Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Parking and Apartment rental dispute.

Options
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Hiddenstranger
    Registered Users Posts: 13 ✭Hiddenstranger


    I have a screenshot of the original ad on daft that says parking is included and I quote "there is ample car parking within the complex."

    There isn't assigned parking (number written on the spaces). I was given a key and buzzer for the main (car) gate for the complex...

    The clamping company are an external company hired by the management company, who I've been dealing with. Their policy is if your permit is visible you get clamped, no if ands or buts. One woman was leaving one morning just as they were clamping her, she had the permit in her flat, but the clamper refused to remove to clamp when shown it to him 2 mins later.

    EDIT: Actually the ad says "This apartment has it's own parking space." I know that's not in the lease. It's only in the ad.

    No one is disputing the fact I have a parking space... not me, the management company, the landlord, the estate agent. All i need is that a little piece of paper that my landlord has that he either is unwilling or can't give to me.


  • Options
    #63
    neckedit
    Registered Users Posts: 1,492 ✭✭✭neckedit


    davo10 wrote: »
    Hence the question in my first post to OP " is it allocated parking?", the replies came immediately (incorrectly) that it doesn't matter.

    Wasn't having a go man.....I was stating all this is pure conjecture untill such time as the OP clarifies a few "IF".


  • Options
    #64
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    Hiddenstranger wrote: »
    I have a screenshot of the original ad on daft that says parking is included and I quote "there is ample car parking within the complex."

    If that is all the ad says then it doesnt necessarily mean that you have use of the ample parking :P

    Also adverts are not a legally binding contract.


  • Options
    #65
    Hiddenstranger
    Registered Users Posts: 13 ✭Hiddenstranger


    djimi wrote: »
    If that is all the ad says then it doesnt necessarily mean that you have use of the ample parking :P

    Also adverts are not a legally binding contract.

    That's what I'm thinking.


  • Options
    #66
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,497 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    davo10 wrote: »
    Not correct. I own an apartment which has an allocated space with the apartment number painted on the space. The allocated space was part of the purchase agreement. A few years ago the management company started this clamping crack with tags because the apartments are near a busy train stop and commuters were parking there. My car was clamped while I was in there doing maintenance. I refused to pay and they were about to tow when I informed them that they were taking my car which was legally parked IN MY PROPERTY. A quick phone call to head office and they removed the clamp and apologised. So djimi, if the OP is renting the property and a defined car park space is part of that property, well you can figure out the rest for yourself.
    For security reasons it's very uncommon and very bad practice to have apartments numbers matching car spaces. Empty Space 25 = empty apartment 25, a thieves ideal set up


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    ted1 wrote: »
    For security reasons it's very uncommon and very bad practice to have apartments numbers matching car spaces. Empty Space 25 = empty apartment 25, a thieves ideal set up

    Its bad practice, but not uncommon at all. From my experience anyway. I dont think any of the apartment complexes in my area have parking spaces numbered differently to the apartments.


  • Options
    #68
    Thomas D
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 554 ✭✭✭Thomas D


    djimi wrote: »
    If that is all the ad says then it doesnt necessarily mean that you have use of the ample parking :P

    Also adverts are not a legally binding contract.

    I've never met a man who posted so much yet knew so little.


  • Options
    #69
    Grandpa Hassan
    Registered Users Posts: 1,945 ✭✭✭Grandpa Hassan


    davo10 wrote: »
    It is in my case, the tenant rents the apartment and the space that comes with it. So your tenant pays you rent but isn't entitled to use the car park space that comes with it? Nice old boy you are.

    I do not remember there being two seperate titles or deeds for apartment and space and to be honest I'm not going to contact the solicitor and ask him.

    As for it not being mentioned, if the space is part of the property being rented, why would it need to be mentioned, the OP would be renting the property. If the lease doesn't specifically mention the toilet in the property, does that mean the tenant doesn't have a right to use it?

    Because I have left my own car in it. Not because I am a 'nice old boy'

    It would likely be the perception of the tenant that the space is part of the property, but that would be a mistaken assumption. I know that in my particular apartment complex in D8,quite a well known and large one, all spaces have their own title deeds. They might be bought with the apartment, but they are separate property and thus, unless specifically included in the lease agreement, not for use by the tenant


  • Options
    #70
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    Thomas D wrote: »
    I've never met a man who posted so much yet knew so little.

    So youre saying adverts are a legally binding contract, yeah?


  • Options
    #71
    BanterZone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16 ✭BanterZone


    djimi wrote: »
    So youre saying adverts are a legally binding contract, yeah?

    They constitute an offer, and if they're accepted like they have been in this case then yes, they are legally binding.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    BanterZone wrote: »
    They constitute an offer, and if they're accepted like they have been in this case then yes, they are legally binding.

    Its only a page on the website. If it differs from what is signed in a legally binding contract (ie a lease) then surely what is written in the ad has been superceded by what is written in the lease?


  • Options
    #73
    BanterZone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16 ✭BanterZone


    djimi wrote: »
    Its only a page on the website. If it differs from what is signed in a legally binding contract (ie a lease) then surely what is written in the ad has been superceded by what is written in the lease?

    The lease or written contract would be what is called express agreement. The written part of the contract is only a part of the contract not the whole of it. It's just generally easier to prove when a term is expressly stated in the contract, but there are also implied terms which are accepted as terms of a contract, even though they are not written into the contract themselves. Something that appears in an advertisement like that would, almost with certainty, be accepted as a term of the contract.


  • Options
    #74
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    Fair enough, Im not an expert on contract law so Ill take your word for it!


  • Options
    #75
    Grandpa Hassan
    Registered Users Posts: 1,945 ✭✭✭Grandpa Hassan


    BanterZone wrote: »
    The lease or written contract would be what is called express agreement. The written part of the contract is only a part of the contract not the whole of it. It's just generally easier to prove when a term is expressly stated in the contract, but there are also implied terms which are accepted as terms of a contract, even though they are not written into the contract themselves. Something that appears in an advertisement like that would, almost with certainty, be accepted as a term of the contract.

    Does that not then just come down to the word of the LL against the word of the tenant. The LL would say that they told the tenant that the advert had an error in it, and wanted to make that clear to the tenant, and had asked the tenant whether they were still happy to go ahead. And the tenant might deny that conversation took place. The LL would point to the contract and the tenant would point yo the advert. I don't see how that could be proven either way


  • Options
    #76
    Santa Cruz
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,126 ✭✭✭Santa Cruz


    I think we have established that he is entitled to park. What he needs to do now is to go and hassle the agent until a permit is secured from the owner.


  • Options
    #77
    Paulw
    Registered Users Posts: 13,381 ✭✭✭✭Paulw


    Santa Cruz wrote: »
    I think we have established that he is entitled to park. What he needs to do now is to go and hassle the agent until a permit is secured from the owner.

    Why does he hassle the agent? He needs to hassle his landlord, to provide the permits.


  • Options
    #78
    odds_on
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,869 ✭✭✭odds_on


    Many EAs have disclaimers though not always printed in their adverts:
    Disclaimer: These particulars are issued on the understanding that they will not form part of any contract, and that all negotiations are carried out through XXXXXXXXXX. All descriptions, dimensions, etc. are given in good faith and are believed to be correct, but any intending purchasers are encouraged to inspect the property for themselves.


  • Options
    #79
    Santa Cruz
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,126 ✭✭✭Santa Cruz


    Paulw wrote: »
    Why does he hassle the agent? He needs to hassle his landlord, to provide the permits.

    The agent is taking a percentage every month for "management". This means having a hands on approach to the property and assisting the tenant when required. The landlord could be in Hong Kong for all he knows.


  • Options
    #80
    athtrasna
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,420 ✭✭✭✭athtrasna


    Santa Cruz wrote: »
    The agent is taking a percentage every month for "management". This means having a hands on approach to the property and assisting the tenant when required. The landlord could be in Hong Kong for all he knows.

    Where is this stated? Management is an additional expense beyond letting


  • Options
    #81
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    Santa Cruz wrote: »
    The agent is taking a percentage every month for "management". This means having a hands on approach to the property and assisting the tenant when required. The landlord could be in Hong Kong for all he knows.

    I have asked for clarification on this which has not been forthcoming. So far the OP has mentioned an agent but I suspect they are referring to a management agent, not a letting agent.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Hiddenstranger
    Registered Users Posts: 13 ✭Hiddenstranger


    djimi wrote: »
    I have asked for clarification on this which has not been forthcoming. So far the OP has mentioned an agent but I suspect they are referring to a management agent, not a letting agent.

    That is correct. The estate agent was only hire to let the place and has no further involvement.


  • Options
    #83
    djimi
    Registered Users Posts: 13,237 ✭✭✭✭djimi


    Hiddenstranger wrote: »
    That is correct. The estate agent was only hire to let the place and has no further involvement.

    In that case you are really wasting your time dealing with the management agent; they are not there to fight your battles with the landlord. Youve been lucky that they have entertained you so far.


  • Options
    #84
    odds_on
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,869 ✭✭✭odds_on


    As a tenant, you must be supplied with the name and address of your landlord as well as his authorised agent if any (especially if the landlord is abroad). This is because if you have to make a claim with the PRTB, you have an address for the landlord so that all legal documents may be sent to him.

    In the England and Wales, I believe a tenant does not have to pay any rent if an English or Welsh address is not provided.


  • Options
    #85
    Paulw
    Registered Users Posts: 13,381 ✭✭✭✭Paulw


    Santa Cruz wrote: »
    The agent is taking a percentage every month for "management". This means having a hands on approach to the property and assisting the tenant when required. The landlord could be in Hong Kong for all he knows.

    You mean a letting agent? The OP hasn't mentioned any letting agent. He says he deals with the landlord but the landlord now isn't responding.

    The management agent (working for the management company) don't take any percentage, and have nothing to do with the tenant.

    The tenant must deal with the landlord.


  • Options
    #86
    Hiddenstranger
    Registered Users Posts: 13 ✭Hiddenstranger


    So is it just basically keep hasseling the landlord for months on end to no end meanwhile I park my car across the road where it isn't covered by insurance, which is inconvenient and just so stupid I can't begin to say why, and nothing changes as the ball is jn the landlords court.

    I've tried asking friends to use their permits but they have housemates of their own.

    But we all know I have a space(two in fact) I just need the permits which I know have been issued to him


  • Options
    #87
    Mrs OBumble
    Registered Users Posts: 25,895 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    So what happens if he's lost them? I'm sure the mgmt have some way of cancelling the issued permits and issuing more. You just need to find the lever to use to get them to think of doing this.

    And in the meantime ... sort your insurance out, and park across the road. Simples.


  • Options
    #88
    Paulw
    Registered Users Posts: 13,381 ✭✭✭✭Paulw


    Hiddenstranger wrote: »
    So is it just basically keep hasseling the landlord for months on end to no end meanwhile I park my car across the road where it isn't covered by insurance, which is inconvenient and just so stupid I can't begin to say why, and nothing changes as the ball is jn the landlords court.

    I don't understand your insurance issue. If you're insured to drive on the road, then it shouldn't matter where you park.

    Other than that, yeah, it's a case of just hassle and hassle the landlord. There is nothing anyone else can do for you.


  • Options
    #89
    Paulw
    Registered Users Posts: 13,381 ✭✭✭✭Paulw


    Mrs OBumble wrote: »
    So what happens if he's lost them? I'm sure the mgmt have some way of cancelling the issued permits and issuing more. You just need to find the lever to use to get them to think of doing this.

    Even then, the management agent is only obligated to issue new permits to the unit owner, not to the tenant. So, it would still be up to the landlord to get the permits to the OP.


  • Options
    #90
    _Kaiser_
    Registered Users Posts: 28,839 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    Another 3 page thread full of well-meaning advice, the legally "correct" way of dealing with it and arguments - none of which address the problem here in the real world.

    OP is renting a place that should come with a parking spot (2 actually) but hasn't been able to use them in peace because he keeps getting clamped. The landlord is AWOL and despite repeated calls and letters, isn't in any rush to deal with it by the look of it. Even though the OP decided to deduct the cost of the clamp removals from his rent there was no reaction from the landlord so they clearly don't care as long as the cash rolls in (as is all too common with Irish tenancy arrangements).

    So in reality, the OP has 2 choices:

    1. Cut his losses and move out
    2. Send a letter/text to the landlord informing him that rent will not be paid until the issue is resolved. I'd imagine that will prompt some response!

    I'm sure the "you can't do that!" posters will be along shortly, but given the wild west that is renting in this country, the fact that the OP is paying for a service he's not getting and which is costing him money and hassle as a result, AND the fact the landlord is refusing to even have the courtesy to answer the phone, it's pretty much every man for himsef really.

    That's my take on it anyway. Personally I'd not be one for putting up with that level of shyte from someone I'm paying good money to, and I would probably just text and say I'll be moving out at the end of the month and withhold the last month's rent (as the deposit will likely not be forthcoming either way) but it's up to the OP really at this stage.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    davo10
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,926 ✭✭✭davo10


    Kaiser2000 wrote: »

    OP is renting a place that should come with a parking spot (2 actually) but hasn't been able to use them in peace because he keeps getting clamped.

    OP is paying for a service he's not getting and which is costing him money and hassle as a result.

    Do you think if it was that simple and clear cut, that this thread would have gone on beyond one reply?

    Op's contract doesn't mention car park spaces, the ad did. Though it should come with spaces, it didn't. So the OP is not paying for a service he's not getting, he's paying the agreed price to rent an apartment. And making rental deductions for that apartment based on what he thinks/should be entitled to (disc).

    This seems to be a mess simply because OP cannot make contact with anyone in a position to give him the discs.

    All money is "good" not just yours and if OP withholds last months rent then he accepts whatever consequences occur as a result. By the way, if OP did that, he would owe a lot more that last months rent due to the rent deductions he made.


Advertisement