 of the non-fatal etc. Act. You should also tell them it was negligent as it's reasonably foreseeable that people forget their fobs

fasttalkerchat

jblack wrote: »

Unbelievable the amount of bulls**t in this thread.

And you're the ringleader of the trolls.
Let's hear something constructive from you...

jblack

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

And you're the ringleader of the trolls.
Let's hear something constructive from you...

I think Paulw has summed it up quite succinctly so there is no need to go much further without forum breaching.

For your edification, I posted the above quoted comment for a simple reason; namely this is a legal discussion forum where there are some really helpful and insightful posts and opinions offered, which are not just useful for inquisitive types but also for students, paralegals and even those of us in practice.

Then there is your type of post; utter nonsense that clogs up threads, confuses those genuinely seeking some guidance and actually is in itself a troll.

fasttalkerchat

jblack wrote: »

I think Paulw has summed it up quite succinctly so there is no need to go much further without forum breaching.

For your edification, I posted the above quoted comment for a simple reason; namely this is a legal discussion forum where there are some really helpful and insightful posts and opinions offered, which are not just useful for inquisitive types but also for students, paralegals and even those of us in practice.

Then there is your type of post; utter nonsense that clogs up threads, confuses those genuinely seeking some guidance and actually is in itself a troll.

Catch yourself on. This is a public forum where people throw in tips, advice and sometimes nonsensical anecdotes. If he wants legal advice he is in the wrong place (as I'm sure he understands).
I raised the issue of right of way and queried if that applied to leased property. He can take up the serious legal discussion with a qualified person through the correct channels.

jblack

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

This is a public forum where people throw in tips, advice and sometimes nonsensical anecdotes. If he wants legal advice he is in the wrong place (as I'm sure he understands).

I agree, what you did was offer a definitive and wholly incorrect statement of the law, along with potentially encouraging the OP to commit a criminal act.

fasttalkerchat

jblack wrote: »

I agree, what you did was offer a definitive and wholly incorrect statement of the law, along with potentially encouraging the OP to commit a criminal act.

In the hypothetical case that in an emergency he was trapped in the carpark because of the barrier and the company was not contactable or uncooperative there is a solution (provided that he does not in any way damage the barrier).

TheChizler

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

In the hypothetical case that in an emergency he was trapped in the carpark because of the barrier and the company was not contactable or uncooperative there is a solution (provided that he does not in any way damage the barrier).

Pay the ticket?

jblack

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

In the hypothetical case that in an emergency he was trapped in the carpark because of the barrier and the company was not contactable or uncooperative there is a solution (provided that he does not in any way damage the barrier).

"Yes judge it was a huge emergency, so much so that I barely had time to remove the socket set from my car, disconnect the barrier, drive out and then spend more time reconnecting the barrier."

fasttalkerchat

TheChizler wrote: »

Pay the ticket?

If he didn't have a ticket?

The OP gets a call that X has happened. He jumps into the car and cant find his card to get out. He searches the apartment and car. He calls the company... they don't open for another 5 hours. He can't wait 5 hours.

Now what?

jblack

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

If he didn't have a ticket?

The OP gets a call that X has happened. He jumps into the car and cant find his card to get out. He searches the apartment and car. He calls the company... they don't open for another 5 hours. He can't wait 5 hours.

Now what?

If there is a relevant clause in the management agreement that says something like "car park will be unattended between 12am - 5am but 24 hr emergency line" he can ring them up, if they are obliged to assist and refuse he can put them on notice that he is taking a taxi or whatever, and seek to recover the costs at a later stage - this type of contractual recovery would fall under the 2nd limb of Hadley v Baxendale.

If there is no obligation on them to address the issue before they open then he is snookered in terms of obliging them to do anything. At this point he must resolve his own problem as the management company are not in breach.

fasttalkerchat

jblack wrote: »

If there is a relevant clause in the management agreement that says something like "car park will be unattended between 12am - 5am but 24 hr emergency line" he can ring them up, if they are obliged to assist and refuse he can put them on notice that he is taking a taxi or whatever, and seek to recover the costs at a later stage - this type of contractual recovery would fall under the 2nd limb of Hadley v Baxendale.

If there is no obligation on them to address the issue before they open then he is snookered in terms of obliging them to do anything. At this point he must resolve his own problem as the management company are not in breach.

Well done!
Now why wasn't this your first post in this thread?:rolleyes:

Marcusm

jblack wrote: »

If there is a relevant clause in the management agreement that says something like "car park will be unattended between 12am - 5am but 24 hr emergency line" he can ring them up, if they are obliged to assist and refuse he can put them on notice that he is taking a taxi or whatever, and seek to recover the costs at a later stage - this type of contractual recovery would fall under the 2nd limb of Hadley v Baxendale.

If there is no obligation on them to address the issue before they open then he is snookered in terms of obliging them to do anything. At this point he must resolve his own problem as the management company are not in breach.

I'd be willing to bet you a fiver that the management company is not the one in control of the barrier but rather it is the operator of the commercial car park; meaning that there is likely a conflict of entitlements. Irrespective, I think it acceptable, wholly appropriate and in keeping with the forum to discuss the potential scenarios at play.

jblack

I wouldn't bet you that fiver because I'd lose it.
This is one of those questions whose practical answer is very different from the topics discussed.

If it was me, I'd get my fob fixed and pay that cost myself, but as for paying the car park ticket, I'd tell them where to hop. If they refused to fix my fob I would be writing to them blasting them with a long list of consequential damages (if not excluded by management contract) they will be paying. I would give them a reasonable amount of time to resolve the problem but stating clearly that the time for such is now of the essence and any delay on their part beyond that has been brought to their attention.

The other point and I think it was BrianD that alluded to it, is practically this is not a matter for the Supreme Court but rather getting to speak to the right person in charge of the barrier and car park, and not some little sh*tkicker attendant.

I remember advice I was given years ago that I though was pretty good - if you want something done talk to those that make decisions, not implement them.

BrianD

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

I don't think anyone can accuse me of adding to threads with any great amount of legal knowledge BrianD

To be fair he did post in the LD forum and not motoring or personal issues forum. I'm not really sure the aim of this forum is to tell people what they should do - merely present them with the options. I'm sure the OP isn't going to seek a judicial review or anything or indeed was ever going to seriously take any form of legal action.

I'm sure all he was really looking for was a couple of cases to put in a letter and a bit of legislation to moan on about to the Car Park people. Well he has that now:

False imprisonment, wrongful detention and S15 of the non-fatal etc. Act. You should also tell them it was negligent as it's reasonably foreseeable that people forget their fobs

I don't agree. In some cases the legal route is not a warranted option. This is one of them as the OP as made an error or omission.

Nothing in law is applicable here - false imprisonment etc. I can't see how any rational person would consider these options.

As a an owner of a space, the OP has to accept that access procedures are in place for the operation of the car park and he has a responsibility to comply with them. As an owner he needs to inform himself about the procedures and what happens if he doesn't have the primary means of access/egress (his pass). This is his own responsibility.

Personally, I think it is irresponsible to suggest that there may be a legal remedy here.

The only redress that he has is to write a letter explaining the situation and request a refund. He might also ask them to consider having a whitelist of residents available in the event he forgets or loses his pass.

Procrastastudy

I never suggested there was a legal remedy. If you can't see what was going on between Marcusm and I was a bit of banter and discussion in the ridiculous then you'll be glad of my new resolution below.

If this were an advice forum it would be irresponsible to suggest there's a legal remedy, shelf help remedy, or, indeed, the remedy you are suggesting. Thankfully this is a discussion forum not an advice forum. It's part of the forum charter not to come here for advice. Someone coming on boards.ie seriously looking for Legal or Medical advice is very quickly caught by a Mod and dealt with. If a thread gets left open for any length of time it's usually reasonable to assume the OP isn't thick - and is going to listen to any of us without large pinches of salt.

Furthermore it adds to a discussion when someone gets a point of law wrong. Marcusm has now pointed me in the direction of other forms of illegal detention beyond the common law/tort rules. We are most likely both wrong and if you had something legal to add, as to why we're wrong, you would have added to it as well. I have to admit my flippant remarks do seem to confuse some people - therefore I apologise and will refrain from doing so in future unless part of an actual post.

chops018

In fairness to GCDLawStudent he posts in a lot of threads and usually gives what he thinks is advice on his knowledge, however he usually mentions that he is open to correction and that he is only finishing up his first year studying law. It is a great way to add to study and get to know some problems, it is in the charter that people should not take advice on this site and they should not see any advice given as legal in stature. GCDLawStudent looks very much at the academic perspective of the law and applies it accordingly which is what we all did as Law Students (including myself and still sometimes do) even though most of the problems on here are very procedural and don't warrant some of the replies that are given, however as he mentioned above it is a Legal Discussion forum and so those people should be going to see a Solicitor. People on here should be allowed to discuss all possible legal routes or hypothetical situations that may arise, GCDLawStudent does this a lot and as he says himself he seems to learn a lot from it which is good and I even still learn plenty from these threads and I have 4 years of Law under my belt. Let the OP go to a Solicitor if he wants solid advice.