Operator: UK Car Park Management. Residential development, share of freehold, managed by a resident-director management company.
Hi! First time posting here. I would very much appreciate your help. I hope I provided the right amount of info. Thank you.
Timeline- 7 May 2026 — PCN issued for no permit displayed.
- Late May 2026 — Appealed to the operator as registered keeper only (driver never identified).
- Early June 2026 — Rejected. Boilerplate.
- June 2026 — IAS appeal submitted with statements included in the 'my grounds' section.
- 29 July 2026 — IAS appeal dismissed. Text included for ref.
Undisputed facts- The car was parked in space 5.
- No permit was displayed in the windscreen.
- Signage is present on site.
- I am the registered keeper. The driver has never been named.
- My partner is the leaseholder.
- We are both the legal occupiers of the property.
My grounds- A1. No landowner authority. The space is expressly demised to the leaseholder. The management company's rights over it under the Third Schedule are limited to inspection and maintenance. My ground is the management company can't delegate an enforcement right, I believe, it never held.
- A2. Wrong land. The lease plan distinguishes the demised space from the common/amenity land. The operator's remit can only be the amenity land. Space 5 is not part of the common/amenity land.
- A3. No contract, no consideration. The leaseholder holds an unconditional right to use the space; nothing is offered in return for the permit condition.
- A4. Code breaches. Clause 14.1 requires written landowner (defined by the code also as legal occupier) authority before a charge is issued; they never obtained our authority. Note 3 warns against permit requirements that cut across lease rights.
- A5. No notice affixed despite the attendant being present. The PCN was only issued by post.
- A6. No care taken to verify permit presence. The permit was in the vehicle, visible if one looked by the side window on the floor. No care was taken by the attendant to verify the permit's presence. A timestamped picture by the neighbour does show the permit present in the car.
The operator's case- B1. They accept the leaseholder "may have rights" over the space, but say a right to park doesn't exempt a vehicle from the site's parking management arrangements. The PCN was about non-compliance with the conditions in force, not about whether the leaseholder gave permission.
- B2. On authority: they act under a written agreement, the management company instructed the scheme, and they are not required to show motorists their commercial agreement. They assert the Code's authority requirement is satisfied.
- B3. On consideration: the charge isn't payment for parking rights, it's for breach of the displayed terms, and by parking the driver accepted those terms.
- B4. On my case law: each case turns on its own facts, none establishes a general exemption, and a permit requirement that doesn't remove the underlying right can be a reasonable administrative measure rather than a derogation from grant.
- B5. On the permit being inside the car: it wasn't displayed as required at the time of inspection, and continuous correct display is the motorist's responsibility.
The adjudicator's decision (dismissed)Boiled down to five findings:
- C1. Partial documents: He accepted the space forms part of the leasehold property, but said I had supplied only extracts of the legal documents, so he had no way of knowing whether the right to park is unrestricted. Burden on me; not satisfied. Indeed, I submitted all extracts that were concerning the parking space, not the full document.
- C2. Head lease: The operator's contract is with the original lessor under the head lease, so absent proof the leasehold right is unrestricted, he wasn't prepared to accept the operator has no authority over the space.
- C3. Implied consent: He accepted that I may have some lease right but even in such case, because I had consented by taking part in the permit scheme I accepted the contract. On his reasoning, participating doesn't surrender the underlying right but does bind you to the scheme's "reasonable administrative requirements", and you can't take the benefit of the scheme and ignore it when it suits.
- C4. Authority is irrelevant to contract: The operator's relationship with the landowner doesn't affect a driver's ability to contract with the operator.
- C5. Photos show the vehicle parked without a permit displayed.
.
QuestionBasically - what now? Do I pay up or have a valid case? If I don't pay I suppose they will take me to court? How to prepare for it?
Documents
Thank you very much for any help.
Show Posts