Respond with the following:
Subject: Formal Complaint: Contractor interference with demised parking space
Dear [Managing Agent/Landlord’s Name],
Thank you for your reply.
With respect, this matter is not for PCM to “answer”. PCM act on your (or your principal’s) authority. You are responsible for the acts and omissions of your appointed contractor and for the interference caused to my tenancy rights. Directing me back to PCM does not discharge your obligations.
The facts remain:
• The parking space forms part of the demised premises under my tenancy.
• There is no clause in my tenancy requiring a permit or acceptance of PCM’s signage.
• The PCNs arose solely because of your or your contractor’s delay in issuing a permit.
• PCM has pursued me at an old address despite DVLA records being updated.
This is a formal complaint. The covenant for quiet enjoyment and the principle against derogation from grant are being breached. Harassment and trespass are continuing through your agent’s actions.
I require within 14 days:
1. Written confirmation that you have instructed PCM to cancel all PCNs relating to my demised space and to cease enforcement.
2. A copy of the contract under which PCM were appointed, showing their authority to interfere with demised bays, and clarification whether you are the principal or agent.
3. Your lawful basis for sharing or processing my personal data in relation to enforcement against my demised space.
4. An explanation for the delay between 1 April and 16 June in issuing a permit.
If you maintain that you have no control over PCM, please clarify in writing who is the organ grinder and who is the monkey in your contractual relationship with PCM.
If you fail to resolve this, I will proceed with a claim for damages for breach of quiet enjoyment, derogation from grant, trespass and harassment, together with complaints to the Property Ombudsman and the ICO.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Address]
[Tenancy Reference]
Send the following to either the managing agent or the landlord:
Subject: Unlawful Parking Enforcement, Trespass & Vicarious Liability
Dear [Managing Agent/Landlord's Name],
I write regarding the continued harassment and unlawful conduct of PCM UK Ltd, who have issued multiple speculative invoices (PCNs) against my vehicle parked in the space allocated with my tenancy at [Property Address].
The facts are not in dispute:
• I moved into the property on 5 April 2025. The parking space forms part of the demised premises and is included in the rent.
• No permit was provided upon move-in. The landlord initiated the permit application on 1 April, with multiple chasers sent through May and June. PCM responded only on 16 June, issuing a temporary permit valid until 2 July.
• During this administrative failure—entirely outside my control—six PCNs were issued, two escalated to Trace Debt Recovery.
• Appeals were submitted for all PCNs. PCM responded to only two, both rejected.
• Crucially, PCM sent correspondence to my old address, despite DVLA records being updated. I only received the rejection due to my former landlord’s intervention. PCM and Trace have refused to correct this or pause enforcement.
Let me be clear: There is no clause in the tenancy agreement requiring the display of a permit, nor any obligation to submit to the terms of signage erected by a third-party, unregulated private parking firm. Any application for a permit was made out of courtesy, not necessity.
Legal Position
Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, I am entitled to quiet enjoyment of the property, including the parking space. The continued interference by PCM constitutes a breach of this statutory duty.
You are either the principal or have appointed PCM as your agent. In either case, you are responsible for authorising and enabling their conduct, and will be held liable for any unlawful interference with my tenancy rights. If you should attempt to claim this is “out of your control”, then I invite you to clarify who is the monkey, and who is the organ grinder in your contractual relationship with PCM?
Final Warning
I do not intend to engage further with PCM or any third-party contractor who lacks authority to issue PCNs against a vehicle lawfully parked in my demised space. Any litigation initiated by your agent will be robustly defended, and you will be held liable for any counterclaim, including damages for trespass, harassment, and unlawful interference with tenancy rights.
You are hereby put on notice that failure to act will result in:
• A regulatory complaint to the Property Ombudsman
• A claim for damages for breach of quiet enjoyment and harassment
• A costs application in any future proceedings
• A formal complaint to the ICO for unlawful data processing
I expect written confirmation within 7 days that you have instructed PCM to cancel all PCNs and cease enforcement. I have attached all relevant correspondence, including rejected appeals and evidence of PCM’s delay.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Address]
[Tenancy Reference if applicable]
Based on the limited information you have provided, if the parking space is part of the demised premises and rent is paid for it, then you, as the tenant, have a contractual right to use it. That right cannot be unilaterally restricted by a third party unless the tenancy agreement explicitly allows it.
If the AST contains no clause requiring a permit, then: you are not contractually obligated to display one. Any charge for failing to do so is unenforceable, especially if issued by a private operator relying solely on signage.
Landlords or managing agents often assume that signage alone creates enforceable obligations. It doesn’t—not against tenants with superior contractual rights, unless the AST includes a clause like:
“The Tenant agrees to comply with any parking regulations or signage displayed on the Property, including the display of permits as required.”
...then the signage is not binding.
If PCM is issuing Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) based on signage alone, and the you have:
• A designated space,
• No permit obligation in the AST,
• And no clause submitting to third-party terms,
...then the operator may be trespassing or acting ultra vires (beyond their authority).
As you are going to be challenging enforcement with either the landlord or the management company, you should demand the contractual basis for the permit requirement. Cite the AST definition of “The Premises” and the absence of any clause binding the tenant to third-party terms. Invoke primacy of contract... the tenancy agreement overrides signage unless the tenant agreed to be bound by it.
The only way you would be bound to comply with the third party signs is if there was a clause similar to this in your AST:
“The Tenant agrees to comply with any parking regulations or signage displayed on the Property, including the display of permits as required.”
If the AST contained wording like this, then:
• You, as the Tenant, would be contractually obligated to follow signage rules.
• A failure to display a permit could be construed as a breach of tenancy.
• A third-party parking operator could argue they’re enforcing terms you agreed to.
However, if no such clause exists, then the signage is not binding on you. Your rights are governed by the AST—not by signs erected by a third party after the fact.