-
You might have a point there. I think the space the freeholder is arguing from is that the residents previously challenged the clamping, and were vindicated on same, so he no longer clamps but has moved to fines.
But to me the tribunal judgement (that the residents paid for the car park and there's no provision in the lease to charge parking fees, so therefore it's not reasonable to expect us to pay for parking now) feels broad enough that it covers both. But I'm not a legal person so I may be totally off base there.
With a lot of these leasehold law so much of it feels legal but not ethical or fair in any way.
ReekBlefs-
The test of 'reasonableness' is the one that the First Tier Tribunal will always apply, and it will always be looked at in the context of the lease.
If the judgment was that the lease has no provision to make a charge for parking, that's pretty final and there's little room for the freeholder to argue otherwise, beyond appealing the decision at a higher court - which it seems they didn't bother doing.
Other than seeking a court injunction (rather than FTT judgment) against the freeholder the obvious options would be to go for RTM / enfranchisement, as it seems you're already considering, or apply to the FTT for appointment of a manager.
Vanneau
The LVT isn't going to take part in any sort of horse-trading like that. The LVT has already made its decision on the parking charges, and so isn't going to revisit that point unless there's been a material change of circumstances. If he wants to use the LVT ruling on parking charges as a negotiating lever, a claim in the County Court for a declaration is the better way to achieve this, I would've thought.