Parking management company introduced

dazedandconfused2

Hi all,

New to the forum looking for some urgent help. I am owner of a leasehold flat with around 20 other properties on the development. Last week I received a letter informing me that Sippi will be introduced as parking management in May.

I have read up on how disastrous this will be as a day-to-day resident but also as a future seller. I unfortunately have no contact with other leaseholders due to most being landlords who allow their letting agents to look after things.

I have written two letters with the help from this previous thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5997200/pcm-company-introduced

The first is to other residents, asking them to oppose the introduction of Sippi or to get their leaseholder involved to oppose. The second is the opposing letter to the management company. I will post these into letterboxes at the development, as well as going round to flats to talk to them in person about the issue - though my worry is as most will be tenants rather than owners they won't care much.

Could anyone review these letters and provide any advice on whether they're any good and whether I am taking the right course of action?

My other worry is that by being the one leading on this, my management company/the freeholder is going to view me as a troublemaker and make things difficult for me down the line.

My personal life is currently extremely stressful and emotional due to some unfortunate personal circumstances, so I do not have the will for a long protracted legal fight about this, but felt I need to at the very least oppose it in writing in some form.

Any advice welcome.

Many thanks!

//

Letter 1 to residents:

Dear Tenant/Leaseholder,

Last week (April 2026), parking management company Sippi distributed letters stating that parking enforcement would begin at [PROPERTY NAME] from 11 May 2026. Three permits have been issued per flat.This is likely following previous warnings to residents from the managing agency, reminding tenants and leaseholders not to be parking in other bays.

Neither residents, nor a majority of the leaseholders, were consulted when hiring an external company, Sippi, to enforce parking. This is a derogation from grant. As stated on Section 37 from the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, in order to establish a right to impose unilateral terms which vary the terms of the lease, you must have such variation approved by at least 75% of the leaseholders.

We understand that the parking situation at [PROPERTY NAME] is not ideal, but it is urgent that we do not allow a private parking management company to be allowed to enforce charges.

Our lease states: “The right for the Tenant or a member of his household to the exclusive use of Car Parking Space numbered [X] on the Plan for the purpose of parking a private motor car belonging to the Tenant or a member of his household or guest as the case may be.”

The problem

Some quick research online will tell you how damaging these schemes are to residents and leaseholders, with unlawful charges enforced by an industry infested with rogue traders. Not only does this impact residents/tenants, but this is disastrous for leaseholders that rent out their properties, as this will impact the attractiveness and value of their properties to future buyers.

Sippi themselves have an awful reputation, with billing discrepancies and payment processing issues creating additional charges, with little in the way of customer support to dispute these charges. They have a rating of just 1.3 on TrustPilot.

Urgent action needed

Included in this envelope are two identical copies of a letter to our management agency opposing the proposed parking management changes. If you are the owner of your leasehold, we encourage you to sign the letter and drop it into the letterbox of [MY FLAT NUMBER]. If you are a tenant, we urge you to do the same, as well as share the second copy with your landlord. This impacts both you and your landlord.

Alternatively, please share your landlord’s contact details with me and I will contact them directly. Please email me at [EMAIL].

With swift collective action we can stop this sham of ‘parking management’ being put in place.

Many thanks,

Letter 2 to management company:

Re - (address of properties - FORMAL COMPLAINT REJECTING PERMIT SCHEME)

We the undersigned, object to any proposed 'parking management' in the strongest terms and unequivocally reject the unsolicited permits foisted upon residents. We will not be bound by any terms unlawfully imposed upon us.

The background:

In April 2026, Sippi distributed letters stating that parking enforcement would begin at St Augustine Court from 11 May 2026. Three permits have been issued per flat. Neither the residents, nor even a majority of the leaseholders, were consulted when you contracted with an external company regarding a parking regime, and due to your significant oversight you must cease and desist with your planned parking enforcement.

The legal position - derogation from grant and breach of L&T Act 1987

Your actions now in imposing an unwanted private nuisance of Sippi are unlawful and a derogation from grant.

As our lease states, we have “[t]he right for the Tenant or a member of his household to the exclusive use of Car Parking Space numbered [X] on the Plan for the purpose of parking a private motor car belonging to the Tenant or a member of his household or guest as the case may be.”

As such, we require Sippi to be removed and any plans for their use to be retracted immediately. If you have signed a contract with Sippi, that is your issue to rescind and as residents, we will not be liable for any wasted costs due to your actions.

We sincerely hope the matter can be resolved amicably without legal action or related costs.

You are advised that as a Managing Agent, you (and even the freeholder) cannot take unilateral steps to change or remove such a fundamental amenity as parking. Further, you/the freeholder may not impose (or allow an agent to impose) 'parking charges' not covered within the leases.

The flat-owners position is that we have the benefit of rights and/or an easement allowing cars to be parked on servient land and this benefit cannot be removed, charged for, extinguished, adversely changed with onerous terms, nor resident access to spaces reduced.

Authorities which support our position include:(i) Kettel v Bloomfold [2012]EWHC 1422 (Ch) and(ii) Saeed v Plustrade Limited [2001] EWCA CIV 201, as well as(iii) the Winchester County court case of Roger Davey v UKPC [2013] where, in an Order by consent, the parking firm gave undertakings to the Court not to enter the Claimant's land and not to place any parking charge notices on the cars, and the Court ordered damages for trespass in a total of £150.00 and costs in the sum of £1280.26 which included the cost an injunction obtained by Mr Davey.

We respectfully suggest you must not allow your parking agents, of which are terribly reviewed - or any parking firm - to impose any terms upon us. The regime is void and rejected by residents, tenants and leaseholders alike.As stated in Section 37 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, in order to establish a right to impose unilateral terms which vary the terms of the lease, you must have such variation approved by at least 75% of the leaseholders with no more than 10% objecting.

We demand that Sippi is removed, and the scheme is stopped before it was due to be imposed on 11 May 2026. If this is not put to a halt in the next 7 days, we will be forced to take legal action and/or apply for an injunction and pass the costs to you and/or the freeholder and/or Sippi, as necessary, to prevent this private nuisance.

Yours sincerely,

Signature:NAME (leaseholder, FLAT _)

Signature:NAME (leaseholder, FLAT _)

Signature:NAME (resident/tenant, FLAT _)

Signature:NAME (resident/tenant, FLAT _)

Signature:

Date signed:

dazedandconfused2

@Rapacji @Coupon-mad @NeilCr apologies for the random tag, but given your experience in the previous thread referenced, I would really appreciate your help here. Many thanks.

Car1980

Sounds very good to me.

Separate to that you need to contact Sippi directly.

Inform them what your lease states, that you will not participate in any scheme or enter into any contract with them and that you withdraw any implied access to the area of land marked on the attached map.

Car1980

My other worry is that by being the one leading on this, my management company/the freeholder is going to view me as a troublemaker and make things difficult for me down the line.

I kicked off about the management company wanting to bring in clampers about 15 years ago. The only way they can make things difficult is with a sellers pack when you want to sell. In reality this was nothing more than a pile of accounts for the flat ie. a yearly statement of the monthly service charges and the insurance documents. You can get the insurance document direct from the insurer and I simply replicated the management company's letterhead and pasted all the payments and dates using my own bank statements! The buyer's solicitors didn't bat an eyelid.
Saved me about £500!

Fruitcake

Individual letters from numerous tenants will have a greater impact than one letter with a group of signatures. In addition, every effected tenant/resident/leaseholder should complain separately to their MP.

Imposing a scheme that will infringe upon your existing rights is called a derogation of grant.

Depending on each resident's status, the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 Act, Part IV, Section 37 (variation of a lease) may be relevant, and should be quoted where relevant in all correspondence.

Landlord and Tenant Act 1987

Coupon-mad

Well done for being so proactive. Looks great to me. You could also start a Whatsapp group for interested owners & tenants to discuss the progress and issues.

1505grandad

No doubt if anything happens the ppc will follow the ppss CoP:-

Even the latest unregulated ppssCoP (soon to be replaced by a proper regulated PPCoP by the Government) recognise/acknowledge this scam:-

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/AOS/Sector%20Code%20Templates/sectorsingleCodeofPracticeVersion1.1130225.pdf

"14

Relationship with landowner

NOTE 3: Particular care is needed to establish appropriate contractual terms, including the application of parking terms and conditions, in respect of controlled land where leaseholders may have rights that cannot be qualified or overruled e.g. by imposing a requirement on the resident of an apartment block to display a permit to park in contravention of their rights under their lease, or to ensure that free parking periods do not breach planning consents."

Half_way

Keep on pushing at the management comany/agents.

You should also remind them that they are jointly and severally liable for the actions of thier agents, this means that if their agents such as an un regulated parking company do something wrong, such as accessing personal data without just cause ie by issuing residents and/or their vehicles parking charge notices and/or harassment then they can be liable ( see UKPC vs Davey for more)

Keep the pressure up, odds on the management company has already signed the contract, but you need to make that their problem and not yours.

If a PPC is imposed then as a commercial company they will want a return on their assets, they usually provide their services "free" and make money by issuing parking charge notices, they will go for legitimate users of the parking spaces to make that money, from convoluted and onerous rules around where to display a permit to even insisting that all vehicles reverse into a space, to stopping people loading/unloading in areas where it is safer to do such a task.

The parking company, like any other private commercial company just wants to make money, and it will do so to the best of its abilities, and the trade assocations are there to help in that process.

You may have seen topics on here where a PPC has gone after a disabled/vulnerable person followed by comment stating "I bet the BPA/IPC are proud of this" and the short answer to that is that they will be, easy money, easy pickings, easy targets = higher profits, happy trade association.

It all comes down to increasing profits, margins, expanding the business ( so it can make even more) and so on.

Why have a gate that costs money to control access when you can have a PPC going after residents and non residentsd alike to make money

Parking should be simple, PPCs want to make it complicated