Author Topic: PCN received by post from Parking & Property Management for not displaying visitor permit  (Read 5652 times)

0 Members and 50 Guests are viewing this topic.

Please, need your advice.
PCN received by post from Parking & Property Management for Not Displaying A Valid Visitor Scratch Card Permit.
We live in the block of flats for 15 years and always been allowed to park in the visitors bays along with lettered bays, but we never had an own allocated parking space. The other block with owners of the flats have their allocated numbered bays in the car park. A couple years ago there were placed some signs around the car park in a bid to prevent non-residents parking, but we were occasionally parked in the visitors bays without any issues. Suddenly, there was similar signs placed on top of the previous ones, appearing to be from Parking & Property Management, but we didn't noticed the change at a time. We have not received any communication from the landlord about the car park changes, no any consultations were taken place, contrary to our Assured Shorthold Weekly Tenancy contract. We never received any so-called Visitor Scratch Card Permits and no any parking permits at all.
But now we received the PCN by post with demand of £100 for changing the parking rules, which we were unaware of. There weren't any invoices attached to the vehicle. The car is registered to this address.
Thank you









« Last Edit: September 24, 2025, 02:39:54 pm by vwandi »

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook




Is that the sum total of anything to do with parking mentioned in your lease?

For now, the Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not PoFA compliant as it fails to mention the period of parking ads required by ¶9(2)(a). A single timestamp is not a "period" and so, they cannot rely on PoFA to hold the known Keeper liable for the unknown (to them) driver.

As any initial appeal is always gong to be rejected, you may as well appeal as advised below:

There is no legal obligation on the known keeper (the recipient of the Notice to Keeper (NtK)) to reveal the identity of the unknown driver and no inference or assumptions can be made.

The NtK is not compliant with all the requirements of PoFA which means that if the unknown driver is not identified, they cannot transfer liability for the charge from the unknown driver to the known keeper.

Use the following as your appeal. No need to embellish or remove anything from it:

Quote
I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge'. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. PPM has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only.

The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. PPM have no hope should you try and litigate, so you are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Quote
Is that the sum total of anything to do with parking mentioned in your lease?

Yes, this is all about the car parking that mentioned in the tenancy agreement.

Quote
the Notice to Keeper (NtK) is not PoFA compliant as it fails to mention the period of parking ads required by ¶9(2)(a). A single timestamp is not a "period"

On their website, as the photographic evidence, shown 9 pictures with the time stamps range from 04:45 to 04:55.

It’s the NTK that has to be compliant with PoFA 2012 on its own, and it isn’t.

The NtK says:

Quote
The period of parking to which this notice relates is the period that immediately preceded the Incident Date and Time, the charge having been incurred for the reason as stated above

Is this not compliant?

As already stated:
A single timestamp is not a "period"
Their notice states just a single time. As Jfollows has also already said:

It’s the NTK that has to be compliant with PoFA 2012 on its own
That additional information is available online does not remedy any failures on the issued notice. It would seemingly have been within their gift to list 04:45 - 04:55 as the period of parking on the notice (whilst that is not the total time the vehicle was parked, it would demonstrate a period of parking in excess of a relevant consideration period), but they chose not to do so.

Do I need to make any complaint to the landowner/A2Dominion, asking them to cancel this PCN? Or this is not that important at this stage, please?

Yes. Make a prompt, formal complaint to A2Dominion (the landlord) alongside the keeper-appeal already submitted.

Why a landlord complaint is appropriate:

Consultation duty: Your tenancy (cl. (9)) says A2Dominion will consult you before making changes to housing management/maintenance that are likely to have a substantial effect. Introducing (or tightening) a permit/scratch-card regime plainly affects residents’ ability to park.
Right to information: Cl. (10) gives you a right to information about tenancy terms and A2Dominion’s policies/procedures. No notice or permits were provided.
Complaints procedure: Cl. (11) requires A2Dominion to operate a complaints procedure and to inform tenants of changes.
Parking clauses: The “Roadways and Parking” term ((18)) restricts nuisance/obstruction etc., but does not create a permit obligation. A later third-party scheme cannot unilaterally vary your tenancy (primacy of contract/derogation from grant).

What you should ask A2Dominion to do:

1. Cancel the PCN and instruct Parking & Property Management to cease enforcement against your vehicle and address.
2. Confirm no contractual variation was made to require visitor scratch cards for tenants at your block, or, if A2Dominion believes there was a change, provide:

• the date and method of consultation/notification,
• copies of tenant communications and policy documents, and
• the landowner–operator contract/scope authorising enforcement in your courtyard.

3. Explain the visitor-permit policy: how residents were to obtain scratch cards; why none were supplied to you in 15 years’ occupation; and what reasonable adjustments are in place for residents’ visitors.
4. Data and address accuracy: confirm your DVLA address was used; require that no adverse data processing continues while the complaint is investigated.
5. Remedy: request written confirmation of cancellation and that no further PCNs will be pursued without proper consultation and supply of permits.

You can send the following to A2Dominion South Limited:

Quote
Subject: Formal Complaint – Parking & Property Management PCN / Unlawful Variation of Tenancy Terms

Dear A2Dominion South Limited,

I am the tenant and registered keeper at [full address]. I am raising a formal complaint concerning a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) recently issued by Parking & Property Management for “not displaying a valid visitor scratch card permit” whilst parked in the car park serving my block.

I have lived here for 15 years. During this time, tenants of this block have always been permitted to park in visitor bays as well as lettered bays. No resident in this block has an allocated space. At no point have I ever been supplied with, or informed of, any requirement to obtain visitor scratch card permits.

Only recently, I noticed that new signs had been placed over the top of existing ones. This appears to be when Parking & Property Management began enforcing a permit regime. I did not receive any consultation, advance notice, or communication from A2Dominion about such changes.

This is contrary to my tenancy agreement, in particular:

• Clause (9): A2Dominion must consult me before making changes in housing management or maintenance likely to have a substantial effect.
• Clause (10): I have a right to information about tenancy terms and A2Dominion’s repairing obligations, policies and procedures on tenant consultation, housing allocation and transfers, and performance as landlord.
• Clause (11): A2Dominion must establish a procedure for dealing with complaints and must inform tenants of any scheme changes.
• Clause (18): Roadways and parking restrictions are limited to obstruction, unroadworthy vehicles, and nuisance. There is no mention of a visitor permit scheme.

The introduction of a third-party enforcement regime without consultation amounts to a unilateral and unlawful variation of my tenancy and a derogation from grant.

I therefore require that A2Dominion:

1. Immediately instruct Parking & Property Management to cancel this PCN and to cease enforcement against my vehicle and address.
2. Confirm that no lawful variation has been made to my tenancy requiring scratch card permits. If you believe there has been, provide copies of all tenant consultation records, communications, and policy documents.
3. Disclose the scope and authority of the landowner–operator agreement with Parking & Property Management.
4. Explain why no visitor permits have ever been supplied to me in 15 years of residence.
5. Confirm that no further PCNs will be issued against residents of this block without proper consultation and supply of permits.

Please treat this as a formal complaint under your complaints procedure. Kindly provide a written response, a complaint reference, and advise me which stage of your procedure this complaint is logged under. If unresolved, I will escalate to the Housing Ombudsman.

Yours faithfully,

[Full name]
[Flat and building address]

Do you know when the PPM signs were replaced to include this 'material change'? If it was within the last 4 months, did they also post temporary signs that clearly indicated that there is a 'material change' to the terms and conditions?
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Quote
Yes. Make a prompt, formal complaint to A2Dominion (the landlord) alongside the keeper-appeal already submitted.

Thank you so much for doing such a great job!  :)


Today I received another PCN by post for 17.09.25 with an identical wording as the previous one for 11.09.25 which I received on 19.09.25, with only a difference:
  • Reference Number
  • Incident Time/Date
  • pictures of the car

Quote
I am the tenant and registered keeper at [full address].
I am the registered keeper but the tenancy contract in the name of my partner. Should my partner to make a complain to the landowner stating that the car has been registered to this address?
Do I have to wait until 28 days before making my appeals to PPM for each PCN or I can just appeal them both straight away, please?

There is no ned to wait to make the appeal but if you are trying to get the management company to instruct their agent to cancel the PCNs, then at least give them time to respond. Just make sure you send the stock appeal before the 28 days are up.

Are you resident with your partner?

In this situation, it is advisable for your partner (as the named tenant) to make the complaint to the landowner or managing agent. Your partner is the legal tenant, so they are the person with the contractual relationship with the landowner or managing agent.

The complaint is about residential parking rights, enforcement, or permit use—so it is best framed as a tenant issue, even if the vehicle is registered to you. Your partner can state that you (their partner) are the registered keeper, that the car is permanently based at the property, and is used by the household.

Most tenancy agreements that include parking do not restrict parking to vehicles owned by the tenant, but rather to vehicles authorised or used by the tenant and their household.

Email the following to the managing agent/landlord:

Quote
Subject: Residential Parking Issue – [Insert Property Address]

Dear [Managing Agent / Landlord Name],

I am writing in relation to a parking issue affecting my tenancy at [insert full address].

I am the tenant named in the lease and I understand that parking is managed at the property. I wish to confirm that a vehicle regularly parked at the premises—[insert make, model, and registration number]—is registered to my partner, who resides with me at the property.

This vehicle has been registered to this address and is used as part of our household. I would like confirmation that it is authorised to park in accordance with my tenancy rights, and I request that no enforcement action is taken against this vehicle.

Please confirm receipt of this letter and update your records accordingly.

Yours sincerely,

[Your Partner’s Full Name]

[Date]
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain

Quote
Subject: Formal Complaint – Parking & Property Management PCN / Unlawful Variation of Tenancy Terms
Quote
Subject: Residential Parking Issue – [Insert Property Address]
Should we send these as two separate emails or should we combine them into one formal complaint?

You can send them together but they should be separate documents.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2025, 06:16:18 pm by b789 »
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience” - Mark Twain