Need help agreeing a policy on abandoned cars

gebbel

We are an apartment complex in Louth who are having problems with a couple of unused cars in the public parking areas. These cars are taking up valuable spaces and are promoting illegal parking elsewhere. Both cars have been parked up for at least 1 year, one of the owners starts the engine a few times every year to keep it ticking over...the other one not so. In both cases this is not their primary vehicle. The development does not have a policy on such cars, so at the AGM next week we will vote to integrate one into the house rules. The wording is proposed to be something like:

"Cars parked for a period exceeding 3 months which are clearly untaxed, uninsured and not being used will be deemed abandoned and in extreme cases may be towed".

Is this a fair policy? Is the wording adequate? In an ideal world I'd be all for letting the owners have more time to sort it out..maybe they are not in a great place financially and all that.....but the constrained world of apartment living does not allow for parking space to be wasted and therefore action is required.

Any thoughts welcome. I'm posting here instead of the accommodation forum as more interested in car owners' thoughts.

Del2005

I'd be consulting a solicitor for proper legal advice before implementing a policy that will possibly end up with removing residents property.

whippet

you are talking about removing people's property just because they don't use it? From the example you have given it clearly isn't abandoned.

Sounds like a problem with limited parking spaces .. how many spaces are reserved for each unit?

_Kaiser_

You can't remove someone's property because they're not using it - these cars aren't abandoned as said above.

You could however charge them for a second space? That may force them to either pay up or get rid of it.

9935452

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

You can't remove someone's property because they're not using it - these cars aren't abandoned as said above.

You could however charge them for a second space? That may force them to either pay up or get rid of it.

I could see that back firing . There are probably other households there that have 2 or more cars that will have to pay for a second or third space and they would get pissed off with that

gebbel

Each unit has 1 parking space allocated. Then there is overflow parking for visitors and second cars, but not enough spaces and certainly none spare. The issue here is 2 unused cars....both coincidentally 16 years old and I'd imagine almost worthless. The owners are renters who for whatever reason are clinging onto them.

At AGM rules and laws are made, amended or changed and once voted in...they become the law of the complex. So not sure solicitors advice is relevant here.

Cheensbo

gebbel wrote: »

.both coincidentally 16 years old and I'd imagine almost worthless.

Careful now :pac:

Carawaystick

How can a private company ( the omc) tell if the vehicles are not taxed or not insured?

ianob7

by reading the windscreen one would assume....

Graham

Might be useful taking a look at what other OMCs are doing: Linky

Vehicles which ARE allowed to park at XXXXXX – “Authorised Vehicles”

• In-Use Cars, Motorcycles, and Bicycles which belong to / are driven by Owners and Residents

--/snipped/--

Vehicles which ARE NOT allowed to park

--/snipped/--
Un-Used Vehicles which are owned / driven by Owners / Residents at XXXXXX, where it becomes clear to the Directors that such Vehicles are being stored in the Car Park whilst other Vehicles, also parked in the Car Park, are at the same time being used by said Owners / Residents as their Primary Transport Means

Obviously – Abandoned Vehicles or Stolen Vehicles -
• An “Abandoned Vehicle” is defined to be a Vehicle which has an expired Tax Disc, Insurance Disc, or NCT Disc – or all of the foregoing – and which the Management Company has, by affixing a Notice to the Vehicle, requested the Owner / Driver to clarify the circumstances of its parking at XXXXXX within 23 days – If such Vehicle is un-claimed within 23 Days of the date of such Notice being affixed to the Vehicle, the Vehicle will be deemed to be abandoned
• A “Stolen Vehicle” is defined to be a Vehicle for which the Gardai have confirmed as having been reported to them as being stolen
• In the case of Abandoned or Stolen Vehicles, they will be removed from XXXXXX, rather than being clamped.

Vic_08

gebbel wrote: »

Each unit has 1 parking space allocated. Then there is overflow parking for visitors and second cars, but not enough spaces and certainly none spare. The issue here is 2 unused cars....both coincidentally 16 years old and I'd imagine almost worthless. The owners are renters who for whatever reason are clinging onto them.

At AGM rules and laws are made, amended or changed and once voted in...they become the law of the complex. So not sure solicitors advice is relevant here.

If there is an allocated space per apartment then either the leaseholder or if rented the tennant is the "owner" of that space and frankly it is none of your business what car they have parked in it.

Neither of these cars are abandoned as you put it, they are just not in everyday use. If they have the cars in the un-allocated spaces and are using their spaces for a regularly used car then that is taking liberties though.

elperello

gebbel wrote: »

Each unit has 1 parking space allocated. Then there is overflow parking for visitors and second cars, but not enough spaces and certainly none spare. The issue here is 2 unused cars....both coincidentally 16 years old and I'd imagine almost worthless. The owners are renters who for whatever reason are clinging onto them.

At AGM rules and laws are made, amended or changed and once voted in...they become the law of the complex. So not sure solicitors advice is relevant here.

Best to check what you are proposing as Bye-Laws with a solicitor before the meeting. It could save a lot of time and avoid problems.

While you are correct in saying that the Bye-Laws will effectively become the "law of the complex" they still must be grounded in law.

pa990

AFIK, the legal definition of abandoned, is when the legal owner cannot be contacted.

vaguely remember some case law regarding a tractor / farm machinery that was parked up in a field that was being rented.
It was basically scrap, but the guy renting the field fixed up the piece of machinery, and got it going, then the owner of the field claimed that it was his property, and the courts ruled in his favour.

Basically, unless the legal owner cannot be identified then its not abandoned, that is why Councils & Corporations don't tow "abandoned" cars unless the number plate has been removed.

Dravokivich

gebbel wrote: »

Each unit has 1 parking space allocated. Then there is overflow parking for visitors and second cars, but not enough spaces and certainly none spare. The issue here is 2 unused cars....both coincidentally 16 years old and I'd imagine almost worthless. The owners are renters who for whatever reason are clinging onto them.

At AGM rules and laws are made, amended or changed and once voted in...they become the law of the complex. So not sure solicitors advice is relevant here.

Your issue is with people who have multiple cars, regardless of the reason why. Picking on these 2 cars you are attempting to list as abandoned will not address that.

Graham

pa990 wrote: »

AFIK, the legal definition of abandoned, is when the legal owner cannot be contacted.

Assuming the plan is to have the cars towed away/clamped I'm not convinced a parking policy would need to meet any legal definition of abandoned. In this instance it's a descriptive title for cars which are not approved to park in the communal spaces.

gebbel

Looking at the policy from the Balgriffin complex above (thanks Graham)....they have made the notable distinction between an abandoned and an unused car. Their policy forbids:

"Un-Used Vehicles which are owned / driven by Owners / Residents at Grattan Wood, where it becomes clear
to the Directors that such Vehicles are being stored in the Car Park whilst other Vehicles, also parked in the
Car Park, are at the same time being used by said Owners / Residents as their Primary Transport Means".

The above perfectly describes our situation with the 2 vehicles.

gebbel

Dravokivich wrote: »

Your issue is with people who have multiple cars, regardless of the reason why. Picking on these 2 cars you are attempting to list as abandoned will not address that.

Good point. But at least unused or abandoned cars can more easily be dealt with. Once there is an agreed policy.

Vic_08

gebbel wrote: »

Good point. But at least unused or abandoned cars can more easily be dealt with. Once there is an agreed policy.

You know who the owners are, they live in the complex where the cars are located. They are NOT abandoned.

You still haven't stated if the cars are in the correct allocated spaces for the owners, if they are then there is nothing you can do about it.

Dravokivich

Vic_08 wrote: »

You know who the owners are, they live in the complex where the cars are located. They are NOT abandoned.

You still haven't stated if the cars are in the correct allocated spaces for the owners, if they are then there is nothing you can do about it.

They kind of mentioned it in a muddled up manner in the OP. In both instances these 2 cars, are the second cars of those owners.

Graham

Vic_08 wrote: »

if they are then there is nothing you can do about it.

My interpretation from the OPs posts is this relates to visitor/communal parking.

That said, allocated spaces are still subject to the rules defined by the OMC even if there is more of an argument to permit long-term parking up.

gebbel

Sorry should have clarified.

Case 1: rented unit with one parking space allocated outside his door. The unused car is parked there, actually for about 2 years. The owner occasionally starts the engine. His other primary vehicle he parks in the overflow car park.

Case 2: rented unit with the unused car parked up in the overflow car park and he parks his primary vehicle outside his door. It hasn't been moved in at least 1 year.

pa990

Graham wrote: »

Assuming the plan is to have the cars towed away/clamped I'm not convinced a parking policy would need to meet any legal definition of abandoned. In this instance it's a descriptive title for cars which are not approved to park in the communal spaces.

i agree, how ever that is my understanding of "abandoned"

perhaps the title of the thread should be changed to "unused" or god knows what

cruizer101

OP you might be better looking for advice in the Accommodation and Property forum as it relates more to that, I'm sure mods could move if you wanted up to yourself.

Has anyone tried approaching the owners to talk to them before going about changing rules and potentially getting into muddy legal waters.

Isambard

unless you are taking similar action on others who have two vehicles, I'm afraid it looks to me as if you are picking on these two guys.

gebbel

cruizer101 wrote: »

OP you might be better looking for advice in the Accommodation and Property forum as it relates more to that, I'm sure mods could move if you wanted up to yourself.

Has anyone tried approaching the owners to talk to them before going about changing rules and potentially getting into muddy legal waters.

Yeah probably in the wrong forum now...I'll get it moved or someone please move it for me.

In terms of talking to the owners....yes one of them was spoken to but got pretty defensive about it. Not sure about the other guy.

Stephenc66

gebbel wrote: »

Looking at the policy from the Balgriffin complex above (thanks Graham)....they have made the notable distinction between an abandoned and an unused car. Their policy forbids:

"Un-Used Vehicles which are owned / driven by Owners / Residents at Grattan Wood, where it becomes clear
to the Directors that such Vehicles are being stored in the Car Park whilst other Vehicles, also parked in the
Car Park, are at the same time being used by said Owners / Residents as their Primary Transport Means".

The above perfectly describes our situation with the 2 vehicles.

OP do you know in the case of the Balgriffin complex do the residents own a parking space? Are you comparing like with like?

Do your current rules mention anything about the use of "owned" parking spaces that might affect what you want to achieve with your new rules.

I am thinking in particular of case 1 as you describe. He is enjoying to use of his owned parking space and following the custom and practice of the other residents and using the overflow car park for his second car

Graham

Isambard wrote: »

unless you are taking similar action on others who have two vehicles, I'm afraid it looks to me as if you are picking on these two guys.

There's no particular anti-discrimination legislation the prevents 'picking on' the owners of abandoned cars.

Either way it sounds like the policy will be applied equally to all residents so not particularly discriminatory.

Graham

Stephenc66 wrote: »

I am thinking in particular of case 1 as you describe. He is enjoying to use of his owned parking space and following the custom and practice of the other residents and using the overflow car park for his second car

I'd be interested in a link to that case. Curious as to how custom and practice overrides the OMCs legal rights to change the rules.

Stephenc66

gebbel wrote: »

Sorry should have clarified.

Case 1: rented unit with one parking space allocated outside his door. The unused car is parked there, actually for about 2 years. The owner occasionally starts the engine. His other primary vehicle he parks in the overflow car park.

Case 2: rented unit with the unused car parked up in the overflow car park and he parks his primary vehicle outside his door. It hasn't been moved in at least 1 year.

Graham wrote: »

I'd be interested in a link to that case. Curious as to how custom and practice overrides the OMCs legal rights to change the rules.

Sorry Graham I should have been more clear I was referring to Case 1 in your previous post.

Playing devils advocate

Graham

Stephenc66 wrote: »

Sorry Graham I should have been more clear I was referring to Case 1 in your previous post.

Playing devils advocate

'owned' spaces would still generally be subject to the rules set down by the OMC.

Indricotherium

Graham wrote: »

I'd be interested in a link to that case. Curious as to how custom and practice overrides the OMCs legal rights to change the rules.

Custom and practice? Do you mean the law by that?