Overall, your draft is strong in substance but it can be tightened up and made more precise legally, with the emphasis placed in slightly different places. Before finalising your position, it is sensible for you to check your tenancy agreement (and any related estate rules from L&Q) for any references to parking, use of communal areas, or “regulations” imposed by the landlord or its agents.
If the tenancy or accompanying documents confirm a right to park or reflect the allocation of Bay 78, that reinforces your primacy of rights. Even if there is wording about complying with estate regulations, you can still argue that PCM cannot use that to derogate from or monetise an existing right to park in your own bay, but it is useful to know what the documents actually say so you are not surprised later.
You do not want to assert that the tenancy is silent on parking if they later produce a clause that mentions it. Better to use neutral wording that does not depend on what the tenancy does or does not say.
Your strongest argument remains the primacy of your rights granted by L&Q: your right to use Bay 78 comes directly from the landlord and has existed since 2012/2013, long before PCM became involved. PCM are merely agents and cannot interfere with, vary or override rights already granted by the landlord, so that point needs to be front and centre.
The signage argument is worth keeping but should be treated as secondary. You should stress that even if PCM were in a position to offer you a contract (which you deny), the terms are not prominent or legible, so no contract can be formed on the basis of those signs.
The fact that you held a valid permit for Bay 78, which had simply fallen from view, is important context and should be framed as, at most, a trivial or de minimis issue rather than any genuine breach. "
My right to use Bay 78 arises from my landlord, not from PCM’s signage, and any display of a permit has been done purely as a courtesy to assist identification of authorised vehicles, not because PCM has any power to impose conditions on my existing right." That approach is consistent with the reasoning in
Jopson v Homeguard, where the court recognised that residential schemes should not be applied rigidly to punish minor, transient matters where the occupier is otherwise entitled to be there.
Your standing and contract point is conceptually sound and should be retained. Because you already have the right to park in Bay 78, PCM has nothing to offer you, there is no consideration from them to you, and they have no proper basis to charge you for using your own allocated bay. In the letter you can also invite them to disclose any part of your tenancy, headlease or estate regulations they say supports PCM’s position, which helps flush out their arguments early.
The PAPDC angle is also good. You should clearly require the full set of documents (PCN, photos, signage, contract) and explicitly insist that they provide the Reply Form and Information Sheet if these were not enclosed, and state that the matter must be put on hold until they comply with the Protocol.
On the data protection side, it is better not to claim they have no lawful basis at all, because they do have a general legitimate interest in managing parking. Instead, now that they are on clear notice that you have prior rights and there is no genuine contractual breach, you can say that continued pursuit and data processing may be unfair or excessive and will lead to complaints to the ICO, DVLA, your MP and the landlord.
Finally, it is sensible to keep a short costs warning referring to CPR 27.14(2)(g). You can simply state that if they proceed unreasonably against a residential occupier parked in their own allocated bay, you will defend the claim and seek your costs for unreasonable conduct. There is no need to go into great detail about costs at the Letter Before Claim stage.
Before you send anything, it would be sensible for you to review your tenancy and any L&Q documents for anything at all that mentions parking, even if it is only general wording about use of car parks, communal areas, “regulations”, or “parking schemes”, rather than Bay 78 specifically.
In your Letter Before Claim response, you can suggest that if Moorside or PCM contend that any part of your tenancy, headlease, or estate rules supports their position, they must disclose the full wording of every clause that refers to parking or parking conditions and clearly identify which provisions they say authorise PCM to interfere with your use of Bay 78. That both underlines that your rights arise from L&Q, not PCM, and forces them to show you any lease-based argument they think they have.
No reason to delay responding but it would be worthwhile if you can clarify with us any mention at all about parking in your tenancy agreement, even if only relating to common areas etc. Here is a revised response based the above observations you can use which should be emailed to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and you also CC yourself:
Re: Your Letter Before Claim dated [insert date] – PCM UK PCN [reference] – Bay 78
Dear Sir/Madam,
I acknowledge receipt of your Letter Before Claim and confirm that I dispute the alleged debt in full. The matter must remain on hold pending full compliance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (PAPDC).
1. Landlord-granted right to Bay 78 (primacy of contract)
My housing provider and landlord, L&Q, formally allocated Bay 78 to me in or around 2012/2013 and I have had continuous and uninterrupted permission to use this bay for over a decade.
PCM acts only as an agent or contractor of the landowner or management company. An agent cannot override rights previously granted by the principal. I hold a valid resident’s permit for Bay 78 issued via the landlord or management, which evidences that allocation and permission.
My right to use Bay 78 arises from my tenancy with L&Q and their allocation of that bay to me. No later-introduced parking scheme or permit system operated by PCM can unilaterally vary or extinguish those rights without my informed agreement. Accordingly, there is no enforceable contract between PCM and me in respect of my use of Bay 78.
For the avoidance of doubt, if you contend that any term of my tenancy, any headlease, or any estate rules or “parking regulations” support your client’s position or authorise PCM to interfere with my use of Bay 78, you must disclose the full wording of every clause that refers to parking or parking conditions and clearly identify which provisions you say confer such authority. My rights arise from L&Q, not from PCM’s signage, and you are therefore required to show any lease-based argument you intend to rely on.
2. No contract formed due to inadequate and illegible signage
Even if PCM could in principle contract with me (which is denied), the signage at the location is faded, difficult to read, and incapable of fairly communicating any contractual terms.
Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, particularly Schedule 2, any terms relied upon must be transparent and prominent. In ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the Supreme Court upheld a charge in circumstances where the signage was clear, prominent and legible. That is not the case here.
Where terms are not adequately brought to the attention of the consumer, no contract can be formed on those terms. Any attempt to enforce a penalty in such circumstances is unfair and unenforceable.
3. Valid permit held – at most a trivial failure to display and display only as a courtesy
At the material time, I held a valid permit for Bay 78 and it was in the vehicle. It had fallen from its usual position due to previous vandalism of my car, which I had documented. This was a temporary display issue, not a situation where I lacked a permit or was parking without authorisation.
My right to use Bay 78 arises from my landlord, not from PCM’s signage, and any display of a permit has been done purely as a courtesy to assist identification of authorised vehicles, not because PCM has any power to impose conditions on my existing right. The most that can be said is that there was a trivial or de minimis failure of display, not any genuine breach.
This approach is consistent with the reasoning in Jopson v Homeguard (2016, HHJ Harris QC, Oxford County Court), where the court recognised that residential parking schemes should not be applied rigidly to punish minor or transient matters when the occupier is otherwise entitled to be there. Similarly, in Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011, the Court of Appeal held that a landlord or its agent cannot derogate from a granted right to park.
Your client is therefore attempting to penalise me for using my own allocated bay, with a valid permit, in circumstances where any alleged issue is at most a minor failure to display caused by factors beyond my control.
4. PCM has no standing to contract with a lawful occupier
As a lawful occupier with landlord-granted rights to Bay 78:
• PCM has no standing to offer me a contract for parking in the bay already allocated to me.
• PCM provides me with no consideration in respect of that bay.
• PCM has no cause to claim damages from me for using land I am already expressly authorised to use.
One cannot lawfully charge a person for doing what they are already contractually entitled to do. Your client is attempting to interfere with and monetise rights granted by my landlord many years before PCM’s involvement. That is not a legitimate basis for a civil claim.
5. Non-compliance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims
Your Letter Before Claim is defective and does not comply with the PAPDC. To remedy this, please supply all of the following:
1. A copy of the original PCN and any subsequent notices.
2. All photographs and evidence relied upon, including close-ups and wider-angle images of the vehicle and of the signage in situ at the material time.
3. Clear copies of all site signage and a site plan showing where signs were located at the material time.
4. A full, unredacted copy of the contract or landowner authority on which PCM relies, showing the contracting parties, the land covered, the dates and duration of any agreement, and the specific rights (if any) to issue PCNs and to litigate in their own name.
In addition, as set out above, if you claim that any term in my tenancy, any headlease, or any estate rules or regulations supports your client’s position, you must provide full copies of those documents and highlight every clause that refers to parking or parking conditions, together with an explanation of how you say those clauses authorise PCM to interfere with my use of my allocated bay.
Until you have provided the above and allowed a reasonable time for me to consider and respond, the case must remain on hold under the Protocol.
6. Data protection concerns
You are now on clear notice that:
• I am a lawful occupier of the property.
• Bay 78 was allocated to me by my landlord.
• I held a valid permit at the material time and was parking exclusively in my allocated bay.
In those circumstances there is no substantive basis for alleging a parking contravention against me. If, despite this, your client continues to process and share my personal data in pursuit of this baseless claim, I will consider such processing to be unfair and excessive and reserve my position as to complaints to:
• The Information Commissioner’s Office.
• The DVLA regarding misuse of keeper data.
• My Member of Parliament.
• The landlord (L&Q) and any managing agent.
7. Conclusion and costs warning
For the reasons above:
• I have long-standing landlord-granted rights to Bay 78.
• I held a valid resident’s permit and was parking only in my allocated bay.
• Any display of a permit was a courtesy, not an obligation imposed by PCM.
• The signage is inadequate to form a contract.
• PCM has no standing or consideration to create a contract with me in respect of land I am already entitled to use.
• Your Letter Before Claim does not comply with the PAPDC and you have yet to disclose any lease or estate clause that could possibly assist your client.
• There is no legal basis for this claim. I invite your client to cancel the PCN and to confirm in writing that the matter is closed.
If you nevertheless commence proceedings, I will defend the claim in full and draw the court’s attention to this letter, your client’s lack of standing, my primacy of contract, and your non-compliance with the PAPDC. I will also seek my costs pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g) on the basis that it is unreasonable to pursue a residential occupier for parking in their own allocated bay in circumstances where the right to park pre-dates your client’s involvement.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
[Address]
[PCN reference/Bay 78]
