|
A right to park a car can be an easement. The only caveat to this is that the
right to park must not be so extensive that it amounts, in effect, to an
exclusion of the owner from the land (eg if there is an ongoing right to park
at all times over all parts of a plot of land, then that would be too extensive
to be a mere easement). But, subject to that point, the principle is clear – a
right to park can be an easement.
Two cases illustrate the sort of problems that can arise:
T had a right to park on the forecourt of a block of flats, in common with
the other Ts in the building. L took the parking spaces out of commission
for three years whilst he developed adjoining land, and he planned to
reduce the number of parking spaces from 12 to four. Not surprisingly,
this was held to be a substantial interference with the car parking right
and so an injunction was granted. (Saeed [2001]);
L occupied a flat in a large residential development. Although no specific right
to park was given, there was a covenant not to obstruct the estate roads, and
also to observe any regulations made by L relating to car parking. However,
because of heavy demand, L decided to introduce parking regulations so that
each household would only be allowed one resident’s permit (and that permit
would only allow a car to be parked for up to 72 hours at a time). T argued
that these regulations substantially interfered with the implied easement (of
car parking) but the CA disagreed. In Saeed, L had sought to substantially
reduce the number of car parking spaces; here, the number of car parking
spaces was not being reduced, but only regulated (in a way that ensured that
all Ts had the opportunity to share the car parking spaces).
In practice, many leases do not grant specific rights of car parking and such
rights will often have to be implied easements (by operation of s62 LPA 1925).
But, it is clear that the courts will uphold the validity of such easements and
they will protect Ts from substantial interference (but at the same time allow L
to introduce reasonable regulations). See Montrose Court v Shamash [2006]
EWCA Civ 251. Source: www.practicallaw.com.
|
