...and then the paragraph numbering disappeared completely when I pressed 'Submit Reply' - curiouser and curiouser indeed!

Some discussion about the legalities involved and a link to The Parking Prankster's page on the matter followed by these questions:

1. What is the name of the company that XXXX contracted with to enforce the parking scheme?

1. Or alternatively, what is the company number as registered at Companies House?

2. On what date was the contract signed?

1. Does a physical contract even exist?

2. If so, may I see an un-redacted copy of it?

3. By what legal right was this contract entered into and enforced upon the leaseholders? (existing clause in the lease, Deed of Variation, etc)

4. Does XXXX consider vehicles without permits to be trespassing?

5. Does XXXX receive commission or other monies from the parking company?

6. Is there any evidence that the aforementioned leaseholder consultation took place?

1. How many leaseholders were there at the time?

2. How many voted in favour of the parking scheme?

3. How many voted against?

4. How many did not vote?

5. What was the wording of the proposal?

You have set out specific information you are seeking and I am currently liaising with [redacted], Head of Housing, to understand the level of detail we are able to provide to you.

Fundamentally, however, I am aware the parking enforcement was introduced as there were a number of incidents of ‘trespass’, where our residents’ parking spaces were being used by non-residents.

I understand that, legally, there would not normally be any requirement to consult where there is no cost incurred by residents (permits are provided free of charge and there is no financial contribution required for the upkeep of the contract). [Except for the £100 per day charge!]

However, your email does raise some valid and very interesting legal points, particularly about ‘ownership’ of the parking space and the rights we have to introduce parking enforcement. I will seek to provide you with as much information as I am able.

I understand that, legally, there would not normally be any requirement to consult where there is no cost incurred by residents ...permits are provided free of charge.

and there is no financial contribution required for the upkeep of the contract

Fundamentally, however, I am aware the parking enforcement was introduced as there were a number of incidents of ‘trespass’, where our residents’ parking spaces were being used by non-residents.

Could someone explain the procedure for getting an injunction against the parking company? I've found a form online called N16A that looks like the right thing but I'm not sure how that ties in with a claim.

My plan now is to just go after the parking company, get the injunction, then show that to the MA and hope they see the light.

As I mentioned at the outset of our exchange of correspondence, your email of 21 September 2018 raised some interesting legal points. To enable me to understand the merits of the argument you were putting forward I have consulted with our Housing Team and also with our Leasehold and Service Charge Team.




The fundamental finding (as defined in the particulars of the lease) is that the demised premises include the flat but, crucially, not the parking space. A parking space is allocated within the lease (third schedule, paragraph 7) whereby you have the right to park within the common parts of the development.




The car park spaces are within the common parts of the estate (section 1 of the lease, paragraph 2(b)). The landlord’s covenant includes a requirement for us to maintain the common parts (section 5 of the lease, paragraph 4(c)).




Also, the landlord has the power to alter the arrangement and extent of the common parts (section 6 of the lease, paragraph 8). On this latter point, for example, if we needed to carry out work which required us to cordon off the parking bay you currently use it would be incumbent upon ourselves to provide you with appropriate parking facilities.




Section 7 of the lease, specifically paragraph 5 (c)), covers the service charge and within it provision is made for the recovery of reasonable costs incurred in relation to the management of common parts.




Essentially as the landlord, it is within our gift to make changes which will enhance our residents’ quality of life. We would consider it reasonable, therefore, to introduce a parking enforcement scheme where there have been incidents of ‘trespass’ (non-residents using parking bays) reported to us. The scheme costs our residents nothing financially, the only requirement being that those who are entitled to park do display the appropriate permit, available free of charge from our adjoining office.




We do not consider it to be vital to your understanding as to why we have elected to introduce such a scheme, as the lease grants us the provision to alter the arrangement and extent of the common parts in our duty as the landlord, freeholder and/or managing agent.




Your arguments essentially are legal in nature, and I repeat I personally find them to be very interesting. However, within the context of customer complaint management, I have to advise that your arguments would be best served by approaching the appropriate judicial body should you wish to challenge this further. Our complaints policy specifically excludes certain types of complaint, legal arguments being one of those. I have attached a copy of our information booklet and draw to your attention page three and the specific exclusion:



a complaint about a decision where a statutory appeal body or tribunal has been established to examine the case (such as the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal)





In the first instance I would recommend you consult the independent Leasehold Advisory Service website, https://www.lease-advice.org/. The advice therein should be able to inform you as to whether there are merits to your case, and whether this is something which could be considered further by the First Tier Tribunal, essentially a legal process.




In reaching my determination, specifically not to uphold your complaint, I have presented my findings to an internal complaints panel, which considers all Stage Two cases where we determine we need to give an adverse decision within our pilot complaint management scheme in the East Midlands.




The panel comprises colleagues at Director and Service Head level. The panel have supported my decision based on the information presented within the lease and agreed that there are no grounds for us to exclude your vehicle from the parking enforcement scheme we use in Raleigh Square. As I noted, the key driver in the decision is that the parking bay does not form part of the demised premises.




I am sorry that this is not the outcome you are seeking, but I trust you are able to understand that as your arguments are of a legal nature the customer complaints process is not the appropriate avenue to follow should you wish to register your dissatisfaction. The First Tier Tribunal is the appropriate judicial body which can consider your representations.




My recommendation will mirror what we advised at Stage One – to avoid unnecessary parking charge notices, I strongly urge you to display the free permit we have provided in any vehicle yourself or your visitors use when parking in the common parts of Raleigh Square. Were such a notice to be issued, you would have the right to seek an appeal through the appropriate independent body – your dispute would not be considered by ourselves.

As you were previously made aware, I am the lawful occupier for the space allocated to the address above. You cannot issue charges against vehicles parked on this space yet you have issued 8 such charges against my vehicle (VRN XXXX XXX).

Firstly, you have trespassed against my vehicle on each occasion and for each I am claiming £1 nominative damages to a total of £8.

Secondly, you obtained my personal details in breach of your KADOE contract with the DVLA on each occasion and for each breach I am claiming £150 non-pecuniary damages to a total of £1200.

Finally, you are interfering with the contract that I have with the landowner for use of the space. For the continuous period from the 25th May 2018 (the date I became the leaseholder) to the date of this letter I am claiming £5 per day for loss of use. For example, no guests, contractors, delivery drivers, etc will park in the space due to your threat of charges and are forced to park elsewhere. This is a period of 226 days and so I am claiming £1130.

I would be happy to drop this claim if you drop your charges and cease operating on my parking space. No interest will be applied at any time to any amount. Please respond within 30 days after which, if the matter is not mutually settled, I shall proceed to issue a claim.

I haven't read back over your entire thread, but did you enter a counterclaim with your defence and paid the appropriate filing fee, which if you amalgamate all those costs (£2,338) would amount to £105, or separately:

£8 = £25
£1,200 = £70
£1,130 = £70

Total £165

I'm not sure whether you can amalgamate, or as they are quite separate issues, you would have to pay separate filing fees. However, if the counterclaim isn't included in your original defence, it's a rather academic debate - as I understand the process.

I would be happy to drop this claim if you drop your charges and cease operating on my parking space.

Why? These scammers have no place in residential car parks. They have wasted a lot of your time, breached your DPA rights, trespassed on your property, and interfered with your leasehold rights to peaceful enjoyment, possibly an offence under the Landlord and Tenants Act, read this,

www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?377246-UKPC-liable-for-trespass-**SUCCESS**[/url]

I would be happy to drop this claim if you drop your charges and cease operating on my parking space.