What is not mentioned in the lease about parking is equally important as what is mentioned. If there is no mention of requiring a permit or to be whitelisted or that the tenant is liable to charges from a third party, to a signatory to the lease and introduced after the lease was agreed, is probably grounds for it to be void.
However, IANAL and I strongly advise you and your fellow lessees to pitch in together and seek legal advice from a lawyer that specialises in contract law and leases and that has experience of dealing with breaches of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. This Act grants Security of Tenure to tenants who occupy premises for business purposes.
Section 23(1) of the Act provides that there must be:
A tenancy: a lease, not a licence
The premises must be occupied by the tenant: this can be the tenant themselves, through an agent or manager, or through a company that the tenant owns;
The premises must be occupied for business purposes: the business must be the main purpose of the occupation, but need not be the sole purpose, for example a shop with a flat above will be included.
Excluded tenancies:
Agricultural, mining, service and farm business leases are excluded by the Act. In addition, railway property, military establishments and dockyards are also excluded.
A tenancy that can be terminated by either landlord or tenant at any time is excluded by the Act.
Fixed term tenancies not exceeding 6 months are excluded unless the tenancy contains a provision for renewing or extending the term beyond the 6 months or the tenant has been in occupation for a period exceeding 12 months
This is what I managed to find out for you to take to a specialist in this area:
The introduction of a third party, such as a PPC, issuing PCNs for terms not agreed upon in the lease raises important legal issues, particularly concerning privity of contract and the imposition of new terms that you, the tenant, never consented to. Here are some key points you should consider in challenging this:
1. Privity of Contract
Under privity of contract, only the parties to a contract are bound by its terms. In this case, the lease is a contract between you and the landlord, and no third party (such as a PPC) can unilaterally impose obligations on you unless explicitly permitted by the lease or through subsequent agreement.
• The PPC, as a third party and not a signatory to the lease, cannot introduce or enforce terms (such as parking charges) that were not part of the original lease.
• You have not agreed to any contractual relationship with the PPC, and therefore the PPC has no standing to issue PCNs or enforce parking terms against you (or your employees or visitors/suppliers.
2. Unilateral Variation of Lease Terms
The landlord cannot unilaterally change the lease terms or impose new obligations (such as the introduction of ANPR and PCNs) without your consent, unless the lease explicitly grants the landlord the right to do so in certain circumstances.
• Even if the lease contains general clauses allowing the landlord discretion over parking matters (e.g., "from time to time, at the discretion of the landlord"), these clauses must still be exercised reasonably and in good faith.
• Imposing new penalties or charges for parking—especially through a third party—would likely be considered an unreasonable and substantial variation of the existing lease terms.
• The tenant can argue that the introduction of a PPC issuing PCNs constitutes a significant variation to the lease, which materially alters your rights, and that such a variation cannot be imposed without negotiation or agreement.
3. Imposition of Unagreed Terms
The original lease outlines your rights to park in specific areas and does not mention restrictions, permits, or ANPR systems. The introduction of PCNs would create new financial liabilities that were not part of the original agreement.
• You can argue that this fundamentally alters the terms of the lease, creating new obligations to which you did not agree.
• Courts tend to view significant changes in contract terms that impose new financial burdens (such as parking charges) with scepticism, especially when they were not foreseen or agreed upon at the time the contract was signed.
4. Unfair Terms
The Consumer Rights Act 2015 may offer some protection, depending on the business structure of your company.
• While typically applied to consumer contracts, it also applies to businesses dealing with terms deemed unfair.
• If the landlord or the PPC attempts to introduce new terms without agreement, and those terms disproportionately affect you or shift the balance of the contract unfairly in favour of the landlord or PPC, this could be challenged under the CRA.
5. Introduction of Third Parties
Introducing a third party to enforce new terms—like a PPC issuing PCNs—could breach implied covenants within the lease, particularly the covenant for quiet enjoyment, which is standard in commercial leases under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954). This covenant ensures that tenants can use the premises without undue interference from the landlord or those acting on the landlord’s behalf.
• You could argue that the landlord’s action in contracting with a PPC to monitor parking and issue charges interferes with your right to quiet enjoyment, as recognised in the LTA 1954, and imposes a new and unjustified burden not originally agreed upon in the lease.
• This becomes particularly relevant if your and your employees/suppliers/visitors parking rights are being restricted by a third-party enforcement regime (such as ANPR cameras and PCNs), which could be viewed as an unreasonable interference with your and their use of the premises and parking facilities.
6. The Legal Status of PCNs
Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) issued by a PPC are invoices for an alleged breach of contract, not statutory fines.
• Since you have no contract with the PPC, you could argue that you are not liable for these invoices.
• The introduction of PCNs would rely on the assumption that you have agreed to new parking terms imposed by the landlord and enforced by the PPC, but without a contractual relationship with the PPC, you can reject these notices. However, it would e a bit more complex with relation to PCNs issued to your employees/suppliers/ visitors.
7. Estoppel and Legitimate Expectations
You might also argue that based on past practice (e.g., the written confirmation from the landlord allowing additional parking on a first-come, first-served basis), you had a legitimate expectation that your parking rights would not be suddenly and fundamentally altered.
• By allowing informal use of additional parking spaces, the landlord may be estopped from enforcing new parking restrictions, especially if it affects your established parking practices.
8. Seeking an Injunction
If the landlord proceeds with implementing the PPC and issuing PCNs, you may seek an injunction to prevent the landlord from enforcing new parking terms through a third party without your consent.
• You could ask the court to declare that the landlord's actions violate the lease and that the PPC has no right to impose charges on you or your employees/suppliers/visitors.
