Visitor Permit Parking Contract Condition Change without Notice to Residents

Le_Kirk

This is a residential situation - yes?  If so why is the POC claiming exceeded maximum stay period?  That is what you have to refute.

kryten3000

Le_Kirk said:

This is a residential situation - yes?  If so why is the POC claiming exceeded maximum stay period?  That is what you have to refute.

This will be because visitors are only allowed to stay for 24 hours according to the new signage.

Mr_Faithful

Thank you for your ongoing support!

Could you please appraise the following defense points and advise on how and if to incorporate them within the 'Template Defense';

The defendant contests liability for the parking charge issued at Central Walk, Bishops Stortford, CM23 3BE on 10th May 2025 at 00:58 AM, on the following grounds:

1.Failure to Clearly Communicate Contractual Changes

The signage at the location had been vandalised and illegible for a prolonged period. At the time of parking, there was no visible indication of a visitor stay limit. The adjacent car park continues to display the original signage, demonstrating inconsistent application of revised terms. No temporary signage was installed to alert regular users to the change, despite this being a residential setting where repeat visitors cannot reasonably be expected to re-read signage on each visit.

2. Non-Compliance with the 2025 Single Code of Practice  

The operator failed to meet the requirements of:  

- Clause 3.4, which mandates temporary entrance signage for a minimum of four months following any material change to terms not immediately apparent to drivers.  
- Clause 3.1.4, which requires that parking charges be displayed in a font comparable in size and boldness to the main body text. In this case, the revised conditions were relegated to smaller, less legible text.

3. Tenancy Law and Resident Rights  
 
 The Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreement (AST) contains no reference to parking terms or conditions. The imposition of new visitor restrictions—without consultation or notice—may constitute a material change under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, Part IV, Section 37, which governs variations to tenancy agreements. Furthermore, the enforcement of these new terms interferes with the Right of Quiet Enjoyment, a core tenant protection that extends to the use of associated amenities such as parking.

The defendant reserves the right to expand upon these points and provide supporting evidence in the witness statement.

Mr_Faithful

Good evening all! Does anyone have any further advice before I submit the defense?

Fruitcake

Make point 3, your point 1. You should state that the AST has primacy of contract over anything an unregulated private parking company that is not a party to said AST with the *landlord/landowner* has to say.

* Delete as applicable. *

A contract has three elements. Offer, consideration, and acceptance. In this case there is no offer because the parking signs do not offer anything that the resident does not already have as per their AST. Without an offer (of value) there can be no contract.

To take away a resident's existing rights is "a derogation of grant."

Do remember though that these are the resident's rights, and not yours if you are not named on the AST. However, the resident has the right to transfer or confer their rights upon others/visitors if their AST permits it, or does no specifically prohibit it. 

Mr_Faithful

@Fruitcake noted, thank you. 

What points - if any - from the template defense should I Include?

Revision below;

1. Tenancy Rights and Primacy of Contract  The resident’s Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreement (AST) contains no reference to parking terms or conditions. As such, the AST holds primacy of contract over any signage or terms imposed by a third-party parking operator who is not a party to the tenancy. The imposition of new visitor restrictions—without consultation or notice—may constitute a material change under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, Part IV, Section 37, which governs variations to tenancy agreements. Furthermore, enforcement of these new terms interferes with the Right of Quiet Enjoyment, a core tenant protection that extends to the use of associated amenities such as parking.

2. Failure to Clearly Communicate Contractual Changes The signage at the location had been vandalised and illegible for a prolonged period. At the time of parking, there was no visible indication of a visitor stay limit. The adjacent car park continues to display the original signage, demonstrating inconsistent application of revised terms. No temporary signage was installed to alert regular users to the change, despite this being a residential setting where repeat visitors cannot reasonably be expected to re-read signage on each visit.

3. Non-Compliance with the 2025 Single Code of Practice The operator failed to meet the requirements of: 

- Clause 3.4, which mandates temporary entrance signage for a minimum of four months following any material change to terms not immediately apparent to drivers.

  - Clause 3.1.4, which requires that parking charges be displayed in a font comparable in size and boldness to the main body text. In this case, the revised conditions were relegated to smaller, less legible text.

Coupon-mad

Why not just copy a form of words from the residential example already given & linked for everyone in post 2 of the NEWBIES thread (do not copy that whole defence as it's old).

Remove this (below) as you don't have to restate their case details:

"issued at Central Walk, Bishops Stortford, CM23 3BE on 10th May 2025 at 00:58 AM,"

Mr_Faithful

After reviewing the residential case resources, I have made amendments to my case-specific points (3-5 within template defense). I would be grateful for the following final advice;

1. Do you recommend I submit a LBC to the parking management company as per the NEWBIES thread recommendation? If so, can you refer me to or advise me on what to incude as the POC & claim amount.
2. Final appraisal of the revised case-specific comments;

3. Tenancy Rights and Primacy of Contract The resident’s Assured Shorthold Tenancy Agreement (AST) contains no reference to parking terms or conditions. As such, the AST holds primacy of contract over any signage or terms imposed by a third‑party parking operator who is not a party to the tenancy. The imposition of new visitor restrictions—without consultation or notice—may constitute a material change under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, Part IV, Section 37, which governs variations to tenancy agreements. Furthermore, enforcement of these new terms interferes with the Right of Quiet Enjoyment, a fundamental tenant protection that extends to the use of associated amenities such as parking.

4. Failure to Clearly Communicate Contractual Changes The signage at the location had been vandalised and illegible for a prolonged period, with no reference to any visitor stay limit. Despite this being a controlled‑access residential car park, where repeat visitors cannot reasonably be expected to re‑read signage on each visit, no temporary signage was installed to make clear the change to the terms of parking. At the time the PCN was issued, the defendant was clearly displaying a valid visitor permit, and the adjacent car park continued to display the original, vandalised signage, further demonstrating the inconsistent and unclear application of these revised terms.

5. Non‑Compliance with the 2025 Single Code of Practice The operator failed to meet the requirements of: Clause 3.4, which mandates temporary entrance signage for a minimum of four months following any material change to terms not immediately apparent to drivers. Clause 3.1.4, which requires that parking charges be displayed in a font comparable in size and boldness to the main body text. In this case, the revised conditions were relegated to smaller, less legible text. 

(...)

Mr_Faithful

Update: The estate management company has informed me that;

"An email regarding parking terms was sent to residents in 2022 (...) We have been informed by NPC that our request for cancellation of the PCN is no longer possible as it is now with their legal team."

I pointed out that the email makes little material difference for the following reasons;

1. My partner moved in in 2024, therefore she would not have received the email.
2. There was no signage in or around the building conveying these terms.
3. The term that now conveys this on the parking signs has very clearly been retrofitted (stickered over) after the recent extended period of vandalism that made all signs unreadable.

Coupon-mad

An email to residents foisting an unwanted parking scheme on the estate (even if it had been after she moved in) attempts to vary and interfere with lease rights.

So an email unilaterally introducing a change that causes detriment & monetary risk walks all over residents' right to peaceful enjoyment as well as any 'settled practice' easements and rights of way.

It is a derogation from grant and emailing the residents to impose this rubbish scheme doesn't meet the requirements in the Landlord & Tenant Act anyway.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/residential-parking.html?m=1


Recent landmark case:
https://www.shma.co.uk/our-thoughts/duchess-of-bedford-house-case-have-we-gone-parking-mad/