Have you now read the threads by hairray and Daniel san? No links, go find.

Hey Coupon - Yes been spending a lot of time reading it and up to about here:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5588292&highlight=hairray&page=5# topofpage

Interestingly enough, the situation is different and the same in the sense of the fact I did have a permit, but the point about the wording in the lease seems to be the interesting one.

I have a 38 page lease so I'm in the process of reading through that word for word. The wording seems to be nearly identical to that of in the link above but I'll take some screenshots and upload shortly.

The question here is once POPLA deny my appeal (I do regret sending that before coming here but there we go), do I go with constructing/submitting an LBC to them about tresspass, or do I just wait through the debt collector letters and see if it goes away?

Interestingly enough, a friend in the development received a ticket. He ignored it and after a year, everything stopped. I'm wondering if by submitting an LBC and pushing things, it would make things worse for me.

BUT - on the other side, I'm furious enough to want to make life difficult for them too. I'm in contact with our management company, who aren't the freeholders, but I'm making them aware of the situation here and the absurdity. They seem to defend P4Parking right now saying the signs are clear and obvious, so I'm pushing back on them saying that WE hire P4Parking to protect our rights as residents etc.

The other problem I forsee with pursuing action first is simply time - There's a LOT of stuff to do here, and with a baby and a full time job, I get anxiety just reading that thread into how much work I'd have to do here to take it all the way.

Appreciate your opinion on this!

........... so far. They have six years to pursue a debt (real or alleged). Your friend should get prepared!

This forum is riddled with ignored parking tickets that rear their ugly heads many years after the parking event. Then the task becomes a more difficult one to deal with once court proceedings are involved.

Well - Crap! So sometimes 5 years may go by and then an LBC pops up?

In that case, it definitely sounds like going on the offensive is needed. I'll go through the lease with a fine tooth comb later today and post the sections that relate to parking. It looks like it will be a mirror of hairray however.

Re your neighbour, that's just the way it goes sometimes. Some people get ticketed, others don't. Some tickets get enforced, some don't. Don't assume you will be lucky.


The management company will probably be acting as agent of the freeholder - there'll be something in the lease about their powers.
The crux of this is "estate regulations" or the equivalent, and the power to introduce new regulations. You need to look carefully at how they are defined. There was a case recently (someone may know it, I think it was probably on Parking Prankster's site and it's certainly been mentioned recently on another residential parking thread, in the last week or so) where the lease said something like the new regulations were to be for the comfort and convenience of residents. The judge decided that the parking regulations did not fit that definition. Another judge may say they do, that's DJ bingo (I know that here in Swansea there is one DJ who regularly finds that new parking regulations are permitted under these clauses as he mutters under his breath about how his daughter lived in a block where there was a problem with rogue parkers and how reasonable it is to bring in a ppc to tackle the issue).


In hairray's case, the estate regulations all seemed to be about things you couldn't do rather than things you had to do, and they were all about the common parts but not about the car park - eg you couldn't play ball games, ride a horse, have a BBQ, that sort of thing. So I would have said that parking regulations were neither for residents' comfort and convenience nor within the meaning of the regulations. Plus in addition there is no power at all to require you to pay anything other than what's in your lease - so you cannot be obliged to pay contractual charges to a 3rd party for failing to comply with a new "regulation", they can only charge you ground rent and whatever else the lease says. Nor is there any power to impose on you a contractual relationship with a third party. And there's certainly nothing permitting them to do anything on your space or to your car. No stepping foot on the space, no touching your car.


There is also a technical leasehold argument that where they want to vary leases they have to follow a certain procedure. See if you can find that on a thread here (try advanced searching for words/phrases like alteration of lease, or the Law of Property Act or Leasehold). If you can't find it, just search out as many residential cases as you can find and read all of them. Concentrate first on threads started in the last 3 months rather than older ones (with the exception of hairray and danielsan).


Now onto this business of logging your VRN with them. It is clear that this was intended (if not expressly said at the time) to be a back up system for cancelling PCNs issued to genuine residents. otherwise, what was the point of logging your VRN? So I'd say that if any contract did exist, then it was an implied term of that contract that if something went wrong and you received a pcn, then it would be cancelled once it was known that your car was on the whitelist, or whatever.


Another legal argument for when the time comes is that again, if there is a contract, the breach of it was de minimis because rather than displaying the permit in your windscreen, it was on the front seat of the car, face up and in full view (and this is obvious because the operator took a photo from a very awkward angle, in a clear attempt to disguise the fact that (s)he could see your permit quite clearly).


These contractual arguments are for when the time comes to answer any LBC and defend proceedings. In the meantime, I'd get on with reading that lease and going on the offensive with the freeholder and the management company and the PPC. I would mention at this stage to the PPC that when you were asked to provide your VRN it was clearly for the purposes of a residents' "whitelist" so that any pcn given to a genuine residents could be cancelled.

Thanks so much for that reply and appreciate all the detail again. I'm aware P4Parking have *never* had a known case go to court (someone mentioned that earlier?) - If that's true, does that not strengthen the position of doing nothing or would you still suggest pursuing further?

We actually changed our management company in the development recently so replaced the original management company (who were the people who told me about the number plate optional requirement for this purpose). The new management company today sent me an email saying they did not know why I was told that, and also did not know anything about the "optional" element of registering a number plate as they "had not yet seen a permit without a numberplate registered" <-- This is quite odd - I imagine if I just go around the car park I'd see loads without one as it was totally optional and not required.

I have thought about applying for a new permit and saying I don't know what the number plate would be so getting a blank one, to show them the paradox.

I have provided quotes below from my lease that refer to the car parking spot and regulations. You'll see identical language from the other thread. Would I use this when emailing the management company (not the freeholder, or both?) telling them to get the permit cancelled? The management company implied they have no right to request the PPC to be rescinded in an earlier email to me as I didn't meet the rules specified on the boards that are visible around the development.

Quotes below. I've had to type this as the scanned lease isn't clear enough for copy/paste (unless I sent screenshots) so apologies for any typos. There is also more text about having the right for the management company or 3rd parties to access the property for certain reasons around maintenance etc but nothing about parking regulation access etc:

Can I check something. Who is the freeholder? It's just that you have said "we" a couple of times. "We have just changed the management company." "We are reviewing the contract".

It sounds from that that you guys own the freehold.

That's just me using bad wording.

I am the leaseholder. The freehold was last year sold to Mainstay from the building developer. The management company switched hands from the original management company, to a different one which the residents voted on and took over the development 6 months ago.

P4Parking were instructed, I'm assuming by the old management company, when I first moved in 3 years ago. The development was built in phases. I bought off-plan in the 2nd to last phase but I imagine P4Parking were instructed before I moved in due to the other parts of the development being live?

So when i say we.. I'm talking about me and my wife really

Just adding to this, I received this from the management company over email:
However, I have just double checked the parking lot and checked 10 cars. ALL 10 cars had permits WITHOUT a registration on them. In fact, I couldn't find a car that did other than mine (!!!!) - So while Alan and this management company are only 6 months in, there is clearly a discrepancy between what was expected. Why on earth would anyone register a number plate voluntary to be permanent on the permit if it was optional?

Merciless lapdog, read this and complain to your MP

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?377246-UKPC-liable-for-trespass-**SUCCESS**

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, and another company have already been named and shamed, as has Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each year). They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

Hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned.

The problem has become so rampant that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers. Watch the video of the Second Reading in the HofC recently.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

and complain in the most robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be out of business by Christmas.

Thanks! I've written to my local MP with a long and strong note about what's happened here. Meanwhile look forward to other responses of my queries above.

So why didn't the new ManCo kick out the scumbags? Do it now.

I've been told by a fellow resident (who's on the residential board) that they are reviewing the termination process but that can only be confirmed once we've got a replacement. We do have problems with unauthorised parking over the development blocking access to emergency services from some housing association tenants so I think they do want to progress with some form of protection against that.

But I think it's pretty clear that they should be acting in the best interest of the owners, not of their own pockets.

" for the benefit of use and enjoyment of the Development or any part thereof"

Claiming your right to park can be removed or fettered isnt to your benefit or enjoyment
Claiming you are required to entere a contract in order to park, and can be charged £100 for the privilege, likewise.

Tell your M Co to get it cancelled, as they are liable for the actions of their agents. Their agents are trying to interfere with your lease, which is a tort.

Hi There

So they've already told me they won't be able to interfere with the ticket but I'm thinking of sending the following - any advice?

"Dear Sir

Thanks for getting back to me yesterday regarding the queries I had on my recent parking ticket.

I've read through my lease in detail and can confirm that the terms of my lease have been broken by P4Parking, and the contract undertaken by the management of the development to enforce rules that I never agreed to as a resident.

There is a specific term in the lease that defines Estate Regulations as "for the benefit of use and enjoyment of the Development of any part thereof" - In this particular case, removing my legal right to park is not related to displaying any such permit.

In addition, I have not entered into any contract that would charge me £100 (the P4Parking ticket cost) for the privilege of using my right to park in my Allocated Parking Space.

I would also like to point out that, contrary to your email, it appears that many permits do not have a number plate registered with them. I must pose the question to you as to what benefit there would be for the resident to register a number plate on a permit, if not to ensure a central system has a record of which car should be parked in which spot?

As you are liable for the actions of the 3rd party in this particular situation due to conflicting with my lease agreement, I would appreciate your immediate action to have this ticket withdrawn. The 3rd party is interfering with my lease, which is a tort.

Please let me know if you'd like any further information to help in ensuring a quick resolution. I'm also aware that you're currently reviewing potential replacements for P4Parking, and I would strongly recommend ensuring that our lease agreement is not broken by any other 3rd party.

Yours Faithfully,

[Name, address, date, number etc...]

How does this sound as a first message to the management company? I don't have the "senior managers" name but assuming my contact (Alan) will forward appropriately.

It looks like it has covered the bases but the issue with all MA's is that they have no money. If you sue them (as you can) it will be you and the others that have to cough up.

Bottom line is you have actually to be merciless in all this and follow through / upset the others.

Isn't the way to start and end a business letter that may be a precursor to a legal fight. Far too chummy.

Dear Mr ...... / Yours sincerely

Dear Sir / Yours faithfully

Thanks - I only know the person at the management company as Alan so will go with the Dear Sir and yours sincerely. Updated.

Nope! You will go with Dear Sir / Yours faithfully.

'Yours sincerely' is used when the salutation includes the person's name.

Did you not cover this in 'letter writing' lessons in school? It was drummed into me.