Residential housing estate — Limited parking — Freehold owners regulating parking by issuing permits — Adjoining house owners having right to park — Whether freeholders validly restricting exercise of easement — Appeal allowed — Cross-appeal dismissed
The first appellants were the freehold owners of a purpose-built block of flats and a number of houses, all let on long leases, which comprised a residential housing estate. The respondents were the freeholders of one of eight houses on the same estate that were separated from the rest of the estate by a service road.
The number of dwellings exceeded the number of car-parking spaces. The appellants attempted to regulate the use of available spaces by issuing parking permits. The regulations were intended to apply to the respondents but they did not consider themselves to be bound by them.
The appellants sought a declaration, inter alia, that they were entitled to impose the regulations upon the respondents. The respondents counterclaimed for a declaration that they had a right to park in the service road and that the regulations were an unlawful interference with that right.
The judge at first instance found that the respondents had an easement to park in the service road as a result of section 62(2) of the Law of Property Act 1925, but that the appellants might validly limit the respondents to two permits.
The appellants challenged the judge’s holding that the respondents were entitled to two permits. The respondents cross-appealed against the finding that the regulations could validly restrict parking to 72 hours since they were entitled to park without any time limit.
Held: The appeal was allowed; the cross-appeal was dismissed.
The right acquired by the respondents under section 62(2) of the 1925 Act was the right to compete for parking with all others entitled to do so, subject to the appellants’ power of regulation. Therefore, the appellants, as freehold owners, could validly restrict the exercise of the respondents’ easement of parking so that it could be used to park only one vehicle at a time.
The purpose and effect of the regulations was to allow those entitled to park, to compete for a parking space in an orderly way and to ensure that they had the opportunity to enjoy that right: see Saeed v Plustrade [2001] EWCA Civ 2011; [2002] 2 EGLR 19 considered.
The time limit on parking was perfectly proper and would ensure an opportunity for changeover in the occupation of parking spaces. That objective was consistent with ensuring that the grantee would have the benefit of the right to park while managing the parking so as to enable others to share the parking space.
Robert Pearce (instructed by Warners, of Sevenoaks) appeared for the appellants; Ann McAllister (instructed by Michael Segen & Co) appeared for the respondents.
Eileen O’Grady, barrister
