AIBU to let my daughter’s boyfriend use marked visitor parking regularly?

[NBParking]

NC’d as outing.

Recently moved onto a new build estate, up the road from us is three terraced houses with five parking spots in front of them. Each of the three houses have one and two are very clearly marked as visitor spots.

My DDs boyfriend visits us regularly, can vary from one night a week to 2/3 nights depending on both their shift patterns. She has been parking in one of the visitor spots.

The first of the three residents moved in last week. Yesterday one of the site managers knocked on the door and asked DD to move the car as the houses are now lived in and the resident had complained (some people / contractors park on the still empty houses). DD explained that it was visitor parking and that is was our visitor parked there. Site manager said he would need to go away and look at the plans (thought he would have done this before coming over tbf).

So AIBU to tell him to continue to park there? Legally he can, rules are visitors up to 48 hours at a time (I’ve checked the convents we signed). I would HATE someone effectively parked on my drive, outside my window etc but I would never have bought that house. Resident must have seen and signed the same plans as us?

If the resident comes over to speak to us, how would you respond?

Site plan attached.

You can't believe someone bought one of those houses AND complains about not being able to access a visitor's parking space?

Maybe, just maybe, that's the best house they could afford, eh? And maybe they are p*ssed off because every time they have a visitor, the parking space they should be able to access is occupied by the same car for about half the week.

I don't actually understand why you posted OP, since you've clearly already decided that your daughter's boyfriend can inconvenience your neighbours if he wants to. You talk about not choosing one of those houses because you didn't want strangers parked outside your house; I would guess that the people who did buy those houses did so on the basis that they would be able to use the 'visitor' parking space, and that your daughter's boyfriend is now causing a problem.

I really hope the estate manager decides he cannot use those spaces.

So why are they marked in green on the OP's deeds

It doesn’t make sense for the terraced houses to have a higher ratio of visitor spaces per house than the other houses. Even though they only get one resident space each. The visitor spaces are no use as additional resident spaces. And it looks like the other terraced houses at the bottom left also just have one space each.

It sounds to me like op is absolutely not being unreasonable. The visitor spaces are marked in ops deeds in green as something she has a right to use, presumably marked as such on many people's deeds, the rule is no staying for more than 48hrs, not returning for 48hrs, OP says they're complying with this. If the resident near the space wants to park a resident vehicle within the green space, for more than 48/48 then they would be the ones breaking the rules. It sounds like either wishful thinking on the other residents part, or someone has royally ballsed up the sale of that house if they've told them it's their exclusive space.

I too was wondering what a convent has to do with any of it, then realised it was a typo and they meant to write covenant!

He's not a visitor, he's a part time resident.

You are being totally reasonable.

The people in those houses have no more right to park in the visitor spaces than you or your visitors do.

If they want to park their second car in those spaces (most likely scenario), they have less right to do so than your visitor given that they would be breaking the rules of the visitor spaces

If they want their visitors to be able to park in those spaces than it's tough - they have no more right to park in those spaces than your visitors as long as the 48 hour rule is followed.

I don't agree with your interpretation.

The estate needs to have some visitor spaces and is placing them wherever they got a bit of space they couldn't cash out.

There's no reason for the developer to intend the places for 3 of the cheaper homes.
They are just placed there, because there was a bit of space.
Especially with the covenant specifying 48/48 rules, it obviously is the visitor space in the area.

Inventing custom rules and using words like "common sense" and "exploiting" doesn't help anyone.

I think it's a lot more than 20 years ago that not everyone had a car! I would say it's closer to 50, or even 60, years ago.

Of course, back in the 1960s and 1970s, public transport was more widely available, with far more frequent services than nowadays, because fewer people owned cars. It would be very difficult to rewind back to those times, as people have got used to the freedom and independence that comes from having their own transport. I guess a good start would be for public transport to be very heavily subsidised, or perhaps free, and for private cars to be very heavily taxed.

Agree with this. Confused by all the posts disagreeing. I wouldn’t be surprised if the sales person implied to them that the spaces would be for their use to get a sale, but legally it’s not the case and it’s not your fault that they didn’t check this properly before buying. You bought with the ‘correct’ assumption that you could use any of the visitor parking within the 48 hr time restrictions, which you are doing.

Using half of someone’s drive for visitor parking!

How did this even get through planning?

If this was pointed out during conveyancing, surely nobody would have bought these houses. The deeds will show how the houses were sold, if that is different from your plan I don’t think there is very much you can do without bankrupting yourself.

I would just never park in front of someone’s window like that. I would assume it was their spot. Visitors don’t normally have sight of site plans so unless it is marked with a v or vp in the bay I wouldn’t assume it was visitor parking.

The post I was looking for. Further, it looks like DD already occupies a visitor’s parking spot. So only OP has a resident parking? It’s unreasonable to expect 2 cars to virtually take up visitors’ spot albeit one for 2/3 days. Regardless, anyone who overnights at your home weekly, clearly needs a resident permit etc.

If he is going to be around more you are going to have to watch closely that he doesn't stay longer than 48 hours. And also doesn't return again within 48 hours. If you quote the terms of your covenant I'm sure your neighbours will too.

She repeated it several times so I don’t think it’s a typo. Wouldn’t want to be going into the sales office or round to the neighbours saying “well the convent said it’s fine” 😂😂

I am glad someone has picked up the convent / covenant muddle. I thought I was going mad.

OP tell him to park on the road until the rest of the estate is open. It’s only temporary. Keep this up and you’ll be forever known as the Mad Nun Lady

If the solicitors and sellers have told OP those spaces are general visitors parking then it’s first come first served.

I don’t think he’s doing anything wrong.

“will also have more roadside parking by open space once the final section of the estate is complete, also happy to use this for one of the cars.”
Then this is what you say to the newly enrolled parking attendant?
…maybe add, “hurry up & get ‘final section’ up & running.”

Disagree. There has been a change in multi-car households over 20 years (the real change is over 30 years but I hope you'll forgive me for thinking 1996 is still 20 years away).

Why should children not be able to play in public? And why is it unreasonable to be sad that children now have lost experiences which we had in our own childhood?

I would have thought it likely that the parking spots in question are not just for visitors to the three terraces as surely the developer could make more money selling two end terraces each with two spaces, and one middle terrace with one space, than they could selling each terrace with one space and a three way share on two visitor spots. Making them VPs for all estate users also makes them count towards any visitor parking ratio the planning required.

It was explained that DD parks at OP' drive, this theory came from a (rather obvious in the context) typo He/She.

And yes, up to 2-3 days, more specifically 48 hours, is exactly what the visitor spaces is intended for.

Have you had the joyous experience of trying to get children dropped off to different care options in different places with their bags before continuing on to work to be in the workplace on time?

Good luck doing that with a bike, walking, car share or a cab (still a car on the road). What if the cabbie lives on the estate? Car ownership was escalating 40+ years ago as people have had to travel further to work, more couples both work and far less people work locally. Plus of course if you need to carry your own kit or tools with you its even more difficult.
An extra car is entirely the only option in such situations because few parts of the country have the kind of transport to make it possible.