Send the lease, but add a clear cover note explaining that Places for People (PfP) is acting as the landlord’s agent and has already adopted the complaint under its Housing Ombudsman-linked procedure. The Ombudsman’s remit can cover a landlord via its appointed managing agent; your complaint is about PfP/RMG’s handling, not about UKCPS directly.
What to attach
1. Your original formal complaint to RMG/PfP.
2. Your lease (showing the parties and your parking right).
3. Evidence tying PfP/RMG to the estate management and to this complaint:
• RMG’s published complaints procedure stating “RMG customers on developments RMG manages for Places for People will have their complaints dealt with under Places for People’s complaints process which the Housing Ombudsman oversees.”
• Stage 1 and Stage 2 responses (including Michelle Wood’s letter on behalf of Places for People).
• The latest “clarification” email from Jessica.
• Any service-charge/estate-charge demands or communications showing PfP/RMG acting for the landlord/freeholder in relation to the car park/common parts.
How to “play it” since RMG isn’t named in the lease
Make it explicit that:
• The lease is between you and [freeholder/landlord named in lease].
• Places for People Group Limited (through its agent RMG) has been appointed after grant of lease to manage the estate/common parts including the car park and has handled your complaint as “the landlord” under the PfP complaints process.
• Your complaint is therefore about the landlord’s handling (via its agent), not about UKCPS per se.
Send the following response to Saber Uddin:
Subject: Case 202513367 – Further documents and clarification of landlord/agent role
Dear Mr Uddin,
Thank you for your email. Please find attached:
1. My initial formal complaint submitted to Places for People/RMG.
2. A copy of my lease.
3. Evidence demonstrating Places for People’s role and adoption of this complaint under its Housing Ombudsman-linked procedure:
– RMG’s complaints procedure confirming that complaints on developments managed for Places for People are handled under Places for People’s complaints process overseen by the Housing Ombudsman.
– Stage 1 and Stage 2 responses, including the final response signed by Michelle Wood (Director of Home Ownership, Places for People).
– The subsequent email from the Property Manager (RMG) confirming management of the estate car park and the position taken on the PCN.
For clarity, my lease is between me and [name of freeholder/landlord shown in the lease]. Places for People (through its agent RMG) was appointed subsequently to manage the estate/common parts including the car park. Places for People has adopted and determined my complaint under its own complaints process that is overseen by the Housing Ombudsman, and issued the landlord’s final response.
My complaint is therefore about the landlord’s (Places for People’s) handling of my reports and its management of its appointed contractor and agents in relation to my leasehold right to park, rather than a complaint about UKCPS directly.
Please let me know if you require any further documents.
Yours sincerely,
[Your name]
That reply from RMG is an attempted face-saving exercise, but it’s legally hollow and still doesn’t deal with the core problem — the fact that the “permit scheme” is not optional in practice and is being used to penalise leaseholders despite their lease rights.
The contradictions in their response are quite stark:
• They say the scheme is “not intended” to override your lease rights, but in your case it has already done exactly that — a PCN was issued to you while you were exercising your right to park in your own space.
• They claim it’s “not a variation” of the lease, but then assert you must comply with the scheme to avoid PCNs. That is imposing a condition on your leasehold right, regardless of whether they label it a “practical measure.”
• They’re still avoiding the core legal reality that UKCPS acts as their agent, meaning RMG always retains the power to instruct them to cancel a PCN — whether it’s at “debt recovery” stage or not.
• They are conflating “site management” with enforcement against a leaseholder — it’s one thing to deter unauthorised parking, another entirely to fine the very people whose rights they claim to be protecting.
You should respond to RMG’s latest email, but keep it short, factual, and on the record, because:
• The Ombudsman will review all correspondence — so it’s useful to clearly point out, in writing, that their latest position is still contradictory and fails to resolve the core issue.
• You don’t want to get into a drawn-out back-and-forth — just one concise reply noting their continued failure and that the matter is now with the Ombudsman.
• It prevents RMG later claiming you accepted their position or failed to dispute any part of it.
I suggest you respond to RMG with the following:
Dear Jessica,
Thank you for your response.
While I note your assurance that the permit scheme is “not intended” to override my leasehold rights, the fact remains that it has done exactly that in practice — a PCN was issued to me while I was exercising my right to park in my own space, which is unconditional under my lease.
Your position is contradictory: you state that the scheme is not a variation of my lease, yet you also require compliance with it to avoid PCNs. This is, in effect, the imposition of a new condition on my leasehold right, and is exactly the interference I have raised from the outset.
I also note that you continue to assert that the PCN cannot be cancelled because it has been passed to your contractor’s own agents. This demonstrates either a misunderstanding of the basic principal–agent relationship in contract law or a refusal to exercise your authority as principal.
As this matter is now with the Housing Ombudsman, I will not enter into further debate with you directly. This response is simply to confirm that I do not accept your position and to preserve a clear record for the Ombudsman’s review.
Yours sincerely
[Your Name]
The Housing Ombudsman has accepted your case for further assessment, but it’s in their backlog. This means:
• You’ve already cleared the procedural hurdle (final landlord response received).
• They will now review the papers and decide whether to investigate.
• If they do investigate, they’ll be looking at whether RMG’s actions amount to maladministration or service failure, particularly in how they handled the PCN in light of your lease rights.
At this point, your best move is to prepare a concise evidence pack for when the Ombudsman contacts you, so you can hit them with a clear narrative:
1. Lease clause showing your unconditional right to park in your space.
2. PCN evidence showing it was issued while you were exercising that right.
3. RMG’s statements:
• Jessica’s “irrespective of entitlement to park” email.
• Stage 1 & Stage 2 responses admitting they won’t intervene if it’s at debt recovery stage.
• Their latest “we recognise your right but still expect you to comply” contradiction.
4. Your core argument: The scheme is interfering with your rights in practice, regardless of their stated “intention.”
5. Legal references: Primacy of contract, agency law, and s.37 LTA 1987.
You can also include a timeline along these lines to include with your evidence that you will submit to the Ombudsman when they review your case. Something along these lines:
Housing Ombudsman Evidence Pack – Complaint Ref: 202513367
Complainant: [Your Name]
Landlord/Agent: Places for People Group Limited (via RMG)
Managing Agent’s Contractor: UKCPS Ltd
Complaint Subject: Improper enforcement of a private parking scheme against a leaseholder with an unconditional leasehold right to park
1. Background Summary
I am the leaseholder of Flat [***]. My lease grants me the right to park one permitted vehicle in my allocated space (Space 20) subject only to payment of service charges. There is no requirement to display a permit, no reference to signage, and no contractual relationship with any third-party parking enforcement company.
RMG manages the estate’s car park and has contracted UKCPS to operate a permit-based enforcement scheme. This scheme has resulted in the issuing of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to my vehicle whilst it was parked in my own space, despite displaying a valid permit.
2. Timeline of Events
14 March 2023 – Alleged contravention date. My vehicle was parked in my own allocated space and displayed a permit on the dashboard. UKCPS issued a PCN claiming “no permit displayed”.
Mid-2023 – 2024 – No contact from RMG. PCN passed by UKCPS to Trace Debt Recovery and later to Moorside Legal.
Early 2025 – I contacted RMG (Property Manager: Jessica) requesting intervention and cancellation of the PCN.
• Jessica confirmed UKCPS issues PCNs “irrespective of entitlement to park” if they deem a permit not displayed.
• Jessica stated that because the PCN was at “debt recovery” stage, RMG could not assist.
Stage 1 Complaint – RMG Response – RMG refused to uphold my complaint, repeated UKCPS’s position, and advised me to deal directly with Moorside Legal.
Stage 2 Complaint – RMG Response (Michelle Wood) – Again refused to uphold the complaint, claiming neither RMG nor UKCPS could cancel the PCN at its current stage. Offered to pay the PCN as a “goodwill gesture” but insisted permits must be displayed.
July 2025 – RMG Further Response (Jessica McGann) – Acknowledged my right to park but insisted the permit scheme does not override lease rights, describing it as a “practical measure” to prevent misuse of spaces. Continued to require compliance to avoid PCNs.
July 2025 – Complaint escalated to Housing Ombudsman.
3. Legal Position
a. Primacy of Contract
My lease is the primary and overriding contractual document governing my rights to park. The imposition of a permit scheme that penalises leaseholders for not displaying a permit is a new condition, not present in my lease. This cannot be lawfully imposed without a formal lease variation in accordance with s.37(5) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.
b. Interference with Leasehold Rights
By issuing a PCN to my vehicle in my own space, the scheme has interfered with my legal right to park, despite RMG’s stated “intention” not to do so. Intention is irrelevant when the effect is to impose a penalty for exercising an existing right.
c. Principal–Agent Relationship
UKCPS acts as RMG’s appointed contractor. RMG, as principal, retains the authority to instruct its agent to cancel enforcement action, regardless of whether the agent has referred the matter to a debt recovery company or solicitor. RMG’s claim that it is “unable to intervene” is factually and legally incorrect.
d. Case Law
Relevant persuasive county court authorities include:
• Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] UKUT 496 (LC)
• Pace v Mr N (2016, C6GF14F0)
• Link Parking v Ms P (2016, C7GF50J7)
All confirm that a leaseholder’s pre-existing rights cannot be overridden by later-imposed parking schemes.
4. Key Contradictions in RMG’s Position
1. Acknowledgement vs. Action – RMG claims to “fully recognise” my right to park yet refuses to take steps to cancel a PCN issued in direct breach of that right.
2. No Lease Variation – RMG insists the scheme is not a lease variation, yet in practice imposes compliance as a condition to avoid penalties.
3. Inaccurate Legal Reasoning – RMG’s claim that they “cannot intervene” because the matter is with a debt recovery agent or solicitor ignores basic principles of contract law and agency.
4. Offer to Pay vs. Cancellation – Offering to pay the PCN as a “gesture of goodwill” is an implicit admission that the PCN is unjustified, yet they have refused the correct remedy: cancellation.
5. Remedy Sought
I request the Housing Ombudsman find that RMG’s actions and inaction amount to maladministration and/or service failure by:
• Allowing a parking enforcement scheme to operate in a way that penalises leaseholders for exercising their legal rights.
• Failing to instruct their contractor to cancel an unjustified PCN despite having the authority to do so.
• Providing contradictory and legally incorrect responses during the complaints process.
I request the Ombudsman recommend:
1. Immediate written confirmation that my space is excluded from UKCPS enforcement.
2. Formal instruction to UKCPS/Moorside Legal to cancel the PCN.
3. A written apology for the stress and inconvenience caused.
4. Review of estate parking enforcement to prevent recurrence.
RMG's Stage 2 response is not only legally flawed but borders on institutional negligence in terms of its misunderstanding of leaseholder rights and the doctrine of privity of contract. Their position is internally contradictory, ill-informed, and arguably undermines their credibility as a managing agent.
Here is a proposed follow-up letter, suitable for submission to the Housing Ombudsman. This version can also double as your final reply to Michelle Wood and her team, should you wish to restate your position for the record.
Subject: Final Response to Stage 2 Complaint Outcome – PCN Issued by UKCPS While Exercising Leasehold Right
Dear Ms Wood,
I write in response to your letter dated [insert date], regarding Stage 2 Complaint Reference 04152778.
I note your decision not to uphold my complaint, and I respectfully reject the rationale provided in full. With regret, I find it necessary to escalate this matter to the Housing Ombudsman Service on the basis of your continued refusal to recognise fundamental principles of property and contract law, and your failure to protect leaseholder rights under your management remit.
These are the core legal failures in your response and, for your reference, I will be including a copy of this letter in my escalation to the Housing Ombudsman.
1. Failure to Recognise Primacy of Contract
I am the leaseholder of Flat [flat number] and my lease grants me the right to park in my allocated space (number [space number] subject to the payment of service charges. There is no mention of a permit system, nor any reference to the involvement of third-party enforcement agents such as UKCPS.
The legal principle of primacy of contract means that any subsequent arrangements imposed by RMG or its contractors cannot override my pre-existing lease rights. That is well-established in the following case law:
• Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] UKUT 496 (LC)
• Pace v Mr N (2016), [C6GF14F0]
• Link Parking v Ms P (2016) [C7GF50J7]
2. RMG’s Admission of Indiscriminate Enforcement
Jessica, your property manager, previously stated in writing:
"UKCPS issues parking charges to individuals who fail to display a permit, irrespective of their entitlement to park".
This is a clear admission that UKCPS is permitted to ignore the legal entitlements of leaseholders, which is indefensible in law and amounts to unlawful interference with leasehold property rights.
3. Section 37 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987
If you assert that my lease was varied to allow this enforcement regime, please provide:
• A copy of the written agreement between myself and the freeholder;
• Or evidence of an application to, and approval by, the First-tier Tribunal under s.37(5)(a) or (b) of the Act.
You have supplied no such evidence. Therefore, your enforcement regime is entirely without legal foundation in respect of my demised property rights.
4. On the Offer to Pay
While I appreciate the offer to pay the PCN “on this occasion”, I must clarify that the correct resolution is cancellation, not payment, of a PCN issued unlawfully. Accepting payment in this way appears to be an attempt to sweep a procedural abuse under the rug without admission of fault. Any future PCN issued in identical circumstances would again constitute unlawful interference, and I reserve all rights in that regard.
5. Misunderstanding of Authority and Agency Law
RMG’s position that it is “unable to intervene” because UKCPS has passed the matter to a debt recovery agent and bulk litigators is both factually and legally absurd. The notion that the contractual principal loses authority over its own agent simply because the agent has referred the matter on is a fundamental misunderstanding of basic contract law.
UKCPS remains RMG’s appointed contractor and acts under its authority. If RMG cannot control the actions of its own agents, then either it has failed in its duty to manage those agents properly, or it has chosen not to. The idea that a matter becomes irreversible just because it has been “passed on” is nonsense.
RMG should have escalated this matter to its legal advisors. If this matter was reviewed by legal counsel, then I am forced to conclude that their advisors are equally incompetent or unaware of the most basic principles of agency law and leasehold rights.
6. Final Position
I do not accept that RMG or Places for People are legally powerless to instruct UKCPS or its legal agents to cancel a charge issued contrary to a lease. Your failure to do so, despite clear evidence, amounts to mismanagement and breach of your obligation to administer the estate in accordance with leaseholder rights.
As this is your final response, I will now escalate this matter to the Housing Ombudsman, requesting an investigation into:
• RMG’s failure to uphold leaseholder rights;
• Your tacit approval of unlawful enforcement activity;
• The stress and inconvenience caused by your failure to intervene meaningfully once the facts were made known.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
They are a firm of utter incompetent wannabe supposed legals. I suggest you respond with the following and CC in info@ukcps.net and yourself:
Dear Sirs,
Re: Your Reference 10263288 – UKCPS Ltd
Letter of Claim dated 8 April 2025
I write in response to your email reply following my initial letter regarding the above matter. I now address the contents of your reply in full and set out further concerns with the conduct of this matter.
1. Procedural Background
Your Letter of Claim dated 8 April 2025 made a vague demand in relation to an alleged parking charge, citing a total sum of £170. In response, I wrote to you confirming:
• That the debt is denied;
• That my address for service should be updated;
• That the £70 surcharge appeared to be unjustified and potentially unlawful;
• That I required clarification on whether the PCN sum was being claimed as damages or as consideration for a contract;
• That boilerplate responses would not be accepted.
In your reply, you attempted to justify the additional £70 by reference to BPA and IPC Codes of Practice, asserting it was not a cost of recovery but a “reasonable amount” intended to encourage early payment. You claimed your client was pursuing a claim for unpaid parking charges due to a breach of contract. You also confirmed that you had placed the matter on hold for 30 days on the assumption that I was seeking debt advice.
Let me now make it absolutely clear that your Letter Before Claim was non-compliant with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PAPDC), and that your response has failed to correct or address these breaches.
2. Pre-Action Protocol Breaches
Your Letter of Claim contained insufficient detail of the claim and failed to include copies of evidence your client relies upon. This is a breach of:
• PAPDC paragraphs 3.1(a)–(d), 5.1, 5.2
• Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct, paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c)
I remind you that the Protocol is binding on all parties, including your client, a serial issuer of consumer claims. Your failure to comply with these pre-action duties is unacceptable.
3. Request for Disclosure and Clarification
Until your client complies with their obligations under the PAPDC, I cannot consider my position or respond substantively to the alleged claim. I therefore require the following information and documents under paragraphs 6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction:
1. An explanation of the cause of action.
2. Whether your client is pursuing me as driver or registered keeper.
3. Whether your client relies on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
4. Details of the alleged contravention: date, time, duration, and the calculation of the total sum claimed.
5. If the claim is for breach of contract: the date of the contract, parties, and a copy of the alleged contract.
6. Photographic evidence showing the vehicle allegedly in breach.
7. If alleging trespass: full particulars and supporting authority.
8. A copy of the contract with the landowner granting authority to litigate (as required by the Private Parking Single Code of Practice).
9. A site plan showing sign placement.
10. Photographs of signage (including font size and mounting height) at the time of the alleged contravention.
11. A breakdown of the £170: original PCN sum, interest, admin or other charges.
12. Clarification: is the £70 surcharge inclusive or exclusive of VAT? If inclusive, why am I as an alleged debtor being asked to pay your client’s VAT liability?
13. Clarification: is the principal PCN sum alleged to be damages or consideration for a parking contract?
I remind you again that failure to provide this information may lead to an application to stay proceedings, in line with authorities such as:
• Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch)
• Daejan Investments Ltd v Park West Club Ltd [2003] EWHC 2872
• Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Ltd & Peter Dann Ltd [2007] EWHC 855 (TCC)
4. Registered Keeper Position – VCS v Edward (2023)
I confirm that I am the registered keeper of the vehicle. I decline to name the driver. As you are fully aware, there is no legal presumption in English law that the keeper of a vehicle was its driver.
I refer you to the persuasive appellate reasoning in Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ian Mark Edward (2023) [H0KF6C9C] (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/yvxek3kfwtb3qent3lj6y/VCS-Limited-v-Ian-Mark-Edward-H0KF6C9C.pdf?rlkey=niecohfdtj1n1ysh5prbsp52p&e=1&dl=0), in which the judge confirmed this principle.
Your client cannot pursue me as the driver without evidence, and any reliance on a presumption of driver identity is misplaced and contrary to settled authority.
5. £70 Surcharge – VAT and Consumer Protection Concerns
Your explanation of the £70 surcharge as an “incentive” to pay early is disingenuous. This sum is clearly:
• Not a core term of any contract;
• Not proportionate as a pre-estimate of loss;
• Likely to be unenforceable under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
You have not answered my legitimate question about whether the £70 is VAT inclusive. I repeat: if the principal PCN is claimed as VAT-exempt but the £70 includes VAT, then your client’s approach raises serious concerns of potential VAT evasion, which I reserve the right to report to HMRC.
6. Next Steps
As supposed solicitors, you should be well aware that these protocols and practice directions bind all potential litigants, regardless of the size or type of claim. Their stated purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim, taking stock of their positions, and potentially resolving the dispute without recourse to litigation. It is frankly embarrassing that a regulated firm of solicitors would issue such a vague, unevidenced and non-compliant Letter of Claim.
I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter of Claim which fully complies with paragraph 3.1(a) of the PAPDC, I will consider my position and respond formally within 30 days as required by the Protocol.
Please confirm that your client will not issue a claim until they have fully complied with their obligations under the Pre-Action Protocol. If a claim is issued prematurely, I will seek:
• An immediate stay of proceedings under Practice Direction paragraph 15(b);
• Sanctions and costs pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g);
• Further disclosure in line with the above.
Should your client proceed to issue proceedings in defiance of these requests and without proper disclosure, I will assert a robust defence and may also consider a counterclaim for unreasonable behaviour.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
You only need to keep the LoC. You can dispose of all the forms that came with it. You don't give these bottom-dwelling incompetents any personal information.
Respond as follows by email to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and CC yourself:
Dear Sirs,
Re: Letter of Claim dated 8th April 2025
I refer to your Letter of Claim, your ref: 10263288
I confirm that my address for service at this time is as follows, and I request that any outdated address be erased from your records to ensure compliance with data protection obligations:
[YOUR ADDRESS]
Please note that the alleged debt is disputed, and any court proceedings will be robustly defended.
I note that the sum claimed has been increased by an excessive and unjustifiable amount, which appears contrary to the principles established by the Government, who described such practices as “extorting money from motorists.” Please refrain from sending boilerplate responses or justifications regarding this issue.
Under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, I require specific answers to the following questions:
1. Does the additional £70 represent what you describe as a “Debt Recovery” fee? If so, is this figure net of or inclusive of VAT? If inclusive, I trust you will explain why I, as the alleged debtor, am being asked to cover your client’s VAT liability.
2. Regarding the principal sum of the alleged Parking Charge Notice (PCN): Is this being claimed as damages for breach of contract, or will it be pleaded as consideration for a purported parking contract?
I would caution you against simply dismissing these questions with vague or boilerplate responses, as I am fully aware of the implications. By claiming that PCNs are exempt from VAT while simultaneously inflating the debt recovery element, your client – with your assistance – appears to be evading VAT obligations due to HMRC. Such mendacious conduct raises serious questions about the legality and ethics of your practices.
I strongly advise your client to cease and desist. Should this matter proceed to court, you can be assured that these issues will be brought to the court’s attention, alongside a robust defence and potentially a counterclaim for unreasonable conduct.
Yours faithfully,
[YOUR NAME]
RMG’s Stage 1 response fails to engage with the central legal point of your complaint: that you have a leasehold right to park in your space which cannot be overridden by UKCPS or RMG’s instructions to them.
Their response rests on:
• The age of the PCN, not the validity of the PCN.
• An assumption that failure to appeal at the time equals forfeiture of rights.
• A suggestion that you should now negotiate with a debt collector rather than RMG addressing its own agent's actions.
These are inadequate and misrepresent their responsibility as principal to UKCPS's agency.
Below is a Stage 2 escalation letter, reinforcing your position and requesting a proper legal response. It also sets out that if not resolved, you will escalate to the Housing Ombudsman.
Complaints Department
Residential Management Group
RMG House
Essex Road
Hoddesdon
EN11 0DR
[Date]
By email: customerservice@rmguk.com
Subject: Escalation to Stage 2 – Formal Complaint Ref: 04108974
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing to request escalation of my formal complaint (Ref: 04108974) to Stage 2 of the Places for People complaints procedure.
I remain dissatisfied with the Stage 1 response from Jane Gillings, which wholly fails to address the substance of my complaint—namely, that UKCPS, acting under a contract with RMG, issued a Parking Charge Notice to me despite the fact that I was parked in my own allocated bay, exercising a leasehold right.
As explained previously:
• I am the leaseholder of Flat [flat No.] with an associated right to park in bay [bay No.], which forms part of the demised or common areas.
• This leasehold right to park is not conditional upon the display of a permit or compliance with any third-party terms imposed by UKCPS.
• The introduction of a permit scheme or third-party enforcement regime cannot override my legal rights without either my written consent or an application to the First-tier Tribunal under s.37(5) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.
Instead of engaging with these legal issues, the Stage 1 response merely repeats UKCPS's internal rules and suggests I take the matter up with Moorgate Legal. This is both inappropriate and unsatisfactory. UKCPS are your appointed contractor, and RMG remains responsible for their actions on your behalf.
I also note and object to your Property Manager’s earlier comment that UKCPS issues charges “irrespective of entitlement to park.” This statement demonstrates either a clear misunderstanding of leaseholder rights or a deliberate disregard for them. If RMG does not recognise or protect leaseholder rights granted under a lease, this represents a fundamental failure in property management standards.
I must again insist on the following:
1. That RMG confirm, in writing, that my allocated parking space is not and was never subject to enforcement by UKCPS;
2. That RMG issue a clear instruction to UKCPS (and any subsequent parties, including Moorgate Legal) that this PCN is invalid and must be withdrawn;
3. That RMG provide an explanation as to why no such instruction was issued earlier despite being made aware of my leasehold rights;
4. That RMG acknowledge that my rights under the lease cannot be varied without due process under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 and confirm no such variation has occurred.
If RMG/Places for People cannot or will not resolve this matter at Stage 2, I will have no choice but to refer the matter to the Housing Ombudsman Service, on the basis that your agents’ actions have interfered with my quiet enjoyment of the property and subjected me to avoidable and unlawful enforcement action.
I look forward to your detailed response within 20 working days as per your published complaints procedure.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
Interesting. The Duchess of Bedford House ruling will not apply where the resident has no easement or licence to park, or where the land is common parts not demised to leaseholders and no right was granted or implied.
You must establish the existence of a subsisting right — either by express lease terms, long-standing usage, or application of s.62 LPA 1925 — for this case to be invoked effectively.
I would summarise it as follows:
Duchess of Bedford House RTM Co Ltd v Campden Hill Gate Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 1470 is binding Court of Appeal authority confirming that a parking easement, once validly created and passed through leasehold interests, cannot be extinguished or overridden by subsequent management arrangements or contractual signage. It affirms that the introduction of private enforcement schemes by a managing agent cannot lawfully interfere with pre-existing legal rights unless expressly varied.
Regarding the Housing Act 1985, the principles in sections 102–103 of the Housing Act 1985 do apply to secure tenants, and they strictly limit the landlord’s ability to vary tenancy terms — including any attempt to impose third-party private parking enforcement where such enforcement represents a new term or restriction on how the tenant may use the property or communal areas.
Under section 102(1), the terms of a secure tenancy can only be varied:
(a) by agreement;
(b) where rent or service charges are involved, via an express clause;
(c) by following the statutory process under section 103 for periodic tenancies.
If the landlord introduces a third-party private parking company, with signage, permit requirements, and PCNs without tenant agreement or statutory process, that is an unlawful variation of the tenancy terms.
This is especially so if:
• The original tenancy was silent on parking restrictions or enforcement;
• The tenant previously enjoyed use of communal parking without needing a permit or risk of PCNs;
• The changes are not merely administrative (e.g. labelling bays), but introduce penalties, conditions, or risk of enforcement by a third party.
This would be a new restriction or obligation, not permitted unless:
• The tenant explicitly agrees, or
• The landlord follows the section 103 notice procedure for periodic tenancies.
Even where communal land is involved, the tenant’s right of quiet enjoyment and existing use cannot be lawfully altered by signage or unilateral action.
Although s.102(1)(b) permits variation for rents or service charges, the introduction of enforcement (e.g. parking charges or PCNs) is not a service charge in the statutory sense — unless it’s provided for in the lease and compliant with consultation and reasonableness provisions under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, which are separate.
So, if a secure tenant is issued with a PCN by a parking company introduced unilaterally by the landlord or management, the tenant may argue:
• The enforcement terms were not part of the tenancy;
• They never agreed to such a variation;
• No valid section 103 procedure was followed (if it is a periodic tenancy);
• The PCN is therefore unenforceable, and the parking company is acting without lawful authority.
Based on your exchange with 'Jessica' from RMG and what else we know so far, here’s an analysis of the legal and procedural position, along with suggestions for next steps:
You have a contractual right to park derived from your lease, which is not subject to displaying a permit or complying with any third-party signage. The only condition mentioned is payment of the service charge.
This is a key clause in your lease:
"Subject to the Tenant paying the Service Charge the right for the Tenant and all persons authorised by the Tenant in common with all other persons having a similar right: to park one Permitted vehicle in the parking space shown edged red in Plan 1."
It is important because the lease grants a positive right to park, subject to service charge payment. The use of “in common with all other persons having a similar right” indicates non-exclusive rights over a shared parking area.
The “space shown edged red in Plan 1” is meant to define the area—but if the plan is missing, that does not invalidate the right, especially if the red-edged space refers to the whole car park (as I suspect). Importantly, no reference is made to a permit scheme, compliance with signage, or the need to contract with a third party for parking.
UKCPS cannot override your leaseholder rights granted under the lease. UKCPS are a stranger to the lease and cannot impose conditions (like requiring a permit) that are not in the lease.
This is well established in case law:
Jopson v Homeguard [2016] – Residential leaseholder rights prevail over signage.
Pace v Mr N (2016, C6GF14F0) – Parking company cannot enforce terms against a leaseholder with pre-existing rights.
RMG admits they are not the managing agent for the building where you, the leaseholder, resides. This suggests they are not party to the leaseholder’s tenancy agreement. They likely have no legal standing to impose new terms on that lease. While they do manage the car park land, they must respect existing leasehold rights unless they can demonstrate:
• Express authority from the freeholder to implement and enforce new parking conditions on leaseholders, and
• Evidence that those new conditions were properly incorporated into the leaseholder's contractual rights as per the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, section 37 5(a) or (b), which they haven't done.
Their reply that UKCPS issues PCNs “
irrespective of entitlement to park” is revealing and legally flawed. UKCPS cannot lawfully enforce against someone who holds a contractual right that predates and excludes their scheme.
You mentioned Moorgate Legal, which normally acts as a bulk litigator. They are notorious for issuing poorly pleaded claims. Even if the PCN is over two years old, if a claim is threatened, you would need to defend on grounds of primacy of contract.
You could demand strict proof of landowner authority and their standing to issue proceedings and challenge the absence of any contract formation (as you already hold rights to park).
I suggest you send a formal complaint to RMG as follows:
The Complaints Department
Residential Management Group
RMG House
Essex Road
Hoddesdon
EN11 0DR
By email to: Customerservice@rmguk.com
Subject: Formal Complaint – Unlawful Interference with Leasehold Parking Rights by UKCPS
[Date]
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing to submit a formal complaint regarding the conduct of your appointed parking contractor, UKCPS, in relation to a parking charge issued against my vehicle on 14 March 2023, while it was parked in my allocated parking space at Kelham Mills, Sheffield.
I am the leaseholder of Flat - , and my property includes the right to use parking space number
- , which forms part of the communal areas of the estate. Although RMG does not manage my building, I understand that you are responsible for the management of the car park area and have contracted UKCPS to carry out enforcement there.
The parking charge was issued despite my vehicle being correctly parked in my own allocated space and while clearly displaying a valid permit on the dashboard. UKCPS have taken no steps to investigate the matter or acknowledge the legitimacy of my parking rights, and they have now passed the matter to Moorgate Legal, who are threatening me with legal action.
I raised this matter directly with your Property Manager, Jessica, who responded:
“As per their instructions, UKCPS issues parking charges to individuals who fail to display a permit, irrespective of their entitlement to park.”
This statement is astonishing and unacceptable. A leaseholder’s contractual right to park cannot lawfully be ignored or subordinated to arbitrary third-party rules imposed by a contractor. UKCPS are not a party to my lease and have no authority to determine or override leaseholder rights. The implication that enforcement will proceed regardless of legal entitlement demonstrates a disregard for property rights and a lack of oversight by RMG.
I was then advised that, due to the age of the charge, RMG was “unable to take any action” and that I should instead deal directly with Moorgate Legal. I find this deeply unsatisfactory. RMG appointed UKCPS and must accept responsibility for the actions of its agents. It is not for leaseholders to negotiate with third-party debt collectors about charges that never had legal standing to begin with.
I remind you that I hold a contractual right to park in my designated space as granted under my lease. That right is not conditional on the display of a permit or compliance with terms imposed by a third party such as UKCPS. It is a well-established principle of English law that leasehold rights take primacy over later-imposed schemes introduced without proper authority. I refer you to the persuasive county court authority in Pace v Mr N (2016) and the guidance of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard [2016], both of which confirm that a residential leaseholder with an existing right to park cannot be subjected to enforcement by a private parking company.
If RMG intends to argue that any variation to my lease permits the introduction of a permit scheme or the imposition of contractual penalties by UKCPS, I will require full disclosure of:
• The basis on which my lease was varied to include such a scheme,
• The date and method of variation, and
• The relevant statutory process followed under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, particularly section 37(5)(a) or (b).
To my knowledge, I have never agreed in writing to any variation of my lease terms, and no application has ever been made to a Tribunal. Without clear evidence of such a variation, any attempt to override my leasehold rights is not only invalid but may constitute an unlawful interference with my quiet enjoyment of the property.
RMG’s failure to exclude my bay from the UKCPS scheme, or to properly instruct UKCPS to cancel the charge once the facts were established, has caused me significant stress and wasted time. I have engaged with your property manager, who initially seemed willing to assist but ultimately deferred responsibility, citing the age of the PCN. This is unacceptable, particularly when it is your contractor acting in your name who is continuing to harass a lawful occupier.
Accordingly, I request the following:
1. That you formally instruct UKCPS and/or Moorgate Legal to cancel the charge and cease all enforcement activity in relation to this matter.
2. That you confirm in writing that my space is to be removed from the UKCPS enforcement scheme and that no future action will be taken in respect of my vehicle while parked in my allocated bay.
3. That you issue a formal apology for the distress caused and explain what steps you will take to ensure similar incidents do not occur again.
If I do not receive a satisfactory response within 14 days, I reserve the right to escalate this complaint to the Property Ombudsman and, if necessary, seek legal advice regarding RMG’s interference with my quiet enjoyment of the property and leasehold rights.
I look forward to your prompt resolution of this matter.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
You can email the complaint to Customerservice@rmguk.com and also CC in yourself. Make sure you mark it as a formal complaint.