No Cali's allowed !

[Amarillo]

They did, our solicitor is very good.. Our previous house was in this estate also and when we bought it, they actually offered to extend the driveway for our then motorhome but we sold it in the meantime. When we asked about buying the VW Cali later, they said that it was ok but we insisted on it in writing having read the large 'rule book' that came with the house. But then when we sold our original house and bought this one on the same estate, they said we couldn't park it on our similar large driveway because we might encourage 'white van owners'. Very inconsistent, we can only conclude that the rest of the houses are not selling very quickly but as one of our neighbours said, 'if I saw the VW California in your driveway, I would be very impressed and it would encourage me to buy!!'

As I inferred in my earlier post, the worst that is likely to happen is that the FTT will find in favour of the landowner and you will have to pay the £200 fee plus any legal expenses you have incurred. FTTs can and do award legal costs against one party of the other, but this is rare, and usually only in frivolous or vexatious cases.

We hope to use it as a daily driver when H retires in a few months

This might make a difference. A tribunal might look at the covenant and decide that it is worded to prevent motorhomes, boats and caravans being deposited on a driveway for 350 days a year. If your camper is indeed parked on the driveway for an overwhelming majority of the year, a finding might not be in your favour. However, if you can show that the camper is required for daily living, I cannot see how a tribunal could find against you.

I'm afraid that a tribunal decision is not always obvious, and it might hinge on how the vehicle is used rather than its classification. In a very recent case, the Upper Tribunal (Land Chamber) upheld a FTT case that a covenant restricting and Enfield flat's use to a "private residence only" must be used as a home with some degree of permanence, i.e. not a holiday let. In an entirely different High Court case (Dolphin Square in Pimlico), Mr Justice Mann found that a covenant restricting use as a "residential flat" could be used as a holiday let as the purpose of a sub-let had no material effect on the property. In other words, "private residence only" describes the purpose of use not the property, whereas "residential flat" describes the property not the purpose of use. That is why it is so important to understand the exact wording of the covenant and the factual matrix.

 

[Jack Burns II]

As I inferred in my earlier post, the worst that is likely to happen is that the FTT will find in favour of the landowner and you will have to pay the £200 fee plus any legal expenses you have incurred. FTTs can and do award legal costs against one party of the other, but this is rare, and usually only in frivolous or vexatious cases.



This might make a difference. A tribunal might look at the covenant and decide that it is worded to prevent motorhomes, boats and caravans being deposited on a driveway for 350 days a year. If your camper is indeed parked on the driveway for an overwhelming majority of the year, a finding might not be in your favour. However, if you can show that the camper is required for daily living, I cannot see how a tribunal could find against you.

I'm afraid that a tribunal decision is not always obvious, and it might hinge on how the vehicle is used rather than its classification. In a very recent case, the Upper Tribunal (Land Chamber) upheld a FTT case that a covenant restricting and Enfield flat's use to a "private residence only" must be used as a home with some degree of permanence, i.e. not a holiday let. In an entirely different High Court case (Dolphin Square in Pimlico), Mr Justice Mann found that a covenant restricting use as a "residential flat" could be used as a holiday let as the purpose of a sub-let had no material effect on the property. In other words, "private residence only" describes the purpose of use not the property, whereas "residential flat" describes the property not the purpose of use. That is why it is so important to understand the exact wording of the covenant and the factual matrix.

Thank you, this is very helpful. We have left a message for our solicitor to phone us back and H will put this to them. It will definitely be our main car in less than 6 mths but if this makes a difference, we will sell our present one now

 

[Joker 1299]

I hope you get it sorted. Good luck and let us all know how it goes.

 

[Jack Burns II]

I hope you get it sorted. Good luck and let us all know how it goes.

Thank you, we have given all the information from you kind people to our solicitor and hope that the law is on our side. We love our VW Cali and have such great plans for it. If we do have to sell it (this is a small village and already people are talking about how ridiculous it all is), we don't think they will sell many more of these houses with the rules being re-interpreted all the time! Will keep you all informed...

 

[itscalledbob]

We recently moved into a new house and the developer has told us that we cannot park our beloved VW California SE on the driveway as it might encourage 'white vans' and they don't want that. Unbelievable. Our solicitor has written to inform them that it is classified as a 'diesel car' on the road tax book. They replied that it is a campervan on the VW website. Can anyone help us here please?

Hi jack,

I've read through the many replays on this thread and my heart goes out to you. I also recognise, as it applies to both your home and Cali it must be a stress filled issue.

My first comment concerns tribunals and Magistrates. As alluded in other replies they don't always apply what most people consider as 'the law' (or sense) and you never quite know where they are going to go, accordingly I would use them as a last resort. Plus, to have their decision overturned will be very expensive.

After reading through the thread one point jumps out to me; you state your covenant prevents the parking of motorhomes, you also state the developers have looked on the VW website and accept it is classified as a campervan. Whilst this point may be viewed by some as pedantic it is black and white and by pointing it out might be enough to get them off your back.

You also suggest your neighbours seem supportive of you.

For my twopence worth; if there is pressure to resolve I'd be tempted to send off a letter pointing out the difference between your covenant and their description of your Cali, I'd also see if your neighbours would support you by signing a simple letter stating they have no problem with your Cali being parked on your drive and include it in your correspondence. Furthermore I'd also ask if there was a possibility for compromise because if it does go to a hearing your offer to compromise will usually work in your favour.

HTH

 

[Amarillo]

Furthermore I'd also ask if there was a possibility for compromise because if it does go to a hearing your offer to compromise will usually work in your favour.

I cannot simply hit the agree button on this without some comment.

I think that offering some sort of compromise is important, not just for the reason's that "Bob" gives, but to give your antagonist a face-saving way out. Unfortunately, I cannot think of a suitable compromise other than offering cash, and making a cash offer for a settlement might have the unintended effect of emboldening the freeholder.

Perhaps you could ask the simple question, "What can I do to persuade you to allow me to keep my vehicle on my driveway?"

But perhaps you have tried that already.

 

[itscalledbob]

I cannot simply hit the agree button on this without some comment.
Unfortunately, I cannot think of a suitable compromise other than offering cash, and making a cash offer for a settlement might have the unintended effect.

Tom, thank you for your comment.

In the first instance I'd make a simple offer to seek a compromise and put it in the land developers court to see how they respond, however (without knowing the layout of the house and street) it might be as simple as a fence or hedge planting.

In my view its the offer to compromise that's important and not the compromise itself.

 

[Bigted]

If you had a Carevelle or any other van based people carrier whould that be allowed? If so what is the problem?

 

[Jack Burns II]

Hi jack,

I've read through the many replays on this thread and my heart goes out to you. I also recognise, as it applies to both your home and Cali it must be a stress filled issue.

My first comment concerns tribunals and Magistrates. As alluded in other replies they don't always apply what most people consider as 'the law' (or sense) and you never quite know where they are going to go, accordingly I would use them as a last resort. Plus, to have their decision overturned will be very expensive.

After reading through the thread one point jumps out to me; you state your covenant prevents the parking of motorhomes, you also state the developers have looked on the VW website and accept it is classified as a campervan. Whilst this point may be viewed by some as pedantic it is black and white and by pointing it out might be enough to get them off your back.

You also suggest your neighbours seem supportive of you.

For my twopence worth; if there is pressure to resolve I'd be tempted to send off a letter pointing out the difference between your covenant and their description of your Cali, I'd also see if your neighbours would support you by signing a simple letter stating they have no problem with your Cali being parked on your drive and include it in your correspondence. Furthermore I'd also ask if there was a possibility for compromise because if it does go to a hearing your offer to compromise will usually work in your favour.

HTH

Yes must mention to the solicitor about motorhome vs campervan. Some of our neighbours emailed the developers to say that they had no problem with the VW California but it did no good. They seem to like threatening people with solicitor's letters etc,; they did the same to another neighbour (who was ill at the time) over a legitimate problem and the tone of the threat was so bad that they have sold and gone. The developers have now threatened some of the other neighbours, who don't want to start paying the management fee until the roads, walls, gates etc are finished & repaired, and told them they they are taking them to the small court. All sounds desperate to us, we only stay because it is a beautiful village and lovely people here (for the most part!). If we have to sell Jack, we may put the house on the market again which won't help them sell the remaining homes. All unnecessary but there you are

 

[Digger]

they said we couldn't park it on our similar large driveway because we might encourage 'white van owners'. Very inconsistent, we can only conclude that the rest of the houses are not selling very quickly

Is the issue that the rest of the houses are not selling and they fear vans would put off buyers?
CF gives good advice and I for one would be cautious as I found that the local authorities often back developers. Our open plan estate denied fencing beyond front elevation (developer included in covenant not the council) and any transgression is immediately enforced with legal action.

 

[Jack Burns II]

I cannot simply hit the agree button on this without some comment.

I think that offering some sort of compromise is important, not just for the reason's that "Bob" gives, but to give your antagonist a face-saving way out. Unfortunately, I cannot think of a suitable compromise other than offering cash, and making a cash offer for a settlement might have the unintended effect of emboldening the freeholder.

Perhaps you could ask the simple question, "What can I do to persuade you to allow me to keep my vehicle on my driveway?"

But perhaps you have tried that already.

Although we have ample room on our driveway, we offered to buy a car park space off them as they always tell us that 'times are hard' but they didn't take us up on the offer

 

[Jack Burns II]

Is the issue that the rest of the houses are not selling and they fear vans would put off buyers?
CF gives good advice and I for one would be cautious as I found that the local authorities often back developers. Our open plan estate denied fencing beyond front elevation (developer included in covenant not the council) and any transgression is immediately enforced with legal action.

They told us that they were afraid that allowing the cali would mean that they would have to let 'white vans' in. Most people who have seen Jack, think that he would encourage people to buy i.e. they would be glad to have such a vehicle on the estate!!

 

[Bigted]

They told us that they were afraid that allowing the cali would mean that they would have to let 'white vans' in. Most people who have seen Jack, think that he would encourage people to buy i.e. they would be glad to have such a vehicle on the estate!!

Unless the covernent also states commercial vehicles or works vans then they cannot stop "white van man".

 

[Jack Burns II]

Hi jack,

I've read through the many replays on this thread and my heart goes out to you. I also recognise, as it applies to both your home and Cali it must be a stress filled issue.

My first comment concerns tribunals and Magistrates. As alluded in other replies they don't always apply what most people consider as 'the law' (or sense) and you never quite know where they are going to go, accordingly I would use them as a last resort. Plus, to have their decision overturned will be very expensive.

After reading through the thread one point jumps out to me; you state your covenant prevents the parking of motorhomes, you also state the developers have looked on the VW website and accept it is classified as a campervan. Whilst this point may be viewed by some as pedantic it is black and white and by pointing it out might be enough to get them off your back.

You also suggest your neighbours seem supportive of you.

For my twopence worth; if there is pressure to resolve I'd be tempted to send off a letter pointing out the difference between your covenant and their description of your Cali, I'd also see if your neighbours would support you by signing a simple letter stating they have no problem with your Cali being parked on your drive and include it in your correspondence. Furthermore I'd also ask if there was a possibility for compromise because if it does go to a hearing your offer to compromise will usually work in your favour.

HTH

Will ask solicitor about motorhome vs campervan. Some of our neighbours emailed them to say they had no problem with the cali but it made no difference

 

[Jack Burns II]

If you had a Carevelle or any other van based people carrier whould that be allowed? If so what is the problem?

Exactly

 

[Joker 1299]

Justice will prevail!

 

[Amarillo]

Justice will prevail!

Unfortunately, 50% of litigants walk out of court feeling that it hasn't.

 

[Jack Burns II]

Unfortunately, 50% of litigants walk out of court feeling that it hasn't.

Thank you all for your support here. But having spoken to our solicitor, it doesn't look like these people are very nice and it would probably go to court. We have someone in the family with a newly diagnosed illness and so don't want to go there. We are heartbroken but have decided to sell our beloved Jack Burns. He comes with only 3500 miles on him, as new and with many extras. We had advertised him over the summer but 2 of the people who replied and who we replied to: their emails came back as 'mailer returned'. We are open to offers

Once again thank you all for your support not just now but over the time we have had Jack; never belonged to a forum before but it was so reassuring to know you were there, we always had an answer within minutes!

Emer & Hugh

 

[T6 CFO]

I confess to not having read every word of this thread and that sometimes you just need finality. I'm having my own issues at present and it is very stressful. The situation to me sounds absurd, had you not already owned a Cali I could see it influencing the decision but seeing you own one I would park it on my driveway and damn the consequences.
All the best.


Mike

 

[Amarillo]

Thank you all for your support here. But having spoken to our solicitor, it doesn't look like these people are very nice and it would probably go to court. We have someone in the family with a newly diagnosed illness and so don't want to go there. We are heartbroken but have decided to sell our beloved Jack Burns. He comes with only 3500 miles on him, as new and with many extras. We had advertised him over the summer but 2 of the people who replied and who we replied to: their emails came back as 'mailer returned'. We are open to offers

Once again thank you all for your support not just now but over the time we have had Jack; never belonged to a forum before but it was so reassuring to know you were there, we always had an answer within minutes!

Emer & Hugh

This is appalling news. Of course you have to do what is right for you and your family, but I'd have thought it would be worth a defending the matter.

 

[BikerGran]

I understand that sometimes, when there are other things to take into account, it can be better to take the line of least resistance.

I would only say, have you look into the possibility that you might find somewhere else to park your Cali?

 

[Loz]

Thank you all for your support here. But having spoken to our solicitor, it doesn't look like these people are very nice and it would probably go to court. We have someone in the family with a newly diagnosed illness and so don't want to go there. We are heartbroken but have decided to sell our beloved Jack Burns. He comes with only 3500 miles on him, as new and with many extras. We had advertised him over the summer but 2 of the people who replied and who we replied to: their emails came back as 'mailer returned'. We are open to offers

Once again thank you all for your support not just now but over the time we have had Jack; never belonged to a forum before but it was so reassuring to know you were there, we always had an answer within minutes!

Emer & Hugh

I think personally I would move to a nicer place and keep the cali.

 

[LowMan]

Thank you all for your support here. But having spoken to our solicitor, it doesn't look like these people are very nice and it would probably go to court. We have someone in the family with a newly diagnosed illness and so don't want to go there. We are heartbroken but have decided to sell our beloved Jack Burns. He comes with only 3500 miles on him, as new and with many extras. We had advertised him over the summer but 2 of the people who replied and who we replied to: their emails came back as 'mailer returned'. We are open to offers

Once again thank you all for your support not just now but over the time we have had Jack; never belonged to a forum before but it was so reassuring to know you were there, we always had an answer within minutes!

Emer & Hugh

I'm really sorry to hear this. There are some truly vile people on this planet of ours. It's easy for me to suggest doing this or that, but only you know your own personal circumstances and the factors leading up to your final decision. I just wish you all the very best and hope to see you again on this forum in the future with Jack Burns 2.0...

 

[Jack Burns II]

I think personally I would move to a nicer place and keep the cali.

Yes we are putting the house back on the market but it can take months if not years to sell a house in a village like this in Northern Ireland; we don't want to lock Jack up in a shed in the interim, it wouldn't be practical for us either

 

[motacyclist]

We've just been looking at a new development and knowing what may happen I showed the sales lady a photo of our Cali, and she said there should be no problem.

Maybe the answer would be to have a paint job something like this



Although I would prefer a Ferrari on mine!

Interested to see how this is resolved.