Following recent correspondence regarding the use of lessees'/residents' car park spaces we would like to confirm the position with regard to allowing your guests, visitors and other authorised persons (including estate staff) to use your parking space.
We have sought legal advice on this matter: anyone personally authorised by a tenant to use his or her parking space is entitled to do so - provided no formal rights to use are actually transferred to the user (i.e., the lessee is not parting with or sharing possession).
For example, if a member of staff is authorised to use the space they do so with the full understanding that they are using the space at the invitation of a specific named resident, and that that invitation is personal, informal and can be withdrawn at any time. A key factor is that no money changes hands in connection with the arrangement, as would be the case with any visitor. AirBnB lets are a breach of your lease - not only are you parting with (or sharing) possession, you are also breaching the clause that prevents any lets of less than six months.
CREM's letters to lessees appear to be misleading in respect of the intended meaning in the lease of the word 'share'. The lease refers to "...share or part with possession". 'Possession' has a very specific meaning in law: it refers to a lessee transferring their legal right to use the demised premises/control who can use it. Ie, the flat/parking space is no longer in your possession and you can neither use it nor prevent others from using it. By simply allowing staff to park in your space, or inviting family and friends to stay in your flat - on an informal and unremunerated basis - is not parting with/sharing possession, and is therefore not in breach of the lease.
We also sought advice from LEASE, the Leasehold Advisory Service, as to whether it was the Tribunal-appointed manager's responsibility or CREM's in respect of enforcing the terms of the lease. We are advised that the court's Management Order has removed responsibility from CREM, and vested it in Mr Coates. CREM's own breaches of the lease were deemed so significant by the Tribunal as to remove its contractual responsibilities/powers in respect of the residential leases. CREM should therefore be raising any concerns it has in respect of breaches of the lease with Mr Coates, and not with individual lessees.