Private Road - Voting System

[Mr Me]

Hi, we live on a private road owned by the developers. We have no residents committee (only 12 houses) and the title deeds do not specify any logistics for the legalities of managing the road other than we pay for upkeep things like that. The issue we have found is that when we would like something to change, for example placing a gate/barrier on the road or changing the signage we are never all in agreement 100% on anything. The owners of the road and therefore the management company generally listen to requests, put out a vote and unless they get a 12 out of 12 in favor they reject whatever it is. This way nothing ever gets done.

Question is, is there anything anyone knows of that stipulates, legally, the voting system in this situation? There are no articles of association or anything to suggest we need a unanimous or majority vote to do anything. A few of us would like to put up a gate system on the road to secure the estate. The management company have rejected the proposal due to receiving a few rejections, even when we have a majority vote in favor.

I have raised a complaint with the management company (who built and maintain the private road and estate) who really don't know what the vote should be, didn't set it from the outset and have settled on needing a 12 out of 12 for anything that isn't considered upkeep. Very frustrating for the majority of us who want to improve the safety on the estate, several female residents here have been subject to verbal abuse from male drivers using the estate to park or turn. There have been several incidents of careless driving and turning on our estate from the public that has either resulted in damage to one of our houses, 2 car accidents and several residents verbally abused by the public.

[atticus]

As you say, you (and presumably your neighbours) have agreed to pay for "upkeep things like that".

Isn't the point that the owners will not spend money on things not like that for which not everyone has voted? Can they expect to recoup a contribution to the cost from those who have not supported the proposal?

Maybe those of you who want something done could agree to pay the whole cost.

[Mr Me]

One would assume this, however introducing logic into bureaucracy is never a good idea(!). We had offered to the people who didn't want a gate and to the road owners, that the people who wanted it would pay for it. This was rejected due to the management company feeling there would be some sort of legal blowback by the 'no's' for paint in the future etc. or if the gate was damaged. I did say we'd be in the same position we are in now but this was rejected. Largest issue I have with this is that we have no clear picture, no idea of how many votes we need for anything or if 7 out of 12 want something and will pay for it, why that is an issue. I understand the principal but things like a gate, when we have suffered safety issue, seems ridiculous.

[atticus]

You appear to be in no position to compel the owner of the road to do anything other than what you have described as upkeep things like that.

[Mr Me]

I agree, nothing in the legal contract to say anything either way. We obviously aren't asking them to put 1p towards anything, just to allow us to pay for our own wants and needs. We source the building of it, materials and upkeep, they just allow us to do it...

There is nothing to say they need a 12 out of 12 vote on anything. Realistically they will just decide themselves what gets done and what doesn't, which is a nightmare for us residents. I don't see a legal argument for it being, by default, a default unanimous vote, if it isn't legally a majority one, as set out in the non existent articles of association?

[atticus]

You are looking at this the wrong way. Whether to do what residents ask is at the owner's discretion. Asking for unanimity is their way of deciding whether to exercise that discretion. Comparisons with company law do not assist.

[Mr Me]

Hi and thank you for the responses by the way... I had assumed this to be the case. What do you think the legal implications are in the opposite direction from the 'no' minority? Owners seem to be bending to their whim and ignoring the majority. So they seem to have made a position (as they have said to me directly) that they are concerned about legal comeback from the minority. I don't really see how there is no legal comeback from the majority when there is a safety concern and a legal comeback from the minority for something they don't even have to pay for. I would imagine the situation would change wildly should someone suffer serious injury from the safety concerns (there have been several minor car accidents) but until that point these are unsubstantiated safety concerns.

[atticus]

You are looking at this the wrong way. Whether to do what residents ask is at the owner's discretion. Asking for unanimity is their way of deciding whether to exercise that discretion. Comparisons with company law do not assist.

See above. This is not about voting systems.