District Enforcement - Chancers!

1) Your point referring me to 1.1.14 of Schedule 7 is extremely helpful. Could you please inform me what the principles of good estate management are and who they were set out by?

Response:
As voluntary members of ARMA (Association of Residential Managing Agents) and RICS (Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, both of whom are regulatory bodies for the industry, we adhere to their Codes of Practice. These documents included good estate management and are available for review online.

2) The clause states that the service or amenity provided is 'for the benefit of the tenants and occupiers of the Building' and that the Landlord must use 'reasonable discretion'. The parking conditions displayed on the signs allow for charging of residents if they do not display a permit, even if they have a right to park there. How is that for the benefit of myself and other residents who have the right to park? You cannot provide a service to me which restricts my right to park only when a permit is displayed. It is not a service, but a penalty. This is not in the interest of residents who rightfully park.

Response:
If a valid permit is on display, residents do not receive a parking fine. Those who have parked illegally i.e. non-residents, are provided with a ticket. The property had ongoing issues with commercial parking and parking by those utilising the commercial unit. We therefore strongly dispute the services provided, by use of a parking enforcement company, are not beneficial to residents.

3) I would refer you to case law from the Croydon County Court, specifically CS034 PACE v Mr N COGF14F0.

Response: The caselaw referenced is specific to a tenancy agreement, not a lease and is therefore not applicable to your complaint.

4) I invite you to read the opening paragraph, which is a near identical situation to the one we find ourselves
in. In brief, it was found that in order to impose parking restrictions on residents the Lessee must amend the terms of the Lease to restrict the right to park. The Landlord and Tenants Act stipulates that they must apply for a variation of the Lease and reach a consensus to do so. No such variation has been made. I also note that no official communication has been received from IPM regarding any enforcement of parking, only a letter from District Enforcement, which I can provide if requested. Please advise me if this is incorrect and the date of any correspondence relating to parking enforcement restrictions from IPM.

Response: Your statement is incorrect. The County Court have no powers in relation to a leasehold dispute. This would have been held by The First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). I would again refer you to clause 1.1.14 of Schedule 7 as noted within Wendy's original complaint response. Clauses of this nature are known as a Sweep Clause or Sweeping Clause as it implies the clause will "sweep in" or "collect" any items that may have otherwise been missed; consequently, the sweeping clause is a clause wide in range or effect that collects what might otherwise be missed. A letter was issued by the Property Manager on 13 August 2018, which I have attached for your records. This was sent to owners and subtenants, where known. Your statement is therefore incorrect.

(They didn't attach the letter and we received no letter)

5) I put it to you that you have not used reasonable and sound judgement in selecting a parking enforcement
company whose terms allow for charging and pursuing legal action against tenants who have the right to park.

Response: Your statement is disputed due to the information we have provided.

6) Your point stating virtually every lease contains a quiet enjoyment clause is correct and they do so for good reason. If I were to lose or have my permit stolen, I would be required to pay for a new one, would I not? And without a permit I would be indiscriminately charged and threatened with legal action for parking in my rightful space, would I not? Please tell me how that would not constitute substantial interference with using my parking space.

Response: I confirm you would be required to obtain a replacement permit should yours become lost or stolen. This would be the same situation should you have an entrance fob to a car park with a gate/barrier, which are also a preventative measure to assist residents in relation to illegal parking on site.

7) Again, I request you instruct District Enforcement Ltd to cease and desist from enforcing unlawful parking
terms on my parking space.

Response: The parking enforcement will remain in operation at the property. Should you fail to display a valid parking permit you will be treated as per any other resident and receive a parking enforcement notice. Your statement in relation to enforcing unlawful parking terms is incorrect.

8) I hereby put you on notice that should District Enforcement ever ticket cars in my space again, and/or
obtain my (or my visitors') data from the DVLA, I will sue IPM and District Enforcement jointly for harassment and data misuse, as there is no legitimate interest in charging residents who have the right to park, and you are guilty of a derogation from grant.

Response: A derogation from grant is an implied term within a lease and therefore open to interpretation. It is the general legal principle that if the landlord agrees to give a benefit to the leaseholder, then the landlord should not proceed to do something that substantially deprives the leaseholder of the enjoyment of that benefit. I would that reiterate that parking enforcement was put in place due to illegal parking by those who did not reside at the development. The landlord thereby provided parking enforcement for the benefit of the residents to prevent use of their spaces by others.


There is no misuse of data despite your assertions to the contrary. However, should you wish to escalate this I would propose you liaise with the Information Commissioners Office who will be able to provide clarity.

9) If you remain unsure of your position, I suggest you seek legal advice, but you have already been informed that my space is lawfully opted out of any 'parking scheme' you think you can impose on me, contrary to the rights and easements I already enjoy.

Response: I assure you we are fully aware of our legal position. Furthermore I would confirm you are unable to opt out of a parking enforcement scheme adopted by our client at their development.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing in compliance with the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct with regards to the following matters which have arisen between us:

On the 22nd October 2018, I received a Parking Charge Notice from your agent District Enforcement Limited, for an alleged non-display of a parking permit. This was later cancelled after intervention from Inspired Property Management confirming I had displayed a valid permit and the PCN was issued “in error”. District Enforcement had insisted for months that I had not displayed a permit and persisted in demanding payment.

I do not trust or believe your agents to be competent in fair parking enforcement. Therefore, on the 13th January 2019, I raised a formal complaint with your Management Agent requesting that the parking space, which was paid for and demised to the Leaseholder, be opted out of the car parking scheme as enforcement of parking upon this space is derogation from grant. I have spoken to your management agent on behalf of the Leaseholder as they are a family member and have given me authority to do so.

Your Management Agents have repeatedly dismissed my simple request that the apartment be opted out of the parking scheme which states I will receive a PCN if I do not display a permit, even if I have the right to park in the parking space. This is unlawful as this is not stated in the Lease and no variation to the Lease has been made.

As a result of these matters, I am entitled to and intend to claim the sum of £250 plus legal costs.

In addition, I also claim the following:

Exemption from any parking scheme your agents insist on imposing.

I intend to rely on the following documents in support of my claim:

The lease between yourself and the leaseholder of Apartment.

PACE vs Mr N Case No. C6GF14F0
Link Parking vs Parkinson Case No. C7GF50J7
Jopson vs Homeguard Case No. 9GF0A9E

The above are all case law which set precedent for private parking enforcement on residential land. I would invite you to read them online as they are easily accessible.

If you dispute my claim, I can confirm that I would be agreeable to mediation and would consider any other system of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in order to avoid the need for this matter to be resolved by the courts.

In this regard, I would invite you to put forward any proposals.

In closing, I would draw your attention to paragraphs 15 and 16 of the Practice Direction which gives the courts the power to impose sanctions on the parties if they fail to comply with the direction including failing to respond to this letter before claim.

I look forward to hearing from you within the next 28 days.

Should I not receive a response to my letter within this time frame, then I anticipate that court action will be commenced with no further reference to you.
Yours sincerely,
Tentatively