Need help agreeing a policy on abandoned cars

Isambard

these vehicles are not abandoned, just soft targets.
What's next?
will works vehicles be next where their owner/user has another car?
What about weekend fun cars that someone may own in additional to their workaday car?

can of worms methinks

gebbel

Sorry hadn't time to post all day. Not that it really matters but the first car is a 1999 Audi A6 TDi. The other one is a Renault something from the year 2000. Both cars are untaxed and have no valid NCT for at least 3 years (the Audi was last taxed in April 2013 and the NCT was due around then also). I'm unsure what plans the owners have for them, but they can't go anywhere with them until they get legal, pass NCT etc., all which costs money and takes time. The longer they do nothing, the more likely it is that it will take a tow truck to move them (if that's not the case already).

Some of the replies here are clearly from people who don't appreciate the rules and procedures that apartment units must embrace or else it becomes a nightmare to live there. In this case, our small development does not have a clear policy and obviously badly needs one. We cannot permit a situation to continue whereby car owners feel they can pretty much leave a clearly unused banger lying around, thus denying other owners/tenants/visitors an easy park. And to the poster who questioned how all of this promotes illegal parking: yes it absolutely does promote it....less spaces available = more inclined to park in front of the apartment stairwells etc. which is an insurance fail and a health/safety hazard.

We cannot plagiarise it....but the excellent and clear policy linked earlier from the Balgriffin complex is exactly what ours needs. At our AGM next week there will be a debate on this and many other issues. Other owners/tenants/visitors have commented on these cars and their concern that others may follow and then what? And to the poster who commented on an anti-tenant bias? Definitely not. There's none of that here.

So hopefully you can see, doing nothing is not an option. Building more spaces is not an option. Making clear policy and hopefully bringing everyone along through pointing out the benefits for all residents...is the only option.

Marcusm

gebbel wrote: »

Sorry hadn't time to post all day. Not that it really matters but the first car is a 1999 Audi A6 TDi. The other one is a Renault something from the year 2000. Both cars are untaxed and have no valid NCT for at least 3 years (the Audi was last taxed in April 2013 and the NCT was due around then also). I'm unsure what plans the owners have for them, but they can't go anywhere with them until they get legal, pass NCT etc., all which costs money and takes time. The longer they do nothing, the more likely it is that it will take a tow truck to move them (if that's not the case already).

Some of the replies here are clearly from people who don't appreciate the rules and procedures that apartment units must embrace or else it becomes a nightmare to live there. In this case, our small development does not have a clear policy and obviously badly needs one. We cannot permit a situation to continue whereby car owners feel they can pretty much leave a clearly unused banger lying around, thus denying other owners/tenants/visitors an easy park. And to the poster who questioned how all of this promotes illegal parking: yes it absolutely does promote it....less spaces available = more inclined to park in front of the apartment stairwells etc. which is an insurance fail and a health/safety hazard.

We cannot plagiarise it....but the excellent and clear policy linked earlier from the Balgriffin complex is exactly what ours needs. At our AGM next week there will be a debate on this and many other issues. Other owners/tenants/visitors have commented on these cars and their concern that others may follow and then what? And to the poster who commented on an anti-tenant bias? Definitely not. There's none of that here.

So hopefully you can see, doing nothing is not an option. Building more spaces is not an option. Making clear policy and hopefully bringing everyone along through pointing out the benefits for all residents...is the only option.

I genuinely wish you luck. I have lived in apartment blocks for 20 years and have had to deal with many parking miscreants. What I have learned from it is that the OMC has to act with caution. Regulation of overflow or unallocated spaces is within the OMC's purview. Allocated or demised spaces, I suspect, will not be subject to your policy when you get advice. As regards the overflow spaces, NCPS or similar will only keep the contract going if they get a steady stream of €120 per clamp fees. I'm sure you'd like to believe that none will need to be paid but if none are paid to NCPS then they'll no longer have a financial incentive to uphold your policy and you'll no doubt be back in the same position again. If sufficient clamp fees are collected, you'll find anger (mis)directed at the OMC directors.

Which is a better outcome can only depend on the particular circumstances.

H3llR4iser

gebbel wrote: »

In this case, our small development does not have a clear policy and obviously badly needs one.

But I'd go with the "need to have valid NCT, Tax, Insurance" stance rather than anything else, unless you want to outright ban having more than one car per residential unit parked in the complex.

This bit posted earlier:

"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"

Basically classifies any second cars as "stored" and parked illegally.

gebbel wrote: »

And to the poster who commented on an anti-tenant bias? Definitely not. There's none of that here.

Not necessarily from you, other posters suggested the "they're tenants, you can do whatever 'cause nobody will care" line

Graham

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Not necessarily from you, other posters suggested the "they're tenants, you can do whatever 'cause nobody will care" line

Alternatively other posters may recognise that tenants don't have much of a relationship with OMCs other than via their landlord.

CalamariFritti

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Have you tried to contact the owners?

Bump. Have the owners been contacted?

gebbel

H3llR4iser wrote: »

But I'd go with the "need to have valid NCT, Tax, Insurance" stance rather than anything else, unless you want to outright ban having more than one car per residential unit parked in the complex.

This bit posted earlier:

"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"

Basically classifies any second cars as "stored" and parked illegally.



Not necessarily from you, other posters suggested the "they're tenants, you can do whatever 'cause nobody will care" line

Agreed. "Where it becomes clear to the directors" is not good enough. The policy should concentrate on cars that are not road legal and are left parked up for a long period of time with no obvious plan to do anything about it.

Donal55

H3llR4iser wrote: »

But I'd go with the "need to have valid NCT, Tax, Insurance" stance rather than anything else, unless you want to outright ban having more than one car per residential unit parked in the complex.

This bit posted earlier:

"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"

Basically classifies any second cars as "stored" and parked illegally.



Not necessarily from you, other posters suggested the "they're tenants, you can do whatever 'cause nobody will care" line

A car could be taxed, insured and NCT'd and still not have discs displayed. Will the op be looking for certs and policies?

uck51js9zml2yt

Since the car is not in the road it doesn't need tax or insurance.
It may be the owner has done a statutory off the road declaration.
You just don't know.

H3llR4iser

Donal55 wrote: »

A car could be taxed, insured and NCT'd and still not have discs displayed. Will the op be looking for certs and policies?

It's an edge case, they are supposed to be displayed. If they aren't it's either due to forgetfulness, in which case contacting the owner and asking him/her to display these will be no issue, or due to the car not being in roadworthy conditions. It's a rule, a line must be drawn, and using a National legal requirement as a basis in a good start.

gebbel

Kadence Angry Sheriff wrote: »

Since the car is not in the road it doesn't need tax or insurance.
It may be the owner has done a statutory off the road declaration.
You just don't know.

I see. It's not going to be easy but that won't stop the effort. It's not in anyone's interest to clog up the spaces. All the tenants will be communicated with in advance. To the poster who asks about have these particular owners been spoken to: I'm aware that one of them was. But in the absence of a clear and agreed policy what's the point? He can tell you to mind your own business. Like I said earlier, it's unfortunate but rules need to made sometimes to prevent disorder, especially in communal living.

Isambard

I'd suggest a quick walk round the car park to check what other cars have a disc deficiency.

gebbel

Isambard wrote: »

I'd suggest a quick walk round the car park to check what other cars have a disc deficiency.

Not interested in primary vehicles that are in active service. Only the second motor that isn't and is left to effectively rot.

Isambard

what will you do if they take their stored car for a drive around the block once a month?
You're going to have a lot of problems pinning this down and I don't see how you can do it unless you insist all vehicles on the premises are taxed/insured/NCTd.

gebbel

I would hope to get the owners/tenants to buy into the reality that unused cars clog up the car park and make life more difficult than it needs to be. I would hope to get these people to be more decisive about what they want to do with a second car that's really no use to them untaxed and uninsured. Take responsibility and make a decision on it. Get rid of it if it's just lying around rusting away.

And for those who refuse to see the common sense, a carefully worded policy. By the way we will not be seeking enforcement through clamping. Can't stand the sight of them. Hopefully communication will work.

Marcusm

gebbel wrote: »

I would hope to get the owners/tenants to buy into the reality that unused cars clog up the car park and make life more difficult than it needs to be. I would hope to get these people to be more decisive about what they want to do with a second car that's really no use to them untaxed and uninsured. Take responsibility and make a decision on it. Get rid of it if it's just lying around rusting away.

And for those who refuse to see the common sense, a carefully worded policy. By the way we will not be seeking enforcement through clamping. Can't stand the sight of them. Hopefully communication will work.

If you're not going to use clampers then you are dependent on the good will of the residents which has already failed. Towing will not be a realistic option once the Vehicle Clamping Act is commenced as the maximum relocation charge is €50 without, I understand, a provision for a storage charge.

I'' not trying to be obstructionist but I do feel that you are a little out of touch. If it's a real touch point then you need to find a comprehensive effective solution.

Establishing an arbitrary rule that is enforced by the residents themselves will only result in a powder keg situation setting neighbour against neighbour and likely impractical and unenforceable.

Graham

Marcusm wrote: »

I'' not trying to be obstructionist but I do feel that you are a little out of touch. If it's a real touch point then you need to find a comprehensive effective solution.
.

Good grief, we're not discussing retaking Aleppo by armed force here. It's implementing a parking policy. It's been successfully done many many times before without casualties or Supreme Court legal challenges.

1) try something

if it doesn't work

2) try something else

a sensible starting point is looking at what other developments are doing and putting together a proposal for considerations by the OMC.

biko

Motors >> Accommodation & Property