PCC in leasehold space [court claim started against MC & PPC]

Fruitcake

h2g2 said:

It's one thing to know there's been a derogation of grant but I'm not sure what remedy I can apply for. The fact is that I haven't been issued any PCNs nor have my personal details actually been been accessed.

I can (and have) told the MA and freeholder that a derogation of grant is going on but they have not responded. 

The property tribunal doesn't cover cases where the freeholder breaks the lease (only cases where the leaseholder does) and I haven't had any easily quantifiable damages.

My MP responded that he was sympathetic with my case, but that I should consult a solicitor. 

Would I go to the county court with a small claims case for breach of contract and ask them to compel the MA to remove the PPC?

And thank you ask for telling me to get the other leaseholders involved. Please believe me, I'm trying but they are largely apathetic. 

The fact that the PPC is operating on site, and they have erected signs that take away your existing rights, and the fact that you have had to take action because your right to quiet enjoyment has been breached are all a derogation of grant. At this stage it would probably be difficult to start a claim against the PPC and the MA, but that would all change if you got a PCN. 
Do watch out for someone else's vehicle being parked in your space that would then force you to park elsewhere, and might then result in you getting a PCN. This is a known ploy by PPCs.
One poster took a photo of a PPC's liveried van in their residential space.

Did you know that as an individual, you can make a postal request for a vehicle keeper's details from the DVLA should such a thing occur?

I doubt your neighbours will remain apathetic once they and their friends and visitors start being issued with PCNs.

Talking of signs, how big are they? If they are bigger than 0.3m2, they require advertising consent. Not having it is a criminal offence, but only the council can pursue it. You could check with the local council/planning office to see if such consent has been granted, and make a complaint to them and your MP, and the PPC, and the MA if it has not.

It is written CONSENT they need under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 section 222 + 2007 section 225 amendment for permission to erect advertising signs.
Consent can not be retrospectively given and conspiracy with the advertiser to do so is misconduct in public office.

Failure to obtain consent is a criminal offence and failure to enforce the criminal offence is also misconduct in public office.

If you are to complain, make sure you inform the officer dealing at the council you expect the legislation to be followed to the letter of the law.

h2g2

The signs are less than 0.3 square metres, so they are onside there. Thank you for the lead, though.

I also spoke to citizen's advice, who advised me that the First Tier Tribunal can make rulings on breach of leasehold agreements. However, when I spoke to them they said they only took claims from landlords claiming leaseholders are in breach of the lease. Not the other way around. Which is bizarre, in my view.

I've drafted a letter before action, to be used as a basis for particulars of claim later. It's really long and could stand to be shortened, but I'm not sure what bits to remove right now.

Many thanks to all who offer advice and feedback:

Letter before action: derogation of grant of leasehold agreement [redacted] (“the lease”)

Section A: Background

1. The lease granted is under freehold [redacted] (“the freehold”), which covers the estate at [redacted] (“the estate”).

2. I (“the tenant”) am the holder of the lease in question, and resident at the demised premises under the lease.

3. The demised premises include an apartment within the building and parking space (“the parking space”) in the car park on the estate (“the parking area”). Both the apartment and the parking space are highlighted on the land registry records, and clause 1.1 of the lease affirms this.

4. While this letter refers specifically to leasehold agreement [redacted] it should be assumed that all leaseholds granted a parking space under the freehold are similarly infringed.

5. Access to the parking area is restricted by a security gate, which can be opened with either a key fob or a remote control issued to residents.

6. The other parties to the lease are the freeholder [redacted] and the management company [redacted].

7. [The freeholder] has appointed Estates & Management Ltd (“E&M Ltd”) to fulfill their duties as landlord.

8. [The management company] has appointed [redacted - the "Agent" for MSE] to fulfill their duties as the management company.

9. At some point in or before December 2023 the Agent gave permission Parking Control Management UK Ltd (“PCM Ltd”) to operate in the parking area, starting from 8th January 2024.

10. A letter from PCM Ltd was delivered from the Agent’s e-mail address informing leaseholders about the parking scheme.

11. A permit for the parking space was issued by PCM Ltd.

12. PCM Ltd erected signs around the car park stating their terms and conditions of parking in the parking area (“their T&Cs”).

13. Their T&Cs state that a vehicle in a numbered bay must have a permit for that bay clearly visible in the windscreen.

14. For the avoidance of doubt, bay number 100 is the parking space granted to me as my demised premises.

15. Their T&Cs state that a vehicle in a visitor bay must have a single-use scratch-off visitor permit clearly visible in the windscreen, or be registered via an app for a “virtual visitor parking session”.

16. The signage and the letter states that breach of any of their T&Cs will leave vehicles subject to a parking charge notice (PCN) of £100.

17. According to the signage PCNs can be paid by calling a premium rate phone number, and paying a £1 administration fee. The small print also provides a postal address and a website through which payments can be made.

18. The signage also claims that PCM Ltd may apply to the DVLA for the keeper’s details in the event that a PCN is not paid.

19. The signage within the parking area, but not by the gate, states that “by entering or remaining on this land you agree to abide by all of the terms and conditions”.

20. A resident permit that has been lost, damaged, or faded can be replaced for a fee of £20 at the time the T&Cs were implemented. As far as I am aware this fee can be changed at PCM Ltd’s pleasure.

21. Visitor permits can be purchased in booklets of 10 permits for £12.50 per permit, with a maximum of 30 permits per year issued. The app to approve virtual visitor parking sessions is available for a £20 annual subscription. As far as I am aware these fees can be changed at PCM Ltd’s pleasure.

22. These actions were explicitly endorsed by the Agent, who sent the letter explaining the scheme from their email address. The T&Cs implemented by PCM Ltd must therefore assume to have been approved by [the freeholder] and [the management company], from whom the Agent derive their authority.

Section B: Derogation from the grant - requirement to display a permit

23. In clause 4.1.1 of the lease the landlord ([freeholder]) covenants that the tenant shall peaceably hold and enjoy the demised premises, which includes the parking space without any interruption from the landlord, or any person claiming under, by or through, or in trust of the landlord except as given the the lease.

24. In clauses 3.33 and 3.34 of the lease the tenant covenants to use the parking space only to store a private motorcar or motorbike. The only restrictions placed on the parking space are that the vehicle must have up-to-date road tax, not to store equipment or materials there, not to set barbeques or fires there, and not remove any of the bricks or pavers forming the base.

25. The tenant also covenants in clause 3.22 not to store petrol or other inflammable material, nor anything to which would cause undue stress or strain to the floor or structure of the estate, nor anything that may become dangerous to the estate. These restrictions cover the entire demised premises, which do include the parking space.

26. The tenant maintains that they have kept to the restrictions specified in the lease, which were agreed to when taking on the lease and which are perfectly reasonable.

27. The lease makes no reference to permits, nor any other restrictions on the parking space.

28. The tenant can therefore not be compelled to display a permit, nor charged by the management company for not doing so.

29. The requirement to display a permit is a breach of quiet enjoyment, which prevents the tenant from using the space in manners otherwise allowed in the lease. For example:

1. If the tenant’s car is repaired, and repairs take longer than anticipated the tenant cannot make use of a hire car without gaining access to the car in repair, which is unreasonable to require, and may even be impossible in some cases.

2. If the tenant is away, leaving the parking space vacant but unable to physically hand over a physical permit the tenant cannot lend their space to a neighbour who may wish to borrow a space temporarily. Lending spaces in this manner is good for neighbourly relations - a much undervalued benefit.

30. Even where the lease were to be breached - which is denied - it is the tenant’s understanding that charges can be added to the maintenance charge, but the tenant can not be compelled to pay a private company, such as PCM Ltd, that they do not have a contract with. For example: if any tenant causes a spillage in the common areas they could not be compelled to directly pay for cleaning. Instead the costs for cleaning would be covered by the management company, who can then add said costs to the offending tenant’s maintenance fee.

31. In order to compel a tenant to display a permit to use their demised premises the lease would have to be altered.

32. The lease can only be altered according to the terms of the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1987, which in this case requires approval of 75% of leaseholders and objections from fewer than 10% of leaseholders.

33. The tenant asserts that no such approval was sought, nor granted, unless it can be proven otherwise.

Section C: Derogation of grant - claim to authorise parking on my demised premises

34. The intended method for the parking scheme to work is to create a contract with drivers using the parking area allowing them to park either by following PCM Ltd’s T&Cs, or by paying a PCN. The tenant denies that it does this successfully.

35. However, authorisation to park on the demised premises is entirely at the discretion of the tenant. Not PCM Ltd.

36. The permit cannot constitute permission to park by itself. Someone obtaining a permit by finding a lost one, for example, would not obtain permission to park despite PCM Ltd’s T&Cs indicating that they would.

37. Someone willing to pay the £100 PCN would also not have authorisation to park despite PCM Ltd’s T&Cs. For someone with an expensive car at high risk of theft or vandalism it may even be considered a worthwhile price to pay for a secured car park away from view from the street while they are using the nearby train station.

Section Derogation of grant - the visitor spaces

38. Visitor spaces previously freely available require paid-for permits according to PCM Ltd’s T&Cs.

39. While waiting for paid-for permits to arrive or payment for the app to be approved the tenant may access to the visitor spots without breaching PCM Ltd’s T&Cs.

40. Whether paying for an app subscription or buying single-use permits residents are, in practical, expected to rent visitor parking spaces from PCM Ltd.

41. As such the number spaces available to residents have been reduced due to being hidden behind a paywall.

42. Reducing the number of spaces available to residents is a derogation of grant (see Saeed v Plustrade Limited [2001] EWCA CIV 201).

Section E: Management company’s right to regulate and reasonable regulations

43. It is acknowledged that the management company, or their agents, does have limited authority to create regulations, and the only defence the tenant can conceive of is that regulations were created under these provisions.

44. This section is to pre-empt any such defence. It does not prejudice the tenant’s view of any other defence they may have overlooked.

45. The tenant covenants in clause 3.21 of the lease to comply with regulations from the landlord or management company that are consistent with the lease, properly made, and govern the use of the common parts and any other parts of the estate in the general interest of residents and good estate management.

46. The management company has a covenant under Schedule 3 clause 7 of the lease “to make and enforce such regulations for the good management and conduct of the estate as from time to time may seem appropriate”.

47. The tenant asserts that the requirements for the regulations to be consistent with the lease, properly made, in the general interests of the residents, and in the interests of good management have not been met.

h2g2

Section F: Regulations are inconsistent with the lease

48. Sections B, C & D are repeated as demonstration that the regulations are not consistent with the lease.

Section G: Regulations are not in the interests of residents

49. Paragraph 29 is repeated as demonstration as to loss of use of the parking space.

50. Section D is repeated in demonstration of the loss of access to visitor spaces.

51. It is clearly not in the resident’s interest to charge them for replacement permits for a parking space they can freely access.

52. The agent, who were the primary actors engaging PCM Ltd, are members are the Association of Residential Managing Agents (ARMA), and thus can be assumed to following ARMA guidelines.

53. ARMA’s guidelines on parking, as revised in March 2021 and the latest revision at the time PCM Ltd were engaged, says “the ticketing and therefore fining of wrongly parked cars is legal” and recommends the use of a “parking enforcement company” to handle fining (their wording) wrongly parked cars.

54. However, the guidance is wrong. Fining is not legal, which is why private parking companies instead attempt to create a contract with the driver, with the PCN being a contractual charge agreed to by the conduct of the driver.

55. This wording suggests the PCN is intended to act as a fine, and be punitive.

56. In the famous Parkingeye vs Beavis case the judge required that charges be proportionate, have commercial justification, and should not be punitive.

57. In this case the charges have no commercial justification and are clearly intended to be punitive.

58. It is not in the interests of residents to be issued fines payable to a private company for parking on their demised premises. Nor is it in their interests to force them to take positive action to prevent or cancel such fines.

59. It is understood from hearsay that PCM Ltd are not paid a management fee, but profit entirely from fines issued.

60. As such PCM Ltd has a strong financial incentive to issue fines to residents for any reason, regardless of how flimsy the reasons are. Indeed, they must do this if they are to turn a profit on the estate. Signage claims there is 24/7 enforcement. To cover this by paying an attendant minimum wage at least 20 PCNs per week must be issued. The tenant asks for proof that this is not the case, if it is denied.

61. PCM Ltd’s system directly or through their agents, seems designed to catch residents out by requiring a physical paper permit, which may become dislodged, lost, damaged, or faded and thus incur fines.

62. The technology to manage permission virtually via an app clearly does exist, and is in place for visitors. But, of course, PCM Ltd would then be unable to issue a resident a fine when they decide a permit is damaged, faded, or not displayed clearly enough.

Section H: Regulations do not constitute good management - failure to achieve stated goal

68. The implemented scheme can not succeed in its stated goal as it is unable to lawfully issue PCNs to residents, even residents egregiously parked on someone else’s parking space.

69. The signage states “by entering and remaining on this land you agree to abide by all these terms and conditions”.

70. However, residents already have the explicitly granted right to enter and remain on the land in question, which includes their demised premises. Therefore they cannot be deemed to have accepted the contract based on their conduct. It is conceptually no different to a claim that “by inhaling and exhaling you agree to pay a charge for use of the air conditioning”, which would clearly be ridiculous.

71. Furthermore, the signage contains no consideration for a resident who already has the rights to use their demised premises and the visitor spots. There is therefore no offer and no contract could possibly be formed.

72. Non-residents are prevented from entry by a security gate. In order to park they must, therefore, circumvent a security measure. They may be able to make a case that the security measure was forbidding and that there was no real offer to park. Therefore no contract could be formed and the PCN would be invalid. (It is not clear to the tenant whether this has been tried before, or what the legal theory on this argument would be.)

Section I: Regulations are not good management - poor planning

68. Reiterating section G, a well managed scheme would not incentivise issuing PCNs to residents well parked on their own demised premises.

69. All PCNs go towards a private company instead of being used to reimburse an injured resident or used to otherwise better the estate as a whole. A well managed system would see lawfully and reasonably issued charges reinvested into the estate or used to offset the management charge.

70. Good management would not approve signage with a premium rate phone number which appears to be in breach of The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 article 41.

71. Good management would not approve signage with an administration charge for payments which appears to be in breach of The Consumer Rights (Payment Surcharges) Regulations 2012 Regulation 6A.

72. The tenant has inquired of the Agent multiple times as to how PCM Ltd’s T&C’s are permissible under the lease. They answered the first query, which was only about quiet enjoyment: “Your lease does allow you to quiet enjoyment of your parking space, but unfortunately a lot of residents aren’t allowed this, due to other residents and / or their visitors parking in their parking spaces and therefore introducing parking control was the only option to allow all owners the quiet enjoyment of their space as per the lease.”

73. The tenant believes this reply misunderstands what “quiet enjoyment” means - specifically as a right granted from the landlord to their tenants. Good management would have understood the term “quiet enjoyment” correctly.

74. The tenant also believes that reply does not answer the questions about PCM Ltd’s T&C’s interfering with the lease. Good management would have been able to answer that question satisfactorily.

75. Two further inquiries with more detailed inquiry and reiterating the question about why PCM Ltd’s T&Cs were permissible under the lease were unanswered. Good management would have been able to answer the question by referring to whatever legal advice they got before signing any contract with PCM Ltd.

76. Due to their failure to answer the question about how they believed the lease allowed for the parking control scheme as implemented, the tenant believes legal advice was not sought before signing the contract. Good management would have sought legal advice before signing such a contract, and the tenant asks for proof that legal advice was obtained and followed.

77. In response to a request to ignore the tenant’s demised premises PCM Ltd wrote “whilst you may enjoy a contractual right to park as part of your lease, without seeing the full documentation I cannot determine if this right amounts to unrestricted permission”.

78. As such PCM Ltd have admitted that they were not given a sample copy of a lease to review and ensure they acted in compliance with. Good management would have done this in order to help the PCM Ltd to operate in full compliance with the lease.

Section J: Relief sought

79. The tenant seeks the removal of any authority for PCM Ltd to issue PCNs on their parking space. PCM Ltd have voluntarily “opted out” the tenant’s parking space, but still claim the authority to issue PCN’s in that space. As such, that opt out exists only at their pleasure. It exists only to limit damages and does not constitute relief from their unlawful T&Cs.

80. The tenant seeks removal of any signs claiming to authorise parking, even under threat of a PCN, on their parking space; or to retrieve their personal data from the DVLA database; or to misleadingly claim to form a contract with residents.

81. The tenant seeks an undertaking not to implement any form of parking control that is not compatible with the lease, nor to do so without first obtaining a consensus from residents as to what form the control should take and what any charges be used for.

82. The tenant seeks the removal of any charge, direct or indirect, to use the visitor spaces.

83. Should he have standing to do so, the tenant seeks a refund to all residents who paid for the app or bought single-use visitor permits, or bought a replacement resident permit.

84. Should he have standing to do so, the tenant asks compensation be paid to any resident issued a PCN by PCM Ltd (see Roger Davey v UKPC [2013] for guidance)

85. Should he have standing to do so, the tenant asks compensation be paid to any resident who had their personal data illegally accessed from the DVLA database by PCM Ltd.

86. Should he have standing to do so, the tenant asks all tenants who paid using the premium rate phone number be reimbursed for the call and for the administration fee they suffered, as required by the relevant legislation.
    

87. Should this not be done within two weeks the tenant will also claim damages for breach of the lease agreement. In an e-mail from the Agent (“[Redacted] - Lease Reminder” dated 12th June 2023) a breach of fourth schedule of the lease, including quite innocuous breaches such as clause 10 of that schedule (“No clothes or other articles shall be hung or exposed or seen from any part of the estate…”) were charged at £100 + VAT for  an initial breach and £50 + VAT for subsequent  breaches. This figure for a daily breach is clearly considered reasonable by the Agent.

88. Should this not be done within two weeks the tenant will begin legal proceedings against all parties involved.

Coupon-mad

It's not 'derogation from the grant'.

The above was too much for me to read and looks far too long to expect any recipient to read.  But I did think here you could add:

11. An unsolicited and unwanted permit for my own parking space was issued by PCM Ltd.  This and the entire regime is hereby rejected; a third party ex-wheelclamper like PCM (outed in Watchdog as a 'rogue trader') are neither recognised nor wanted anywhere near the estate.

h2g2

Thank you @Coupon-mad - I did suspect it was too long  .

I have condensed the principle points from seven pages of making and explaining every conceivable point to two pages covering the important ones without going into detailed explanation.

While I do agree with the characterisation of PCM, I would prefer not to push the "rogue trader" / "ex-wheelclamper" point. It has been made already, and by continuing to push it I fear I would give the impression that I object to PCM particularly, rather than to the imposition on parking per se, and that by choosing (say) UKPC instead I would be mollified. This would be a false impression to give.

With your feedback in mind, I have drafted a letter before action. I have no experience writing one of these, so I appeal to anyone here who can to help make this as effective as it can be.

[This has been edited in response to comments.]

---

Dear Sirs,

Letter before action: derogation from grant of leasehold agreement [redacted] (“the lease”)

Since 27th October 2022 I have been the holder of the lease, which includes a car parking space as part of the demised premises. The lease grants me the right to keep a motorcar or motorbike there, subject to some reasonable restrictions as set out in the lease. No mention of permit requirements, nor the right to create arbitrary requirements to park is mentioned in the lease.

Around December 2023 [the agent], acting on behalf of the management company, [redacted], and acting underneath the freeholder, [redacted], appointed Parking Control Management UK Ltd (“PCM Ltd”) with the stated aim of controlling parking, with their enforcement beginning on January 8th 2024.

 PCM Ltd were allowed to erect signage attempting to form a contract with anyone entering or remaining on the land. The contract claims to authorise drivers to park in any space, including on my parking space, if they either follow the terms and conditions ("T&Cs") set out by signs, which include a requirement to clearly display a permit, or pay a parking charge, and also to retrieve the car’s keeper data from the DVLA in order to enforce payment of charges. The signs claim everyone, including residents already living on the estate such as myself, agree to the contract and agree to pay a charge for breach of the T&Cs, by parking on their own space, already granted to them by the lease

These T&Cs, and the appointment of PCM Ltd, constitute a derogation from grant, which allow me to peaceably hold and enjoy the parking space without interruption from the landlord, or anyone acting under them, which includes the management company, [their agent], and PCM Ltd.

PCM Ltd cannot be granted power to be able to impose their T&Cs on my parking space, nor authorise parking on my space to anyone willing to pay the charge or who manages to get hold of one of their permits somehow. They certainly cannot require me to pay any charge for parking in my space, since their signs cannot override any rights granted to me in the lease (see Roger Davey v UKPC [2013]).

Furthermore PCM Ltd also claim to control the visitor spaces, requiring a physical permit to be purchased or an app subscribed to for an annual fee in order to park in the visitor spaces without being issued a parking charge notice (PCN). This effectively removes the residents use of the visitor spaces previously freely available. Now the spaces are, for all practical purposes, rented from PCM Ltd.

This is a breach of an easement allowing residents access to these spaces, and also a derogation from grant (see Saeed v Plustrade Limited [2001]).

It is denied that these T&Cs can be justified by the management company’s ability to issue regulations governing the estate. Such regulations are not in accordance with the lease, nor in the interests of residents who are restricted from visitor parking and threatened with parking charge notices for minor or irrelevant lapses, nor do they constitute good management for a range of reasons, not least of which is that the T&Cs do not actually achieve their stated aim, except by misleading and threatening residents with unwarranted parking charge notices (PCNs).

A vehicle compliant with the conditions explicitly set out in the lease is authorised to park in my space if, and only if, I authorise it. Such a vehicle is authorised to park in the visitor spaces if, and only if, a resident authorises it to park. PCM Ltd do not have the right authorise parking on my space, nor to charge for parking there, nor to charge for parking in the visitor spaces under any T&Cs, nor can such a right be granted to them.

In order to allow any regime such as the one imposed the terms of the lease would have to be changed in the manner specified in the Landlord And Tenant Act 1987. I deny that this was done.

I seek the following remedies:

• An undertaking to removal of all signs offering parking in my space under any T&Cs

• Removal of PCM Ltd from the estate

• Cancellation of any PCNs issued on the estate to any resident or their guests and a refund of any such PCNs paid thus far.

• An undertaking to refund any fees paid to the Independent Appeals Service for their "non-standard appeal" relating to PCNs issued on the estate.

• An undertaking to refund any phone charges for calling the premium rate phone number for payment of PCNs on the signs, if required by The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 article 41.

• An undertaking to refund any administration charges paid for using the aforementioned phone number, if required by The Consumer Rights (Payment Surcharges) Regulations 2012 Regulation 6A.

• An undertaking to pay compensation to any resident or their guest who had their keeper data retrieved from the DVLA database relating to any PCN issued on the estate.

• An undertaking not to employ any private parking company to manage parking without proper consultation of residents and proper compliance with the lease.

Should this not be done, or agreement reached, within three weeks of receipt of this letter I reserve the right to begin legal proceedings to enforce the lease without further notice, and I shall further seek damages for breach of the lease. [The agent] have previously considered a reasonable sum to be £100+VAT to be fair an initial breach, and £50+VAT for subsequent breaches (however that was defined), even for quite innocuous breaches and I will use this as the basis of any claim for damages.

Yours faithfully,

[Me]

---

Thank you all.

KeithP

I think there should be a not in the last paragraph of that LBA such that it reads...
Should this not be done within three weeks of receipt of this letter...

h2g2

I've made some tweaks:

• Added "not" to the last paragraph as KeithP suggested.
• Added an undertaking to refund IAS fees to the relief requested.
• Specified "PCNs issued on the estate" to all references to PCNs in the relief section.
• Changed "PCM Ltd do not have the right to charge for parking in my space, nor to charge for parking in the visitor spaces under any T&Cs, nor can such a right be granted to them" to "PCM Ltd do not have the right to authorise parking on my space, nor to charge for parking there, nor to charge for parking in the visitor spaces under any T&Cs, nor can such a right be granted to them".
• Changed "The contract [on the signs] authorises drivers to park in any space, including on my parking space, if they either follow the terms and conditions if they display a permit or or pay a parking charge ..." to "The contract claims to authorise drivers to park in any space, including on my parking space, if they either follow the terms and conditions ("T&Cs") set out by signs, which include a requirement to clearly display a permit or pay a parking charge..."

Some additional development:

• I got a letter from Estates & Management Ltd, who are acting on behalf of the freeholder and fulfil his duties as landlord, clarifying who the actual freeholders were (the managing agent incorrectly told me E&M Ltd were the freeholder) and clarifying that the agent are appointed by the actual managing company to fulfil their duties, but are not the actual managing company. This letter also said words to the effect of "this is not the responsibility of the landlord and you should direct your complaints to ..." and then gave the managing agent's e-mail address - the one I'd already told them was being ignored.

I've sent a response to the E&M Ltd asking them to reconsider their assertion that the landlord is not responsible, and pointing out that if I am required to take legal action I would have no choice but to name their client, the landlord, as a defendant seeing as he is a principal on the lease agreement. No case would be allowed to proceed if I did not. I did express my sympathy for a landlord having to deal with this when he likely wanted to quietly enjoy the benefits of the ground rent and may not even have been aware of the situation until I wrote to him. But that he nevertheless does have the power to intervene.

I also wrote directly to the landlord forwarding the letter of complaint sent to E&M Ltd, and telling them what they told me, and expressing a similar sentiment: I'm sorry to have to embroil you in this, but it is happening on your estate, you do have the power to intervene, and I would reluctantly have no choice but to name you as a defendant.

I also wrote directly to the management company (which appears to be registered at a residential address, and also appears to be owned and run solely by the original freeholder as well) asking him to intervene and order the agent to remove PCM Ltd, and forwarding my complaint originally sent to his agent who appointed PCM.

The latter two will, most likely, respond insisting I talk to their respective agents rather than write to them directly, but if I am lucky one may intervene and make this whole situation much easier.

h2g2

An interesting update:

The freeholder's agent responded to my initial complaint saying words to the effect of "we're not responsible the day to day management of the estate and we only collect ground rent on their behalf. Please raise your complaints with [the managing agent] and they can help you."

I sent a letter aimed at "firm but polite, staunch but not threatening" making the following point:

1. The advice to contact the managing agent is sound in principle, but I'd already said they're not responding to me and have continued to not respond to me. 

2. I'm sympathetic to the freeholder's position of wanting to enjoy the benefits of the freehold without busying themselves on the day to day running of the estate. 

3. I'm also sympathetic to the fact that the action was taken by someone working underneath them and that they met not have even been aware it had happened until wrote to them.

4. But as freeholder they absolutely do have the authority to intervene, and they did covenant to uphold the rights granted to the leaseholder.

5. Should I be forced to go to court to uphold my rights under the lease I would have no choice but to reluctantly name the freeholder as a defendant. They are primary party to the lease and no case could possibly be allowed to proceed if they not named. 

Today I got a letter (dated a few days ago) saying that the freeholder will look into it. Hopefully they'll come to the same conclusion we have and step in. 

Coupon-mad

Nicely worded!

h2g2

I've been having some useful dialogue with my freeholder, although they are insisting that the right of the management company to create regulations which would enable parking charges.

I don't think this is viable. Otherwise the management company could do the same thing with cleaning: for example create a regulation requiring every tenant to pay a £25 cleaning fee to some third party cleaning company who can sue tenants fail to pay. This would be clear nonsense, otherwise it would be done more often to reduce the management charges and avoid the oversight involved in charging via the management fee.

A similar principle would stop an ISP from providing a service subject to T&Cs which they may revise, from revising the T&Cs to add a charge every time their DNS is accessed.

Best I can find so far is "novation", but that describes the process of creating a new contract rather than unilaterally imposing new contractual charges after a contract is agreed, even via a mechanism that allows it to be varied.