PCM Parking Charge Despite Landlord/Agent Authorisation

Pearls97

Hi everyone,I am seeking advice on a Letter Before Claim from BW Legal, acting on behalf of Parking Control Management (PCM), demanding £1,190 [BW Legal]. They state this is for 7 unpaid parking charges, but the letter lacks specific particulars (it just says "May park default" and "7 unpaid parking") [BW Legal]. I have already submitted a formal dispute and a Subject Access Request (SAR) to BW Legal to force a breakdown of the dates, times, and photos, and to place the case on a mandatory 30-day hold [BW Legal].The Situation & Contractual Nuances:
This occurred at my private rented residential property. My position has a few specific legal complexities:

1. The Lease & Agent Conduct: The tenancy agreement states that parking is included "if applicable"but does not explicitly name a fixed, numbered bay. However, the letting agent's direct actions made it clear that a parking space was part of my premises for my use. They explicitly assigned spaces to me, meaning the condition became fully "applicable" through the conduct of the landlord’s representative.
2. The Reason for the Tickets: The letting agent severely delayed delivering my physical permit. Because of their administrative delays, an employee from the letting agency explicitly instructed me in writing to park on-site without a permit displayed.
3. The "Ghost Ticket" / Notification Issue: I only ever received one physical ticket on my windshield during my stay, which I appealed independently. I never received windshield tickets or original letters for these other 7 charges. BW Legal claims letters were posted at the time, but none arrived. Because they didn't use windshield notices and I didn't receive the mail, I was kept completely in the dark until this £1,190 demand arrived [BW Legal].

The Evidence I Hold vs. Letting Agent Refusal:

• I have saved text messages from the letting agent explicitly instructing me to park without a permit during the permit delay.
• I have a written message from the letting agent explicitly admitting to an administrative errorregarding my parking management.
• The Problem: Despite admitting their mistake in writing, the letting agent is completely refusing to help me. They are brushing it off, claiming "it has nothing to do with them," and previously tried to use "GDPR issues" as an excuse not to contact PCM.

Kindly help me , I don’t think it’s fair and it’s causing me so stress and I already have health issues and this is worsening it .

UPDATE: BW Legal have offered to reduce the alleged £1,190 balance by 50% to £595.

I have not accepted, as I continue to dispute the charges. I was authorised to park, have evidence of the letting agent’s instructions and their admission of an administrative error

However they are also arguing that I parked it incorrectly and no in the confined bay , however the bay number is faded and the space in question would be very difficult to park 2 cars , if I park to the far right the driver can’t exit the car and to the far left the passengers can’t exit.

Please let me know your thoughts.

Thanks

Pearls97

Hi everyone,I am seeking advice on a Letter Before Claim from BW Legal, acting on behalf of Parking Control Management (PCM), demanding £1,190 [BW Legal]. They state this is for 7 unpaid parking charges, but the letter lacks specific particulars (it just says "May park default" and "7 unpaid parking") [BW Legal]. I have already submitted a formal dispute and a Subject Access Request (SAR) to BW Legal to force a breakdown of the dates, times, and photos, and to place the case on a mandatory 30-day hold [BW Legal].The Situation & Contractual Nuances:
This occurred at my private rented residential property. My position has a few specific legal complexities:

1. The Lease & Agent Conduct: The tenancy agreement states that parking is included "if applicable"but does not explicitly name a fixed, numbered bay. However, the letting agent's direct actions made it clear that a parking space was part of my premises for my use. They explicitly assigned spaces to me, meaning the condition became fully "applicable" through the conduct of the landlord’s representative.
2. The Reason for the Tickets: The letting agent severely delayed delivering my physical permit. Because of their administrative delays, an employee from the letting agency explicitly instructed me in writing to park on-site without a permit displayed.
3. The "Ghost Ticket" / Notification Issue: I only ever received one physical ticket on my windshield during my stay, which I appealed independently. I never received windshield tickets or original letters for these other 7 charges. BW Legal claims letters were posted at the time, but none arrived. Because they didn't use windshield notices and I didn't receive the mail, I was kept completely in the dark until this £1,190 demand arrived [BW Legal].

The Evidence I Hold vs. Letting Agent Refusal:

• I have saved text messages from the letting agent explicitly instructing me to park without a permit during the permit delay.
• I have a written message from the letting agent explicitly admitting to an administrative errorregarding my parking management.
• The Problem: Despite admitting their mistake in writing, the letting agent is completely refusing to help me. They are brushing it off, claiming "it has nothing to do with them," and previously tried to use "GDPR issues" as an excuse not to contact PCM.

Kindly help me , I don’t think it’s fair and it’s causing me so stress and I already have health issues and this is worsening it .

UPDATE: BW Legal have offered to reduce the alleged £1,190 balance by 50% to £595.

I have not accepted, as I continue to dispute the charges. I was authorised to park, have evidence of the letting agent’s instructions and their admission of an administrative error

However they are also arguing that I parked it incorrectly and no in the confined bay , however the bay number is faded and the space in question would be very difficult to park 2 cars , if I park to the far right the driver can’t exit the car and to the far left the passengers can’t exit.

Please let me know your thoughts.

Thanks

knightstyle

Expertss on here are very busy buy will help you. Meanwhile you must get a copy of the lease, not the tennancy one, the one your landlord got when they bought the flat.

Maybe a neighbour has one if the landlord is not forthcoming?

This document is crucial for you to get these awful PCNs cancelled. So this is your priority.

When you get it then quote what is says about parking on here for the experts to see and advise you on the way forward.

Car1980

Yes, you need the lease. Quite often the parking company has no rights whatsoever, but people don't check their flat's lease and just go along with it, especially if they're renting.

You need to find an owner occupier who can let you see a copy.

MrJenkinsEsq

If you can't find anyone willing to give you a copy for free they are often at HM Land Registry for a few £.

patient_dream

IMO, the letting agent is at fault and they admit it in writing.. Due to the delay to issue a valid permit, they should have whitelisted your car with the parking company.

You can involve the agent in court

£1190 claim from BWLEGAL is just a scam fake add-on. Max for 7 tickets is £700 which means that BWLEGAL is adding a feeble attempt of DOUBLE RECOVERY. That fake amount being £490 … £70 x 7 tickets. The courts do not allow double recovery

Also, contact the DVLA and ask how many times for your reg number did they request your data ?

Couple to what others have said above about the lease and the written evidence you have, BWLEGAL would be very foolish to go near a court

1505grandad

As above re all the comments about the lease - this is because the following may be relevant to your case:-

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."

Coupon-mad

Please show us this letter that you say:

"states this is for 7 unpaid parking charges, but the letter lacks specific particulars (it just says "May park default" and "7 unpaid parking")"

I'd like to see that.

You realise the DVLA had the car still registered to your old address after you moved? Did you update your V5C now, or does it still have your old address?

Perdusys1955

Screenshot 2026-10-05 144441.png

Screenshot 2026-10-05 145540.png

I have used the DPO email address given on that link, although it doesn't seem to apply directly to POPLA. Previous correspondence regarding this parking ticket came from the POPLA complaints department, and that's who I had asked for the DPO contact details from.

I have done some more research at the actual car park, and still dispute the major keying error, I have attached two screenshots from a video I made of what happens if you try to enter just one letter as they indicate. As POPLA have reversed their decision, should I wait until ECP issue court and debt collection threats, or should I send the images to them and ask them how it can be a major keying error? Also, the schedule of payments they used for evidence that the machine was working correctly will only show those married up with registrations, not anything that was rejected. It shows transactions from 15:18 to 18:15, our entry time was 15:33 and exit at 16:07.

The screenshots show that you cannot select "proceed" with one letter, it is grayed out. You can proceed after three letters have been entered, but it tells you that it is an incorrect registration and expects you to either re enter the correct one, or put in a time, which you would obviously know you had done. Looking at the time of the video, and the default time on the machine is some two hours before the video was taken.

Are you still of the opinion this needs to be followed up as the re-assessment should not have been allowed?

Timewarp

For context: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82145921/#Comment_82145921

Gr1pr

Is this related to a previous thread. ?

If yes, report it and ask for it to be merged, because it should explain some of your statements in the first post where previous information is missing ( or explain the background. )