Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Dandalf

Pages: [1] 2
1
In England and Wales a tenant has no automatic right to a free copy of the head lease from the letting agent, and the agent has no general statutory duty to supply it. However, if your tenancy agreement purports to bind you to comply with terms of the head lease (or the parking rules arise under that head lease), it is reasonable to request the relevant extracts. Many agents/landlords will provide those parts (rights granted, regulations, plans).

If they won’t, the practical route is to obtain an official copy from HM Land Registry yourself. It’s inexpensive and avoids delay.

Hello, me again!

A few updates:
  • I have got a copy of the Title Register and there seems to be no head lease for this property (page 1 , page 2 , page 3 , page 4 )
  • The defendant has now received an N1SDT from BaySentry/DCB Legal dated 23rd October (attached here)
  • Along with the N1SDT, their is a cover letter regarding not responding and receiving a CCJ etc (attached here)


Amongst the list of 'particulars of claim' on the N1SDT, the defendant is pursued as the keeper or the driver of the vehicle.
To be absolutely clear here, the driver is not the owner/keeper of the vehicle. But they do have ability to drive the vehicle (full license and included on the insurance) but they were not the driver at the time of the incident occurring.
Does this change anything?


To put minds at rest, the defendant is obviously scared of receiving some kind of CCJ or mark against their credit file should this go to court etc. Under what circumstances would a CCJ on the credit file be given as obviously want to avoid that but also fight these scumbags if possible and you believe worthwhile?


Could you please advise on next steps, given the 1. Title registry attached, 2. the N1SDT and particulars of the case, 3. and fear of CCJ?

Thank you so much as always for helping!

2
Private parking tickets / Re: BaySentry Solutions Ltd - No parking permit
« on: September 09, 2025, 02:40:08 pm »
You can safely ignore all debt recovery letters. Debt collectors are powerless to actually do anything except to try and persuade the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to pay up out of ignorance and fear.

Okay that's a relief to know, thank you for the response.

Should the tenant be paying for the headlease from land registry at this point or should this be something the Letting Agent has to supply?
We're still stumped on who has what obligations.

To be clear also regarding this case, the tenant is not the owner of the vehicle.

3
Private parking tickets / Re: BaySentry Solutions Ltd - No parking permit
« on: September 03, 2025, 06:08:25 pm »
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

4
Hi all - happy Friday!


So the tenant reached out to their Letting Agent who then had to request the headlease from someone else (unknown except abbreviation "PBM" in reply). Once the Letting Agent received a reply from "PBM" they've forwarded it to the tenant:

I am presuming they means their lease rather than the Head Lease, we don’t hold individual copies but their lawyer will have access to the land registry site and all leases will be able to be downloaded.


Is this an acceptable response, should they be providing the headlease? It seems like something they should provide upon request, plus it looks as if the tenant would have to purchase their own lease from Land Registry otherwise?


Thanks for all help as always.
Cheers,
Dan

5
Thanks for your detailed responses, both.

I didn't even know what a headlease was, I had to Google it. I'll ask the tenant to request it from the Letting Agent so we have more information.

Yeah, the bays are numbered with one bay assigned to each house or flat.


Best wishes,
Danny

6
Just tell us what the lease says about parking. No need to try and second guess anything. In the majority of these cases, there is nothing in the lease that allows a third party to override what is in the lease.

Once we know what the lease says, we can advise further.

DO NOT say that the permit was displayed as a "convenience"!!! If you have to mention it, then the permit is displayed as a courtesy!

We need to see exact wording for the lease when you find it. Anything it says about parking, including any defined terms such as things that defines where any allocated bays are etc.

Hi all,

I've finally managed to get the recent signed copy (18 June 2025) of the lease from the tenant. I've anonymised the data and attached it here.

The only 3 specific mentions of parking that I can see, are as follows:

1.8.4 Subject to The Deposit Protection Service (The DPS) terms and conditions, the Deposit will be
refunded, less any deductions, once the following have been completed:
1.8.4.2 all keys, access devices, remote controls and parking permits have been returned

4.3.14 Not change the locks (or install additional locks) to any doors in the Property, nor make additional
keys for the locks without Permission. All keys, access devices, remote controls and parking permits are
to be returned when possession of the Property is returned to the Landlord.

4.6 END OF TENANCY
4.6.2 Return all keys, access devices, remote controls and parking permits to the Property on the last
day of possession (or sooner by mutual arrangement).


I presume no specific mention of Bay-Sentry or parking spaces etc work in our favour here - what would be the next step(s)?

Appreciate all your help and advice.

Many thanks,
Dan

7
Hi,

Thanks for the response - I can check with the tenant and what the lease/equivalent says about parking.

But I agree, nothing to do with them or anyone else really.
As said, it's a private gated community anyway that is not accessible to the general public, so only people with a right to park there can actually access it.

Is the best course of action to reply to them or ignore?

Many thanks,
Dan

8
Private parking tickets / BaySentry Solutions Ltd - No parking permit
« on: August 09, 2025, 05:33:14 pm »
Hi all,

Vehicle was parked in a gated residential car park in Hull, only accessible by homeowners and guests with passcode for said car park, so obviously everyone that parks here has the required permit provided.

A driver returned to the car one day to find it had been ticketed overnight by BaySentry Solutions Ltd for having no permit. The car does have a permit, although when checking the vehicle it had blown/fallen into the footwell (could still be seen from the exterior of the vehicle if you knew where to look!).

Tenant, not necessarily the driver or vehicle owner, contacted the landlord/housing agent to see if they could rectify as a valid permit was in place, was told had to appeal directly to BaySentry Solutions Ltd.

BaySentry Solutions Ltd was contacted and situation explained, images of the valid parking permit were also attached. BaySentry Solutions Ltd acknowledged the appeal and the valid permit and still demanded £20 for no reason at all.

Tenant has now received another letter from Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd (DCBL) today (9th August), but dated 31st July, demanding £170 for an unpaid parking charge (https://ibb.co/ym4DPk8G). The letter states we have 14 days to respond but only arrived today, giving us only 5 days.

All help sincerely appreciated in squashing this ridiculous claim when we clearly have the right to park here with a valid permit.

Many thanks,
Dan

9
Hello all,

Just wanted to say a massive thank you to all who contributed and helped along the journey - the claimant has now decided NOT to pursue the claim against the defendant and has been thrown out.

Keep up the good fight!

Best wishes,
Dan

10
This is a slow process and can take many months because the courts are overwhelmed with cases. Just ignore all offers of a settlement from DCB Legal and they will discontinue before they have to pay a hearing fee if the allocation judge doesn't strike the claim out first.

The defendant has now received (yesterday via post) a "Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track (Hearing)" after the district judge has reviewed the statements of case.
The letter goes on to state the claimant must pay a small fee (£27) by 4th April, otherwise it will be struck out. I presume they won't actually pay this and it will be struck out?

As today the defendant has received another email with a new reduced rate of offer to settle for £80 from DCB Legal.

The letter states the defendant needs to submit a statement of witnesses (including themselves) no later than 14 days before the court hearing date. So it looks like they'll have to do this as the deadline for it being struck out and the court date is only 10 days apart - is there anything 'special' they need to prepare/send?

Many thanks for all help as always!

11
Once the case management judge reviews the case, they will either order that the claim is struck out or for the claimant to submit further PoC which you will then be able to submit an amended defence or simply allocate a hearing date with deadlines for Witness Statement (WS).

Please let us know when the allocation judge sends you a letter with the order.

Nothing from the courts, yet.

The defendant did receive an email a couple of days ago from 'DCB Legal' offering a settlement of £150. I'm guessing they anticipate this being struck out and are just trying to get something from it before that has chance to happen?

12
This will either be struck out at allocation stage which is after it is transferred to your local county court or around a month before the hearing date when the hearing fee becomes due.

It will depend on how busy or backlogged your local county court is.


Thanks, the defendant has received a "Notice of transfer of Proceedings" today in the post to say it's been transferred to the local court for allocation.

I presume it's when they (the local court) come to review at this stage they may opt to strike out based on your above message?


Thanks as always,
Dan

13
Nothing to panic about. The mediation call is not part of the judicial process and there is no judge or solicitors involved.

The only requirement is to "attend" the call. You offer £0 and it is over in minutes. It has no bearing on anything going forwards.

The mediator is not legally trained and if they ask about your defence or offer any opinion, tell them that the claimant has a copy of the defence and ask them what their legal qualification is that allows them to give an opinion if they're offering one.


Thanks, defendant followed the advice above.

Are we likely to see the claimant drop this now, or are they likely to pursue with several more 'reduced rate offers' of settlement?

14
Hello again,

Happy New Year, is it too late to say that?


The defendant has now received a mediation appointment from HMC and Tribunals for the end of this month.
Needless to say they're panicking a fair bit about what this means, how likely it is to be dropped etc.

Any general do's or don'ts apart from admitting fault/guilt and saying they'll pay the fine of course  ;D


Many thanks as always,
Dan

15
Ig more. It's all standard and as expected. You have received a copy of their DQ. You will eventually receive your own DQ. Check your MCOL history to see when yours has been sent.

In anticipation and to get ahead of the game, you can download your own here:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/673341e779e9143625613543/N180_1124.pdf

Fill it in online and you can sign it by simply typing your full name for the signature. When you see that yours has been sent in your MCOL history, you simply send yours in a single email addressed to both dq.cnbc@justice.gov.uk and info@dcnlegal.co.uk and CC in yourself.

Thanks for this b789, just double checking that the second email address is a typo and should be the info@dcblegal ? Or is this another government email address that I'm unfamiliar with.

Thanks,
Dan

Pages: [1] 2