I will come back to this and provide the deadlines and how to respond to the claim. However, just to put your mind at ease, there is zero chance of getting a CCJ and it will not affect your “credit file” even if you were to receive one, as long as it is paid in full within 30:days of judgment.
Nothing we advise on here will affect your credit record. Here is some education about how CJJs happen:
A County Court Judgment (CCJ) does not just happen—it follows a clear legal process. If someone gets a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) from a private parking company, here's what happens step by step:
1. Parking Charge Notice (PCN) Issued• The parking company sends a letter (Notice to Keeper) demanding money.
• This is not a fine—it’s an invoice for an alleged breach of contract.
2. Opportunity to Appeal• The recipient can appeal to the parking company.
•If rejected, they may be able to appeal to POPLA (if BPA member) or IAS (if IPC member).
• If an appeal is lost or ignored, the parking company demands payment.
3. Debt Collection Letters• The parking company might send scary letters or pass the case to a debt collector.
• Debt collectors have no power—they just send letters and can be ignored.
• No CCJ happens at this stage.
4. Letter Before Claim (LBC)• If ignored for long enough, the parking company (or their solicitor) sends a Letter Before Claim (LBC).
• This is a warning that they may start a court case.
• The recipient has 30 days to reply before a claim is filed.
• No CCJ happens at this stage.
5. County Court Claim Issued• If ignored or unpaid, the parking company may file a claim with the County Court.
• The court sends a Claim Form with details of the claim and how to respond.
• The recipient has 14 days to respond (or 28 days if they acknowledge it).
• No CCJ happens at this stage.
6. Court Process• If the recipient defends the claim, a judge decides if they owe money.
• If the recipient ignores the claim, the parking company wins by default.
• No CCJ happens yet unless the recipient loses and ignores the court.
7. Judgment & Payment• If the court rules that money is owed, the recipient has 30 days to pay in full.
• If they pay within 30 days, no CCJ goes on their credit file.
• If they don’t pay within 30 days, the CCJ stays on their credit file for 6 years.
Conclusion
CCJs do not appear out of thin air. They only happen if:
• A parking company takes the case to court.
• The person loses or ignores the case.
• The person fails to pay within 30 days.
If you engage with the process (appeal, defend, or pay on time), no CCJ happens.
I have reviewed the tenancy agreement and here are the key points relevant to whether the landlord, their agent, or a third-party parking company could require the display of a parking permit and issue PCNs:
1. No express clause about parking permits or parking enforcement
• The agreement does not contain any clause authorising the landlord, their agent, or a third party to require the display of a parking permit, nor does it mention parking charges, penalties, or PCNs.
2. References to "parking permits"
• Clause 1.8.4.2 requires the tenant to return "all keys, access devices, remote controls and parking permits" at the end of the tenancy.
• Clause 4.3.14 repeats that all "keys, access devices, remote controls and parking permits" are to be returned at the end of possession.
These references only confirm that a parking permit may exist; they do not create an obligation to display one, nor do they authorise enforcement action for non-display.
3. Tenant obligations and covenants
• The agreement obliges the tenant to observe covenants in any headlease (Clause 4.3.25) but specifically excludes rent and service charge payments.
Unless the headlease itself requires permit display and empowers third-party enforcement, this clause does not grant such rights.
4. Third party rights
• Clause 1.9 explicitly states that “no clause of this agreement may be enforced by any third party, other than the Landlord’s Agent, pursuant to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999.”
This prevents a third-party parking company from relying on the tenancy agreement itself to enforce PCNs.
5. Quiet enjoyment
• Clause 5.2 guarantees the tenant “quiet enjoyment of the Property during the tenancy without any unlawful interruption from the Landlord or any person lawfully claiming under or in trust for the Landlord.”
Any third-party enforcement interfering with parking rights could be challenged as a breach of this covenant, unless clearly authorised.
Conclusion
The tenancy agreement does not grant authority for the landlord, their agent, or a third-party parking operator to require permit display or issue PCNs for failure to display.
• The only mentions of “parking permits” are administrative (returning them at tenancy end).
• Enforcement rights by a third party are explicitly excluded.
• Unless the headlease (not provided here) contains a parking enforcement covenant, no lawful basis exists in this agreement for a third-party operator to impose or enforce PCNs.
So, without seeing the headless, it is not conclusive. However, you should be aware of the following points:
• Your tenancy imports headlease covenants only if provided, and they exclude rent/service charge obligations. If you haven’t been given the headlease, you cannot be bound by unnotified permit obligations.
• Even if the headlease says “subject to regulations”, courts require regulations to be reasonable and consistent with the grant. A right to park is not extinguished by a failure to display a flimsy permit.
• Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 exclusion (Clause 1.9) blocks a parking company from claiming direct enforcement rights under this tenancy.
• Any PCN regime imposed on a lawful tenant with parking rights is likely to be an unlawful derogation from grant and/or breach of quiet enjoyment.
I think it would be wise to try and get sight of the headlease.
b789 correctly notes that there aren't any clauses that would seem to create any agreement with BaySentry. The only thing that gives me some reservation is that none of what you have shown us would seem to conclusively provide a right to park. The mention of parking permits would certainly allude to parking being included in your lease, but ideally something confirming that parking is provided would do no harm.
Are the bays numbered, or are there just a series of spaces, of which any may be used? If the latter, the references to use of 'common parts' might be of relevance.
Hi both/all,
Along with the Letting Agent not supplying the head lease (as detailed in post above) the tenant has now received a letter from DCBL (Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd) with a "final reminder".
What are the appropriate next steps?
Many thanks,
Dam
I have reviewed the tenancy agreement and here are the key points relevant to whether the landlord, their agent, or a third-party parking company could require the display of a parking permit and issue PCNs:
1. No express clause about parking permits or parking enforcement
• The agreement does not contain any clause authorising the landlord, their agent, or a third party to require the display of a parking permit, nor does it mention parking charges, penalties, or PCNs.
2. References to "parking permits"
• Clause 1.8.4.2 requires the tenant to return "all keys, access devices, remote controls and parking permits" at the end of the tenancy.
• Clause 4.3.14 repeats that all "keys, access devices, remote controls and parking permits" are to be returned at the end of possession.
These references only confirm that a parking permit may exist; they do not create an obligation to display one, nor do they authorise enforcement action for non-display.
3. Tenant obligations and covenants
• The agreement obliges the tenant to observe covenants in any headlease (Clause 4.3.25) but specifically excludes rent and service charge payments.
Unless the headlease itself requires permit display and empowers third-party enforcement, this clause does not grant such rights.
4. Third party rights
• Clause 1.9 explicitly states that “no clause of this agreement may be enforced by any third party, other than the Landlord’s Agent, pursuant to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999.”
This prevents a third-party parking company from relying on the tenancy agreement itself to enforce PCNs.
5. Quiet enjoyment
• Clause 5.2 guarantees the tenant “quiet enjoyment of the Property during the tenancy without any unlawful interruption from the Landlord or any person lawfully claiming under or in trust for the Landlord.”
Any third-party enforcement interfering with parking rights could be challenged as a breach of this covenant, unless clearly authorised.
Conclusion
The tenancy agreement does not grant authority for the landlord, their agent, or a third-party parking operator to require permit display or issue PCNs for failure to display.
• The only mentions of “parking permits” are administrative (returning them at tenancy end).
• Enforcement rights by a third party are explicitly excluded.
• Unless the headlease (not provided here) contains a parking enforcement covenant, no lawful basis exists in this agreement for a third-party operator to impose or enforce PCNs.
So, without seeing the headless, it is not conclusive. However, you should be aware of the following points:
• Your tenancy imports headlease covenants only if provided, and they exclude rent/service charge obligations. If you haven’t been given the headlease, you cannot be bound by unnotified permit obligations.
• Even if the headlease says “subject to regulations”, courts require regulations to be reasonable and consistent with the grant. A right to park is not extinguished by a failure to display a flimsy permit.
• Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 exclusion (Clause 1.9) blocks a parking company from claiming direct enforcement rights under this tenancy.
• Any PCN regime imposed on a lawful tenant with parking rights is likely to be an unlawful derogation from grant and/or breach of quiet enjoyment.