PCM Parking Charge in own residential bay

dogbyquack

Hello!

I’m looking for advice on a residential parking charge which has now progressed to a Letter of Claim.

I’m a private tenant of a leasehold flat in West Sussex. My tenancy agreement was in force on 19 March 2026, when PCM (Parking Control Management UK Ltd) issued a parking charge.

The allegation is:

“Parked without clearly displaying a valid PCM UK Ltd permit (at time of enforcement).”

The vehicle was wholly within the dedicated parking space allocated to my flat. The permit was inside the vehicle but had apparently rolled/fallen off the dashboard.

My tenancy agreement says:

“To park in the space allocated to the Premises, if the Tenant is allocated a car parking space.”

There is no permit/display requirement in the parking provisions of my tenancy agreement.

I also have a welcome guide supplied with the property which states that the flats have dedicated parking spaces and identifies the relevant space as being allocated to my flat.

The tenancy agreement also says that I must observe the non-financial covenants in the headlease, and states that a copy of the headlease was provided to me before the tenancy. I was never provided with a copy of the headlease. I’ve now asked my letting agent for it.

PCM initially rejected/failed to process my appeal on the basis that they didn’t have proof I was the registered keeper, although I supplied the V5C with my appeal. The charge subsequently went to a debt collector, increasing to £170.

I’ve now received a Letter of Claim from Moorside Legal for £170. The letter is dated 14 August 2026, although I didn’t actually receive it until 3 September.

I’ve contacted the relevant property/housing organisations to establish who appointed PCM and whether the charge can be cancelled. I’m also trying to obtain the headlease.

Questions:

1. Given that I’m a tenant rather than the leaseholder, does my tenancy agreement give me sufficient contractual rights to rely on the principle of primacy of contract?
2. If the headlease contains a permit requirement, can that requirement be relied upon against me when I was never provided with the headlease?
3. Does PCM need to demonstrate that its contract with the freeholder/management company actually permits it to enforce against residents using their allocated spaces?
4. What documents should I specifically request from Moorside/PCM in response to the Letter of Claim?
5. Is there anything else I should be doing at this stage?

I have copies/photos of the tenancy agreement, welcome guide, PCM correspondence, debt collection letter and Letter of Claim and can provide redacted extracts if helpful.

Thanks in advance.

PS - I have already paid a total of £100 in PCNs during the tenancy - what are my chances of getting them back via MCOL?

Car1980

Yes get hold of the lease. Try asking another owner-occupier in the building as well in case your letting agent lets you down. The tenancy agreement is helpful with what it says, but the lease is what matters.

Not much else you can do until you get hold of that. I would just ignore the letter of claim.

The permit was inside the vehicle but had apparently rolled/fallen off the dashboard.

How does the permit fix?


For your paid PCNs you would counterclaim for £300 when they put their claim in, which would cost you £35. But it most likely to have to be on the basis of what the lease says.

1505grandad

FYI - 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/sectorsingleCodeofPracticeVersion1.1130426-2.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."

dogbyquack

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82125289#Comment_82125289

thanks for responding! The permit was issued with a shiny plastic side and a paper side. This causes it to curl when the sun shines on it. After this last PCN I bought a self adhesive permit holder, but the curling of the permit caused this to detach itself from the windscreen. Suffice to say I have been very careful to never forget to place the permit on my new car, which is a lease. Thus far no more PCNs. I am moving out at the end of the month so have to be very careful now

Car1980

In that case I would reply to the Letter of Claim and tell them your new address, and keep evidence of doing so.

The permit was issued with a shiny plastic side and a paper side. This causes it to curl when the sun shines on it.

When / if the time comes I would just stick to that point: the permit supplied falls off when the sun hits it. It's not your responsibility if they supply something that triggers a breach of their own contract. No need to mention anything else about the permit.

Coupon-mad

"I am moving out at the end of the month"

Oh dear - that is the biggest danger because a court claim could go to this old address. That's how people get CCJs from parking firms.

So I would respond to Moorside's LBC by email, saying you are seeking debt advice from Citizens Advice (BUT in reality DON'T, because they are terrible at private parking law, clueless).

Tell them to put the case on hold for the required 30 days for debt advice, after which your new address is xxxxxx xxxxxxx and they must erase the old address and not use it for service of court papers.

Also tell them that you have a right to park in your lease and were duped by PCM into paying £100 that was never valid, and as such you will counterclaim for that plus a further £200 as a remedy for harassment of a resident and DVLA data abuse which has caused immense distress and driven you to leave.

(Then send the same sort of thing to your Housing Association and DEMAND they cancel these unfair PCNs forthwith or you will name them as a party in the counterclaim case and will require the name of the Officer or Manager who will appear in court next year).

dogbyquack

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82126187#Comment_82126187

Fantastic advice, thank you!

I should add that when I moved in to the apartment, there was no permit in the welcome pack.

I was given the first ticket on the second day after moving in, then had to pay them £15 for a useless permit that rolls off the dashboard.

Do I have any case to ask for the cost of that permit back as well (if the headlease supports it of course)?

Coupon-mad

Well you can add that to your rationale for counterclaim but I think £300 is the ceiling for a cheap £35 punt, which is why we often suggest it.

MrJenkinsEsq

Various relevant authorities. Good reading if you're an insomniac like me. If you can't find the lease it's likely at HM Land Registry which you can get for a few pounds.

The scheme cannot bind a leaseholder at all.

Browne v Flower [1911] 1 Ch 219 (High Court; the foundation case). A landlord cannot do things that make what it granted much harder to use for the purpose it was granted for.

Harmer v Jumbil (Nigeria) Tin Areas Ltd [1921] 1 Ch 200 (Court of Appeal). A landlord cannot give with one hand and take away with the other.

Southwark LBC v Mills [2001] 1 AC 1 (House of Lords). A landlord is not liable for what already existed at the date of the grant, but is liable for new interference it or its agents create afterwards. The tenants lost on the facts.

Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011 (Court of Appeal). A lease gave the landlord an express power to specify from time to time where tenants could park. That power allowed the landlord to change the location, but nothing in the lease allowed it to extinguish or substantially interfere with the right itself.

B&Q plc v Liverpool and Lancashire Properties Ltd [2001] 1 EGLR 92 (High Court, widely followed). Interference is actionable where the right can no longer be used as easily and fully as before, not only where it is blocked entirely.

Platt v London Underground Ltd [2001] 2 EGLR 121 (High Court, Neuberger J). The measure is the nature and extent of what was granted, judged by the purpose of the transaction in the circumstances existing at the time of the grant.

Carnegie v Nolan, 19 March 2018 (High Court; unreported). A right to park in a defined area "or such other area as the grantor may designate from time to time" did not permit the grantor to move the spaces 375 metres away. Applying Platt, it was implicit that any re-designation leave the spaces substantially as convenient as before, and the re-designation was a derogation from grant.

Moncrieff v Jamieson [2007] UKHL 42 (House of Lords). A right to park can be a proper legal right attached to the property rather than a permission capable of being withdrawn or conditioned.

Batchelor v Marlow [2001] EWCA Civ 1051, [2003] 1 WLR 764 (Court of Appeal, softened by Moncrieff). Sets the limit on when a parking right qualifies as such a legal right. It went against the party claiming the right (on their particular facts but the principle holds).

Kettel v Bloomfold Ltd [2012] EWHC 1422 (Ch) (High Court). Leaseholders held real rights to their marked spaces and the landlord had no power to interfere with them. Distinguishable where the lease expressly permits relocation.

Duval v 11-13 Randolph Crescent Ltd [2020] UKSC 18 (Supreme Court, though the parking application is a generalisation from its facts). A landlord cannot exercise its powers in a way that cuts across the scheme of obligations the lease already creates.

Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd, B9GF0A9E (2016, Oxford County Court on appeal, HHJ Harris QC). A resident's lease rights prevailed over a parking scheme imposed later by the management company.

Pace Recovery and Storage Ltd v Mr N, C6GF14F0, 16 September 2016, Croydon County Court, DJ Coonan. The tenancy agreement gave an unrestricted right to park with no permit condition attached, and a third party could not unilaterally alter that agreement.

Pace Recovery and Storage Ltd v Mr N, C7GF51J1 (2016). Pace relied on a clause allowing the terms to be varied. The clause required a month's notice, none was given, and that claim plus seven others relying on the same point were dismissed. The operator must prove the agreement was actually varied, and varied by the lessor, not merely that a power to vary exists.

Link Parking Ltd v Ms P, C7GF50J7, 2 November 2016, Wrexham County Court. A permit requirement could not override a flat owner's right to park in her own assigned space.

Control of a landlord's discretionary powers under the lease

Socimer International Bank v Standard Bank [2008] EWCA Civ 116 (Court of Appeal) A contractual discretion is limited by good faith and rationality.

Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust v Compass Group [2013] EWCA Civ 200 (Court of Appeal). Distinguishes an absolute contractual right from a decision-making power subject to control.

Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd [2015] UKSC 17 (Supreme Court). A contractual discretion must be exercised in good faith, on relevant considerations, and not arbitrarily or irrationally.

Making a rule and charging for breach are separate powers

Arnold v Britton [2015] UKSC 36 (Supreme Court). The lease means what it says, a power to charge will not be read in where it was never agreed, and general words in a payment clause do not capture things that do not clearly belong in them.

Gilje v Charlgrove Securities Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1777 (Court of Appeal). Clear words are required before a leaseholder can be made to pay, and ambiguity is read against the landlord.

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, Schedule 11 (statute). A sum demanded in connection with a breach of the lease is an administration charge, payable only if provided for in the lease and reasonable, and not payable at all unless the demand carries the prescribed summary of rights. An administration charge is one payable by a tenant to a landlord, so this catches on the landlord or managing agent and not directly on a parking operator charging outside the lease.

Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, ss 18, 19, 27A (statute). The equivalent controls and tribunal route for service charges.

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, s 168 (statute). A tribunal determination that a breach occurred is required before forfeiture can even be threatened. The lease remedies are damages, injunction and forfeiture, not a self-declared fixed sum.

A charge for breach of a lease obligation as a penalty

Cavendish Square Holding BV v Makdessi and ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 (Supreme Court). A sum triggered by breach is unenforceable unless it protects a genuine interest and is not out of all proportion to it. Beavis turned on a fresh bargain struck on entering a free car park, which is not the position of a resident who already holds a parking right under a lease.

Vivienne Westwood Ltd v Conduit Street Development Ltd [2017] EWHC 350 (Ch) (High Court). A landlord's financial consequence for tenant breach was struck out as an unenforceable penalty.

Unfair and unclear terms in the lease and any scheme built on it (note, this is not the parking terms themselves directly)

Consumer Rights Act 2015, s 62 and Sch 2 paras 6 and 11 (statute). Terms imposing a disproportionately high sum for a failure to perform, and terms allowing a business to vary the contract unilaterally, are both grey-listed and open to a fairness challenge.

Consumer Rights Act 2015, s 69 (statute). Ambiguity is resolved in the consumer's favour.

What a third party can take from the lease

Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (statute). A stranger to the lease takes no rights under it unless the lease provides otherwise, and most leases exclude the Act.

Coupon-mad

That's an impressive list of cases against a derogation from grant. Very useful post.

kryten3000

Can you get video of the permit curling up in the sun? Might be useful.