Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Private parking tickets => Topic started by: Hibber1234 on April 20, 2026, 06:07:39 pm
-
“Generic” might mean that you have use of the defined space without restrictions, so what your contract doesn’t say may be important as well.
-
https://ibb.co/60dvs582
https://ibb.co/fVNtr5k5
https://ibb.co/7tcGVkS9
https://ibb.co/60WcsVsn
Here are the letters and the signage.
My tenancy agreement is very generic, just trying to dig out some other documents to see what I’ve got relating to the parking space.
-
You should show us the notice, and your lease or assured shorthold tenancy or equivalent which defines your rights to the parking space.
It is likely that Link Parking has no rights over your space and can not “enforce” something you are already entitled to.
Unless your contract requires you to update your VRM with a third party, they can not enforce anything against you. You can also hold your management company jointly liable in any action you might take.
See https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/read-this-first-private-parking-charges-forum-guide/
There is a proper process by which your lease or whatever can be updated, but if it’s along the lines of “Link Parking are now in charge” that’s unlikely to be good enough and they have no legal hold over you.
-
I am a tenant at a residential property with an allocated parking bay included as part of my tenancy. A private parking charge (PCN) was issued to my vehicle on 06 January 2026 by Link Parking Ltd for “unauthorised parking.” At the time, the vehicle was the same one previously registered and authorised to park in my allocated bay, but the number plate had recently been changed. I updated the vehicle registration details with the parking system shortly after, but the charge had already been issued.
I submitted an initial appeal to Link Parking explaining that I am an authorised resident, the bay is allocated to my property, and that the vehicle was the same (only the registration plate had changed). This appeal was rejected on the basis that the vehicle registration was not on their system at the time of the contravention.
My landlord contacted Link Parking on my behalf to request cancellation, confirming my right to park and that the vehicle belonged to the tenant, but they refused to discuss the matter with him citing GDPR, as he was not the named party on the charge.
I then challenged the rejection and requested further evidence, including their landowner authority, but Link Parking refused to provide this and maintained their position. They also noted I had previously paid a similar charge, which they appear to rely on to justify enforcement.
The signage at the site states that “pre-authorised vehicles” may park, but does not clearly define requirements around registration updates or number plate changes. I contend that my vehicle was pre-authorised in substance, as it was the same vehicle linked to my tenancy and allocated bay.
I attempted to escalate the matter to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS), but this was rejected as out of time, leaving me without access to independent adjudication.
The matter has since been passed to BW Legal, who have issued multiple demand letters, including a “Final Demand” seeking £160 and threatening escalation to a formal Letter of Claim and potential county court proceedings. I have disputed the debt and requested communication in writing, but they continue to pursue payment.
I also contacted the building management company (Principle Estate Management), who confirmed they would only intervene if there had been an error by the parking company and declined to assist, stating the registration had not been updated in time.
My position is that I was at all times entitled to park in the allocated bay as a resident, the vehicle was effectively authorised (only the registration identifier changed), and the charge is disproportionate and based on a technicality rather than any genuine unauthorised use or loss to the landowner.