Free Traffic Legal Advice

Please post the PCN (both sides) so this can be reviewed.

Using GSV, please tell us exactly where the car was parked. A link like this is preferable with text to say where the car was: -

https://maps.app.goo.gl/tKADRHpnDPgrvYB59

To do this, look at black square top left of a GSV street view. Click on the three vertical dots, then select "Share or embed image" then follow the instructions on the box. You'll get the link into your Clipboard, from whence it can be pasted into your thread.

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.

• 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)

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.

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.