Need help agreeing a policy on abandoned cars

Graham

Indricotherium wrote: »

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

I was using a turn-of-phrase used by another poster, you'd have to clarify with them.

Marcusm

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.

I cannot see that you have any ability to determine what he parks in the allicated space outside his unit. Likewise seeking to impose parking rules retrospectively is a hard road if the unit holders and the lessees don't agree. A development I lived in had similar issues with respect to bicycle and motor bike parking. The OMC/landlord found that, having allowed the position to build up over a number of years, that they lacked the legal force to remove property which was not obviously abandoned. Some of the residents were solicitors/barristers and threatened to seek injunctive relief if the OMC proceeded..
You really need to take legal advice; if the cars are not obviously abandoned and the OMC permita one allocated space and unregulated use of the overfl A spaces, it seems hard to see how much t has the authority to discriminate between residents on the basis of a pattern of usage.

Cookie_Monster

gebbel wrote: »

The issue here is 2 unused cars.....

The actual issue is an un-realistic number of spaces per unit, why not try and fix that? Provide more parking and the problem solves itself.

Graham

Marcusm wrote: »

I cannot see that you have any ability to determine what he parks in the allicated space outside his unit.

Of course you cannot see unless the OP has given you a copy of the legal documents for the development.

Most developments provide for rules to be changed by the OMC (i.e. the owners of the properties within the development). If there's an issue with parking, it's quite likely the current owners will be quite supportive of any efforts to free up parking spaces occupied by effectively abandoned vehicles.

CalamariFritti

Have you tried to contact the owners?

Vic_08

Graham wrote: »

Of course you cannot see unless the OP has given you a copy of the legal documents for the development.

Most developments provide for rules to be changed by the OMC (i.e. the owners of the properties within the development). If there's an issue with parking, it's quite likely the current owners will be quite supportive of any efforts to free up parking spaces occupied by effectively abandoned vehicles.

In the case of one of the scenarios posted the "abandoned" car is in a space exclusively for the use of the person who abandoned it, removing it will not free up any spaces.

Just because the management co can change the rules doesn't make it legal. You cannot sell someone something (a parking space for example) then afterwards change the rules to disallow them from using it as intended.

FortySeven

Where exactly are the cars going to be towed to? I'm assuming to a breaker? Are they then implicated in any legal action if they dismantle the cars?

What are the make and models Graham?

Graham

Vic_08 wrote: »

You cannot sell someone something (a parking space for example) then afterwards change the rules to disallow them from using it as intended.

Were the tenants sold the space in addition to the space they are occupying with the other car?
Are the tenants subject to a head lease via their lease with the landlord?
Would the held lease be subject to the rules as may be varied from time to time by the owners via the OMC?
I doubt the rules were intended to permit someone to abandon a car in any space. It's not at all unusual to find parking spaces are subject to rules defined by a lease/head-lease etc etc etc...

Graham

FortySeven wrote: »

Where exactly are the cars going to be towed to? I'm assuming to a breaker? Are they then implicated in any legal action if they dismantle the cars?

I wouldn't assume that at all.

FortySeven wrote: »

What are the make and models Graham?

I have absolutely no idea, the OP may be in a better position to answer that question.

Marcusm

Graham wrote: »

Of course you cannot see unless the OP has given you a copy of the legal documents for the development.

Most developments provide for rules to be changed by the OMC (i.e. the owners of the properties within the development). If there's an issue with parking, it's quite likely the current owners will be quite supportive of any efforts to free up parking spaces occupied by effectively abandoned vehicles.

Of course it is subject to the documentation; it is equally clear that the car parked in a numbered space at the owner's front door is not abandoned, it is simply unused. It is unconscionable that the arrangements for the granting of a specified space within the curtilege of the property could be subject to a wholesale revusion of rules without consent. If it were the case that the car was up on bricks, with a broken windscreen etc, it might be argued that it is not being used for "parking". In the circumstances outlined in the OP, this appears not to be the case.

If the situation is such that there is abuse of the unallocated overflow parking, greater scope for its regulation would undoubtedly be available. However, if it is available to residents generally, including those who have an allocated space but with a second car, I hardly see it likely that it would be equitable to isolate the owner as suggested here.

Graham wrote: »

Were the tenants sold the space in addition to the space they are occupying with the other car?
Are the tenants subject to a head lease via their lease with the landlord?
Would the held lease be subject to the rules as may be varied from time to time by the owners via the OMC?
I doubt the rules were intended to permit someone to abandon a car in any space. It's not at all unusual to find parking spaces are subject to rules defined by a lease/head-lease etc etc etc...

But this is not abandonment; it is use of an asset, the right to a parking space, as (presumably) outlined in the lease. The OMC does not, obviously, have an enforceable right to make one sided amendments to the lease but it is entitled to make rules for the effective management if the development. These must be fair and equitable as between leaseholders, however. A targeted rule such as this seems likely to be capable of challenge. A leaseholder who has purchased a space could hardly be excluded from using an overflow space if they were made freely available to other residents. This is why in many developments, the overflow spaces are governed by rules such as parking only 3 days in 7 etc.

FortySeven

Graham wrote: »

I wouldn't assume that at all.



I have absolutely no idea, the OP may be in a better position to answer that question.

Sorry, my mistake. Hopefully he will be along shortly.

Graham

Marcusm wrote: »

If the situation is such that there is abuse of the unallocated overflow parking, greater scope for its regulation would undoubtedly be available.

coincidentally that appears to be the direction the discussion is leaning.

galwaytt

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.

Neither are abandoned, and you have no authority to interfere with them for any reason. In fact to do so would make you liable for a criminal offence (theft ).

And printing up a sign does not give you right or authority either way, especially after the fact.

Why how many vehicles anyone owns is any if you business escapes me.

Del2005

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

The actual issue is an un-realistic number of spaces per unit, why not try and fix that? Provide more parking and the problem solves itself.

So you want the OP to change the planning conditions that are applied to nearly every MUD, which is 1.5 spaces per unit regardless of size, in the country. Then if they manage to get the local council to change the planning conditions for the development, which will entail a whole new planning application, where are they supposed to get these extra parking spaces from?

Del2005

Marcusm wrote: »

Of course it is subject to the documentation; it is equally clear that the car parked in a numbered space at the owner's front door is not abandoned, it is simply unused. It is unconscionable that the arrangements for the granting of a specified space within the curtilege of the property could be subject to a wholesale revusion of rules without consent. If it were the case that the car was up on bricks, with a broken windscreen etc, it might be argued that it is not being used for "parking". In the circumstances outlined in the OP, this appears not to be the case.

If the situation is such that there is abuse of the unallocated overflow parking, greater scope for its regulation would undoubtedly be available. However, if it is available to residents generally, including those who have an allocated space but with a second car, I hardly see it likely that it would be equitable to isolate the owner as suggested here.



But this is not abandonment; it is use of an asset, the right to a parking space, as (presumably) outlined in the lease. The OMC does not, obviously, have an enforceable right to make one sided amendments to the lease but it is entitled to make rules for the effective management if the development. These must be fair and equitable as between leaseholders, however. A targeted rule such as this seems likely to be capable of challenge. A leaseholder who has purchased a space could hardly be excluded from using an overflow space if they were made freely available to other residents. This is why in many developments, the overflow spaces are governed by rules such as parking only 3 days in 7 etc.

Of course the OMC can make changes to the lease once they have enough members at the AGM or EGM, but they need legal advice to make sure that the changes are legally enforceable.

Marcusm

Del2005 wrote: »

Of course the OMC can make changes to the lease once they have enough members at the AGM or EGM, but they need legal advice to make sure that the changes are legally enforceable.

Rubbish; the lease is a contract between the landlord/OMC and the leaseholder and can generally only be changed with the consent of both h parties. The OMC may be entitled, under the provisions of the lease, to make and vary "house rules" for the proper administration of the development. I do not believe that any attempt to exclude a leaseholder from using a space allocated (or possibly demised) to him under the lease for the parking or a serviceable car is in any way capable of being varied under "house rules". The overflow/unalocated spaces might be more susceptible to better regulation.

If all it took to vary a lease was a majority and an EGM/AGM, residents could simply evict their troublesome neighbours. Not something which would be possible for n a country where private property rights are protected in the constitution.

If the road Sidney used the parking space for storing rubbish or installed a container or a burger van, it might be possible but to park a car - that's using it for its intended purpose under the lease just as much as sleeping in your bedroom or defecating in your toilet.

Indricotherium

Graham wrote: »

coincidentally that appears to be the direction the discussion is leaning.

Yeah regulating the overflow parking would seem to solve the whole problem?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

gebbel wrote: »

At AGM rules and laws are made...

I highly doubt any laws are made during an AGM. A bit of an overstatement, no?

Well, regardless of whatever policy you implement, if the cars are parked on public property, you will have a hard time enacting them.

Also, the 2 cars are not "promoting illegal parking".

Graham

I can't help but think there's a rather large part of the discussion here that's entirely academic.

This is a development in Louth looking to solve in issue with 2 abandoned vehicles that are directly or indirectly causing spaces to be taken up in communal overflow parking.

Given the owners of these vehicles are tenants, there's no suggestion either of them are lawyers/barristers and their landlords are unlikely to go to Court on their behalf. It is entirely likely the members/shareholders of the OMC are going to vote in favour of any changes that will alleviate the parking issues and that will be the end of it.

Marcusm

Graham wrote: »

I can't help but think there's a rather large part of the discussion here that's entirely academic.

This is a development in Louth looking to solve in issue with 2 abandoned vehicles that are directly or indirectly causing spaces to be taken up in communal overflow parking.

Given the owners of these vehicles are tenants, there's no suggestion either of them are lawyers/barristers and their landlords are unlikely to go to Court on their behalf. It is entirely likely the members/shareholders of the OMC are going to vote in favour of any changes that will alleviate the parking issues and that will be the end of it.

Ha ha. What towing company is going to remove a car from an allocated space outside a house and what type of uproar is going to arise if the OP does manage to find someone to do it. It is simply not lawful irrespective of what motions are passed at an AGM. Cars are clamped in this country when parked inappropriately on private land for the simple reason that it is unlawful to move them except by a local authority or when clearly abandoned (properly abandoned meaning that the owner cannot be identified or has made it clear that it will not be returning for it) or with a court order.

The OP has made it clear that the cars are not abandoned merely parked in a manner objectionable to him. Even if the one in the overflow could be held to be a trespass, as the owner can be identified, if he chooses not to move it, the OMC would require a court order to interfere with the car. This is why any sensible towing company will not get involved.

What you are proposing is not a solution.

galwaytt

Graham wrote: »

I can't help but think there's a rather large part of the discussion here that's entirely academic.

This is a development in Louth looking to solve in issue with 2 abandoned vehicles that are directly or indirectly causing spaces to be taken up in communal overflow parking.

Given the owners of these vehicles are tenants, there's no suggestion either of them are lawyers/barristers and their landlords are unlikely to go to Court on their behalf. It is entirely likely the members/shareholders of the OMC are going to vote in favour of any changes that will alleviate the parking issues and that will be the end of it.

You're not getting it: they're not abandoned (certainly you've admitted that one in particular is regularly started, so that certainly isn't abandoned), in which case.....you have no case.

The members/shareholders have no legal right to interfere with someone else's property, end of, no matter what they as a cabal wish to think.

Graham

Marcusm wrote: »

What you are proposing is not a solution.

And yet it works (or the threat of it works) in other developments.

Go figure.

Unless we're going back down the theoretical, completely academic, what happens if the 1 tenant in question who is using the allocated (owned or licensed by his landlord) space to store a car while occupying a communal space with the daily-runabout decides to take the matter to Court.

Wossack

it wouldnt even make it to court - its clearly illegal

H3llR4iser

Besides the frankly academic legal technicalities, all that's really required here is a bit of logic.

I seem to understand that both tenants have two cars, an "unused" one kept in their assigned parking space and a daily one kept in the overflow parking area. It also seems clear to me that there are other tenants having second cars, so there are other situations where there's a "1 apartment:2 cars" ratio.

It seems just obvious and logical to me there's absolutely nothing that can be done about the "unused" cars unless it's going to affect other tenants who keep more than one car parked on the premises; There's either an "one car per apartment" rule or there isn't, it's tricky to identify what constitutes an "unused car"; a very realistic situation is one where, say, the wife uses her car daily to go to work while the husband uses public transport and his own car is parked motionless for two, three, four weeks at a time - it that an "unused" car as well? Were is the line drawn? On the age of the car?

The only thing really is if the car(s) are unfit for use - e.g. having no NCT; It can then be effectively argued that the car is just "stored" there. In that case, a good rule to clarify would be that cars parked on premises must be in roadworthy conditions - which means valid NCT, insurance and tax. It would be a fair meter of assessment based on legal requirements (not sure about the tax/insurance status on private property, but being a communal area I'd think it's treated as if it was public road).

I also detect a whiff of prejudice against these people being "renters"...

Marcusm

Graham wrote: »

And yet it works (or the threat of it works) in other developments.

Go figure.

Unless we're going back down the theoretical, completely academic, what happens if the 1 tenant in question who is using the allocated (owned or licensed by his landlord) space to store a car while occupying a communal space with the daily-runabout decides to take the matter to Court.

Where does towing work as a practical solution in an Irish development?

Graham

Marcusm wrote: »

Where does towing work as a practical solution in an Irish development?

The threat of clamping/towing is often all that is required.

I've lived in several complexes where the issues the OP is raising were not a problem precisely because such policies are in place.

Del2005

Emmy Faithful Sap wrote: »

Well, regardless of whatever policy you implement, if the cars are parked on public property, you will have a hard time enacting them.

MUDs aren't public property, which is why councils won't take abandoned vehicles from them.

Marcusm

Graham wrote: »

The threat of clamping/towing is often all that is required.

I've lived in several complexes where the issues the OP is raising were not a problem precisely because such policies are in place.

Being practical and applying it to the current situation where the resident is parked in an allocated space, how does camping/towing work? The resident simply applies for a permit or adds his reg number to the approved list (or whatever method the OMC agrees with NCPS/APCOA etc). On what basis would the car be clamped (or in la la land, towed)? There is no breach of any acceptable parking rule. NCPS/APCOA are not going to monitor each spot on a daily basis. Their park by text (3 out of 7) or similar systems do not sound as if they are warranted based on the original post.

Now, you can see that I am not raising academic points etc.

Vic_08

Graham wrote: »

And yet it works (or the threat of it works) in other developments.

Go figure.

Unless we're going back down the theoretical, completely academic, what happens if the 1 tenant in question who is using the allocated (owned or licensed by his landlord) space to store a car while occupying a communal space with the daily-runabout decides to take the matter to Court.

So basically all you have left is bullying people that you hope are unaware of their legal rights.

As well as being a despicable way of behaving I would say there is a good chance this would backfire badly.

It certainly would if the OMC tried it on with a tennant of mine and I found out. I would be the one who would have to take them to task, including going to court if necessary, and I would be very unhappy about wasting my time on such a ridiculous matter.

Graham

Superhero legal eagles aside. I see nothing wrong with an OMC (i.e. the collective owners) agreeing a policy to enable all residents to share the benefit of a limited resource such as shared/communal parking spaces.

That's it, it's not complicated.

At the same time, should one of our esteemed legal professionals (or legal professionals-in-waiting) decide to argue in Court that their tenant has a contractual/constitutional or other right to occupy one of the communal parking spaces to enable the full-time storage of their 16yr old jollopy to the detriment of all others, please let me know. If the case is local I'll come along and mumble supportively from the cheap seats.