Revised parking regulations...

residentr

New Member
So it appears that we are now entering into a further phase of total and utter madness with regard to parking in the development - Is it a joke that visitors are allocated more spaces than owners?

It would seem that it is time to get legal with this- I for one will be instructing a solicitor to act on my behalf, when the house we live in was purchased this was not part of the contract. In addition I reckon this will just knock another good few grand off the value of the properties, who wants to live somewhere where you have to send a text to park your car..total and utter joke, we live in Shankill not off Grafton Street!
- and before all those in favour of these so called 'revised regulations' start shouting about discussion at an AGM this was never even included on the agenda of same.

Also as the management of the development has not as I understand it yet been passed to the owners who is making these decisions?
Is it Wyse or the Builders?
 

ems

New Member
Hi, we couldn't agree more, this is an absolute disgrace. As it is, there aren't enough spaces for us residents to park so why are Wyse prioritising visitors??? We have the same objections:
  • Why have more spaces been allocated to visitors than residents?
  • The numbers on the map do not correspond with the numbers in the letter ie where are the 21 "residents" spaces?
  • This will certainly further reduce the worth of our properties, and have an impact on potential rentals
  • On whose authorisation has this decision been taken?
Also, are residents with a permit allowed to park in visitors spaces? I doubt it. Therefore visitors have to pay for the privilege of parking here by having to text every time they park. I can see the rate of Apcoa vans increasing dramatically waiting to clamp as many of us as possible.

I have always paid my management fees and now either myself or my partner won't be able to park in our own estate. I feel that we need to oppose this vigorously.
 

residentr

New Member
As far as I understand it the common areas are under the control of Tudor Homes so it might be an idea to get your Solicitor to contact both them and Wyse - that is what I will be doing anyway

Tudor Homes

Tel: 353 1 288 5027
Lonsdale House Avoca Avenue, Blackrock,
Co. Dublin, Ireland.
email:info@tudorhomes.ie
 

olcovar

New Member
So it appears that we are now entering into a further phase of total and utter madness with regard to parking in the development - Is it a joke that visitors are allocated more spaces than owners?

It would seem that it is time to get legal with this- I for one will be instructing a solicitor to act on my behalf, when the house we live in was purchased this was not part of the contract. In addition I reckon this will just knock another good few grand off the value of the properties, who wants to live somewhere where you have to send a text to park your car..total and utter joke, we live in Shankill not off Grafton Street!
- and before all those in favour of these so called 'revised regulations' start shouting about discussion at an AGM this was never even included on the agenda of same.

Also as the management of the development has not as I understand it yet been passed to the owners who is making these decisions?
Is it Wyse or the Builders?
Residents are allowed to use visitor spaces,just within the guidelines of the permits. Did you read the new parking document?

You say that when the house you live in was purchased this was not part of the contract................ I urge you to look at your contract because it is fair to say (having looked at mine!) that there is absolutely nothing about ANY of the undesignated car parking spaces in anyone's contract.

Undesignated spaces belong to the management company, they are not licensed to anyone. They were never licensed to you.

As such, the management company can regulate the use of the visitors spaces.

I welcome this introduction, it will stamp out practices that I see all the time, such as leaving your own numbered space empty while you park your second car in a visitor space while you go away for a week or time indeterminate. That is COMPLETLEY unfair. Hurrah for stamping out space hogs.
 

ems

New Member
I welcome this introduction, it will stamp out practices that I see all the time, such as leaving your own numbered space empty while you park your second car in a visitor space while you go away for a week or time indeterminate. That is COMPLETLEY unfair. Hurrah for stamping out space hogs.
That is literally the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. For safety reasons if no other, WHY would anyone do that???? We need to be able to park fairly where we live, I don't think that's too much to ask in anyone's book. Clamp people on yellow lines, absolutely fair enough, but what you're proposing to have to TEXT to park where we live???? Cop on.
 

olcovar

New Member
That is literally the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. For safety reasons if no other, WHY would anyone do that???? We need to be able to park fairly where we live, I don't think that's too much to ask in anyone's book. Clamp people on yellow lines, absolutely fair enough, but what you're proposing to have to TEXT to park where we live???? Cop on.
Ems, that is exactly what people do........ It is going on less than ten meters from where I am sitting.

We need to park fairly, well, touché, the space hogs need to stop hogging.

Those who are talking about legal action, if my management fees increase as a result of defending a legal action, I will request your details from the management company and sue you myself for damages as a result of my fees increasing because of your madness over something you have no defined right to anyway. Parking privileges within the development extend to your own space only.
 

sliabh

New Member
I am going to sit on the fence on this one, but there are a couple of points I would make:
  • I believe that @Olcovar is right that owners only have rights to their own designated space. These were sold with the unit. AFAIK allocation of all other spaces is by the management company. No one has a right or expectation to be able to use any of the others. At the time the development was designed and got planning permission it was a deliberate policy of the planners to restrict parking to 5 spaces per 4 units.
  • The Property value argument is subjective. They might go up, they might go down. A lot of people (myself included) would regard it as a big step forward that friends and family travelling by car will be able to visit after 6pm - something they can't do now. If you regard being able to park a second car as more important than having visitors, then I can see how you would have a different view. But others will look forward to this change and will think it will enhance the value of the development.
  • The map does not seem to correspond with the numbers so some clarification is needed from Wyse.
  • On how decisions like this are made: Legally it is the Olcovar Management company who makes the call. As the development has not been signed over it is Tudor Homes who control they management company. They are taking all their direction from Wyse and the Owners Committee (OC). The latter group are appointed at the AGMs. And AFAIK the fact that people can't have visitors over was raised at a few AGMs as something that people wanted Wyse and the OC to address. This is the solution they have come up with. So the proper legal entity - Olcovar Management company has made the decision based on recommendations they got from Wyse and the Owners committee.
 

ems

New Member
If my management fees increase as a result of defending a legal action, I will request your details from the management company and sue you myself for damages as a result of my fees increasing because of your madness over something you have no defined right to anyway. Parking privileges within the development extend to your own space only.
We don't appreciate your threatening tone, I would be careful what you're saying here. All we want a is a fair system so myself and my partner can go out to work and come home and be able to park in the evening. Where would you suggest that residents that have 2 cars park in the evening? If people are, for whatever reason, parking in visitors spaces for prolonged amounts of time absolutely they should be clamped, that's not the purpose of the spaces. All we want is to be able to park where we live which is not unreasonable.
 

olcovar

New Member
We don't appreciate your threatening tone, I would be careful what you're saying here. All we want a is a fair system so myself and my partner can go out to work and come home and be able to park in the evening. Where would you suggest that residents that have 2 cars park in the evening? If people are, for whatever reason, parking in visitors spaces for prolonged amounts of time absolutely they should be clamped, that's not the purpose of the spaces. All we want is to be able to park where we live which is not unreasonable.
All you want is to be able to park your multiple cars.
All I want is to be able to afford my management fees and I would not welcome them increasing as a result of expenditure on defending legal actions.
I am threatening? Huh? A legal action is a threat, yes it is, a legal action against our own management comany by a minority of pig headed car owners too lazy to walk a few hundred meters from any of the public roads around Shankill is a threat to us all who live in the development.
Multiple car ownership is a lifestyle choice. Some of us living in Olcovar have chosen to switch to one car only because of the difficulties in parking here. Others have switched to owning a car and a scooter or motorbike.
Make your own choices but don't talk about suing the management company over something you were never promised anyway. No one here was ever promised parking for a second vehicle.
 

Cian

New Member
All you want is to be able to park your multiple cars.
pig headed car owners too lazy to walk a few hundred meters from any of the public roads around Shankill is a threat to us all who live in the development.
This is interesting, you are proposing that to fix the problems in Olcovar that we put the problem of too many cars into other estates in shankill?

Multiple car ownership is not a lifestyle choice for many people, most people that own a car need them to get to work etc. so they can pay their mortgages and management fees. The management company and their helpers would be better served with coming up with an alternative plan that recognizes the real problems that exist in Olcovar with regard to parking (of which i have ideas). Yes Olcovar was badly planned but you can't take that out on the residents so you always have a visitors space, it isn't our fault.

I would suggest an EGM is called so a real way forward can be reached as the current proposal is nonsensical.
 

olcovar

New Member
This is interesting, you are proposing that to fix the problems in Olcovar that we put the problem of too many cars into other estates in shankill?

Multiple car ownership is not a lifestyle choice for many people, most people that own a car need them to get to work etc. al.
I said roads, not estates. I can think of several roads near here that I have parked on that do not impinge on anyone and are not in estates.

The management company is the only entity authorised to call an EGM. It has to be paid for. Why do we need an EGM? We had an AGM where all this was discussed. Were you able to attend that, or was anyone from your unit ablr to go?

The parking proposal from what I read aims to balance residents with multiple cars needs against those residents with visitors I think it is fair.

I think threatening legal action is ridiculous.
 

Cian

New Member
I said roads, not estates. I can think of several roads near here that I have parked on that do not impinge on anyone and are not in estates.

The management company is the only entity authorised to call an EGM. It has to be paid for. Why do we need an EGM? We had an AGM where all this was discussed. Were you able to attend that, or was anyone from your unit ablr to go?

The parking proposal from what I read aims to balance residents with multiple cars needs against those residents with visitors I think it is fair.

I think threatening legal action is ridiculous.

Please name these public roads and if they are so close by maybe we could ask the visitors to park there? After all surely a visitor would only visit once in a while so wouldnt make sense to free 24 spaces for them.

Maybe people are threathening legal action because rather than engage with the community and present this "new idea" a letter was sent saying basically this is happening in mid september like it or lump it.

Unfortunately i couldnt attend the AGM due to personal circumstances but I did review the agenda and parking wasn't on it. I have also requested minutes of the AGM, votes taken, attendees and members appointed onto the committee, on multiple occassions but am yet to recieve them. All of these items should have been sent by email or letter to each resident without having to be requested after the AGM to ensure transparency but this is yet to happen. May I suggest that the "residents" committee engage with the residents more than once a year at an AGM(maybe quarterly town hall style meetings) so you may represent their view points. I have lived in Olcovar for 2 and a half years and am yet to meet a member of the residents committee.

Also if my viewpoints are in the minority then i don't understand why you are against an EGM being called as the vote that would be had would surely only strenghten your hand. I respect democracy and I would suggest on a matter of such contention that the residents committee and management company should as well with the outcome of the vote binding on all parties.
 

emurphy

New Member
I think the main issue, certainly from my perspective is not the meaures that are being brought in, but the manner in which they are being implemented. When clamping was initially raised in Olcovar, it caused an awful lot of discord between residents and it was not until it was dealt with democratically that we reached a solution that seemed to appease the majority in the short term anyway. I understand that there is dissatisfaction with the parking available for visitors and this should be addressed, but in a democratic fashion, discussing matters which are known to be particularly divisive should not be dealt with under "Any Other Business" at AGMs, to avoid tension in the development it should be listed as an agenda item and then all interested parties are responsible for making it their business to attend. As this has not happened, the fairest thing would appear for an EGM to be called to vote on the proposal. We are writing to Wyse to request that they do so and would suggest that any other interested parties, for or against do the same to ensure that we maintain a pleasant and democratic place to live together.
 
Top