Visitor Permit Parking Contract Condition Change without Notice to Residents

Coupon-mad

Mr_Faithful said:

 Update: I've received what one can reasonably anticipate as the 'Penultimate Letter Before Claim'. Is it reasonable to expect the next one to be the 'Letter Before Claim'?

There might be one more in between because the actual LBC comes from DCB Legal. Not from DCB Ltd.

Did the IAS reject the appeal despite your evidence of burnt signs?!

Please can you do two things now:

1. Post the IAS appeal 'decision' (the final template crap) into a reply on this thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6627117/ias-decisions-2025-onwards-until-we-hope-they-are-banned

And

2.  We implore you to urgently join us with this:

FIGHTBACK ALERT:

Please do the government's Public Consultation. We need every poster to complete this vital survey before the deadline.

See this thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6617396/parking-code-of-practice-consultation-now-extended-closes-friday-26th-september/p1

Mr_Faithful

Update: I have now received the Small Claims Court forms. 

I will proceed to read the threads previously advised but appreciate any further guidance based on the context specific to my situation (as outlined above)

Nellymoser

Give the issue date on the Claim form and post the POC like one shown here
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81577279/#Comment_81577279

Mr_Faithful

Issue Date: 23/10/2025

POC:

"

1. The Defendant (D) is indebted to the Claimant (C) for a Parking Charge (PC) issued to vehicle WDI 5GVG at Central Walk, Bishops Stortford, CM23 3BE.
2. The date of contravention is 10/05/2025 and the D was issued with a PC by the Claimant
3. The Defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of the terms on the signs (the contract). Reason: Parked Exceeding Maximum Stay Period. 
4. In the alternative the Defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012, Schedule 4.

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS

1. £170.00 being the total of the PC and damages.
2. Interest at a rate of 8.00% per annum pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 from the date hereof at a daily rate of £0.03 until judgment or sooner payment.
3. Costs and court fees

"

Mr_Faithful

How do you suggest I integrate the following context into the defence template?

• Non-compliance with BPA Code of Practice (Clause 19.10): This is a residential car park where my partner has resided and I have parked bi-weekly - with a valid visitor badge - since January 2024. During this time the parking signage in the area was vandalised & unlegible, and I parked without any visible indication of a visitor stay limit. In the weeks leading up to the issuing of this PCN, no additional or temporary signage were installed at the entrance or throughout the site to highlight the new terms and provide a 'transition period'. It is worth emphasising here that this is a residential parking area - a parking typology where regular users cannot be expected to read signage after their initial use of the carpark, and therefore an adequately signed transition period is critical. The British Parking Association's Approved Operator Scheme Code of Practice, clause 19.10 states: “Where there is a change in the terms and conditions that materially affects the motorist then you must make these terms and conditions clear on your signage. Where such changes impose liability where none previously existed then you must consider a transition to allow regular visitors to the site to adjust and familiarise themselves with the changes. Best practice would be the installation of additional/temporary signage at the entrance and throughout the site making it clear that new terms and conditions apply.” In this case, the parking operator failed to implement these measures.

• Inconsistent Condition Revisions: The adjacent car park is still displaying the old and vandalised signage (Image B.) - reinforcing that the new conditions were neither consistently applied nor adequately communicated across the area. 

• Revised Terms Legibility Relegation: Additionally, the revised conditions - which appear to have been stuck over the previous - were relegated to smaller text on the signage, making them difficult to read and effectively of secondary importance. This can be seen in Image C.

Le_Kirk

With an issue date of 23/10/25 and providing you complete(d) the AoS after 28/10/25 and before 11/11/25 your defence deadline date is 4.00 p.m. on 25/11/25 Defences are written in the third person, so no "I", "me" or "my" but "the defendant".  That defence is too long and most of it can be saved for the witness statement and evidence stage. The POC states you are being pursued as driver for "exceeding maximum stay period".  How does that relate to a residential claim and permit area?  Your defence should refute the POC.

1505grandad

"The date of contravention is 10/05/2025 and the D was issued with a PC by the Claimant"

"Non-compliance with BPA Code of Practice (Clause 19.10):....."

You should be using/quoting the latest (joint) single ppss CoP:-

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/Sector Code Templates/sectorsingleCodeofPracticeVersion1.1130225.pdf

Fruitcake

Since this is a residential/visitor parking case, you should thoroughly read the lease/AST/property rental/ownership agreement of the resident who was being visited regarding parking, permits, PCNs, paying/not paying PCNs, court claims, and right to quiet enjoyment.
What it doesn't say is equally important.
If the resident is a tenant, then the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, Part IV, Section 37 regarding changes to a tenancy agreement is also relevant.

Mr_Faithful

Contents & Person of POC Refute

@Le_Kirk Thanks for the 3rd person advice. The POC cannot be directly refuted as the terms on the 'revised signage' at the time of contravention, were broken (24 hr Visitor permit duration). However, due to the previous signage not displaying this term and the context (ie. Residential parking with 'Right to quiet enjoyment', Material change to signage without transition period ), I do not belive the implementation of the terms for a PCN was fair and just. Please advise if you have a suggestion for how to better refute the POC.

British Parking Code of Practice

@1505grandad Noted. I believe the following clauses to be relevant

 • 3.1.4 - Font disparity.

 • 3.4 - Material notices.

Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreement Contents

@Fruitcake The only reference to parking permits in the rental agreement is as follows;

To take appropriate care to look after [...] permits or similar items for the duration of the tenancy. Should the tenant misplace or break any of the [...] permits or similar items, the Tenant agrees to cover the reasonable costs incurred.

Landlord and Tenant Act 1987

@Fruitcake Are you able to advise on how I should includdee reference to Part IV, Section 37 of this act? Ie. Should it be included in my Defense or should it wait for the Witness Statement?

Fruitcake

Mr_Faithful said:

Contents & Person of POC Refute

@Le_Kirk Thanks for the 3rd person advice. The POC cannot be directly refuted as the terms on the 'revised signage' at the time of contravention, were broken (24 hr Visitor permit duration). However, due to the previous signage not displaying this term and the context (ie. Residential parking with 'Right to quiet enjoyment', Material change to signage without transition period ), I do not belive the implementation of the terms for a PCN was fair and just. Please advise if you have a suggestion for how to better refute the POC.

British Parking Code of Practice

@1505grandad Noted. I believe the following clauses to be relevant

 • 3.1.4 - Font disparity.

 • 3.4 - Material notices.

Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreement Contents

@Fruitcake The only reference to parking permits in the rental agreement is as follows;

To take appropriate care to look after [...] permits or similar items for the duration of the tenancy. Should the tenant misplace or break any of the [...] permits or similar items, the Tenant agrees to cover the reasonable costs incurred.

Landlord and Tenant Act 1987

@Fruitcake Are you able to advise on how I should includdee reference to Part IV, Section 37 of this act? Ie. Should it be included in my Defense or should it wait for the Witness Statement?

With reference to permits in the rental agreement, there is no mention of a permit scheme between the tenant and the unregulated private parking company. In other words, there is no contract between the tenant, and by extension, anyone allowed to visit them in accordance with the AST, and the unregulated private parking company.

Since there is no mention of parking, PPCs, PCNs, paying PPCs, or court, in the AST, then there can be no breach of contract because there is no contract to breach.

With regards to the L & T Act, you can't mention anything in your WS if it is not in your defence