Another attempt to explain to "Ace Security Services" that their enforcement of Upton Dene's "No Rights to Parking for Shareholders" remains unlawful.

This letter was posted and emailed to Ace Security Services on the 8th January 2014. I am publishing it now on the 13th February because no response was forthcoming and more tickets have been issued. The letter was also forwarded to the management company Upton Dene Residents Ltd and no reply was received from them either.

 I hope this letter will throw more light on the problems we are facing at Upton Dene.

To;

Ace Security Services                                                                                                                                trading name of Pace Recovery and Storage Ltd                                                      

Another attempt to explain to "Ace Security Services" that their enforcement of Upton Dene's "No Rights to Parking for Shareholders" remains unlawful.

I would ask you to read through this carefully. Some points you may recognize, others may be new to you.

1     ....."the Lessee and all persons authorized by the Lessee....".

Not only can shareholders "Use", "Pass" and "Repass" over the "Common Parts" of the freehold, they also hold the authorizing rights and privileges to that act, which includes the use of "parking spaces".

It is a shareholder's right and privilege to park on the square and to authorize others to do the same. This privilege was laid down in the lease in 1981, to run for 999yrs. The management company cannot take that privilege away, they have to acknowledge those rights and privileges and abide by them.

Easement Rights and Privileges included in the lease. p19

"The right for the Lessee and all persons authorized by the Lessee (in common with all other persons entitled to the like right) at all times  to use go pass and repass through along and over the  Common Parts for all purposes incidental to the occupation...."

The authorizing rights to the Common Parts is a Lessee right. That is why we are mentioned in the above section of the lease. The management company (the Lessor) do not hold such rights and privileges that is why they are not mentioned in this section of the lease.

The new "No Rights to Parking for Shareholders" reduces our Easement Rights and Privileges to mere licences. This is a corruption of our leasholder status to that of tenants. Shareholders are not tenants and Upton Dene Residents Ltd is not a landlord, they are our management company. Simply.

What the lease does not state and cannot be changed to state is, ".... all persons authorized by the LESSOR....". because such a statement would be a legal contradiction. And yet this is the position Ace Security Services is contracted to enforce.

Ace Security Services need to speak to a legal advisor qualified in lease rights and privileges regarding the Upton Dene lease and their position in regards to shareholders' easement rights and privileges. 

Upton Dene Residents Ltd should have first sought shareholders' permission to take away their authorizing rights to parking before doing so. (I and other shareholders would have rejected such a request).

Managing the parking at Upton Dene can be carried out without denying shareholders their EASEMENT RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES INCLUDED IN THE LEASE. Other freeholds have no problem managing the balance between Lessee rights and day to day site management. I see no reason why Upton Dene Residents Ltd cannot do the same.

Upton Dene Residents Ltd (the Lessor) have a right to manage the freehold, relying upon, as the lease states, "... reasonable regulations....(p9)".

Taking away shareholders Easement Rights and Privileges to parking is not a "reasonable regulation" it is their degradation.

The management company has failed to abide by the limitations the lease places upon them. Imposing changes to our rights and privileges is a step too far.

Shareholders' "authorizing rights" (p19) combined with clear reference to "parking areas" (p3), supported by the freehold plan (p1) makes a clear 3 point case in support of shareholders rights to parking at Upton Dene and Ace Security Services should understand this fact.

2.

It seems Ace Security Services has an uncertain understanding of what a leaseholder is. In an email to me they defined it as...

"You (the shareholder) do not own the common parts, you only own your place of residence, i.e. a flat or house, and garage if you have one".

This statement is so wrong. We are leaseholders. We do not own a single brick of our properties. However we do own the rights to its use, for as long as the lease allows, in our case another 966 yrs.

Leaseholders have two types of property rights, "sole rights" and "shared rights".

 Those parts of the freehold that have a lock and key, our home and our garage, are our "sole rights". Our "shared rights" are the "Common Parts". It is the Common Parts (p19 of the lease) that we, the shareholders hold authorizing rights to.

3.

A while back Ace Security Services emailed me a copy of their contracts terms and conditions.

When I looked over the T&C I could see why such an agreement would seem attractive to a management company. It is clearly written, it fits neatly onto an A4 sheet and only requests that the,  "...... Client  confirm(s) they have the authority to instruct The Company (Ace Security Services) to carry out The Scheme".

 Was a "confirmation" the only "demanding requirement" Ace Security Services made upon Upton Dene Residents Ltd prior to signing their contract?

Can anyone else, "See the elephant in the room" regarding the failings of this type of agreement?

Is a "confirmation" sufficient "due diligence" on the part of a parking enforcement company, to assure the public that parking enforcement is legitimate?

Within this T&C document neither, "The Client's Obligations" or "The Company's Obligations" uses the word "lease" once. In fact the word "lease" makes no appearance on the T&C page.

How can a parking enforcement company not include in their T&C the precondition that a lease is to be scrutinized and understood, by a legal advisor, before a contract is signed?

How would a parking enforcement company know if they were acting lawfully or unlawfully, if they hadn't had the lease scrutinized prior to signing an agreement?

The law of probabilities dictate that not to scrutinize a lease could result in a significant proportion of unlawful contracts, unlawful enforcements.

Such a contract would be further compromised by the fact that a large proportion of directors, that make up freehold management companies, are home owning, shareholder volunteers who may or may not be well versed in the complexities of lease rights and privileges and sometimes may get it wrong.

What would Ace Security Services do in such a case?

Do Ace Security Services audit their contracts annually to identify any "unlawful agreements"?

Surely it makes good business sense to ask a solicitor, versed in lease law, to pass judgment on the "legality of parking restrictions" on a freehold before signing to an agreement?

Such legal scrutiny by a qualified/experienced "legal advisor" should be the foundation to any contractual agreement. That document would be a "get out of jail card" for any parking enforcement company. Of course such a document would have to be available to the Lessee, and open to scrutiny, as they are going to be subject to it. And more importantly, if any section of the contract conflicts with the easement rights and privileges that Lessees enjoy then those parts of that contract are null and void. The lease is not.

I have asked Ace Security Services on many occasions, and I ask again today, to look at the lease that I emailed them on the 30th August 2013 and to understand what Lessee rights and privileges are at Upton dene.

4.

It is now January 2014. The "No Rights to Parking for shareholders" came into force on the 1st August 2013, a full 5 months ago.

Across these five months I have tried numerous times to engage Upton Dene Residents Ltd, our management company, on the issues addressed in this email and not once have they replied to any of my communiques or requests.

⦁    I have requested to see their "legal advice" they claim to hold. No reply

⦁    I have presented arguments that detail shareholders rights to parking. No reply.

⦁    I have offered to arrange a mediator to manage a discussion between us. No reply

⦁    Five months I have attempted reason.  No reply.

What sense is there in that position?

They are not allowing themselves to be challenged. And yet the communication between Ace Security Services and Upton Dene Residents Ltd seems to flow freely, facilitating Ace Security Services with the confidence to continue their enforcements.

Many of our seven directors live 10 seconds from my front door and yet they might as well live on the other side of the planet. Zero communication. Zero explanation. Zero effort. But lots and lots of tickets from Ace Security Services enforcement vans.

I cannot be sure you will pay any attention to these points but maybe you should.

I have noticed that the theft of my car ariel has taken place (unscrewed and taken). I place the responsibility for this disregard for my private property at your feet. Ace Security Services “ticketing” and “stickering” of my vehicle is forming the impression in shareholders, tenants and visitors minds that my vehicle is abandoned and the owner cares nothing for it. This impression is your creation and the damages will be yours to compensate. The same applies to the damages to my reputation.

This letter was forwarded by email (and post) to Ace Security Services. It was also posted, (and signed for) to a Director of Upton Dene residents Ltd.

Attached to the email are my daily charges to the end of December 2013, mostly for the use of my vehicle as a billboard.

Regards