Some misconceptions are floating around here. The land is private and the landowner can make up any rules they want. They could have a green marked bay that only allows red cars to park on Tuesdays.
The requirement to have marked disabled bays is a legal requirement. If Neil Douglas Management company are the firm that contracted the vermin, unregulated privater parking firm PPM to manage the car park and they also informed you that anyone with a permit can use the disabled bays and you have that in writing, then as long as the estate management company previously stated that any permit holder may use the disabled bays, this overrides signage requiring a Blue Badge, as it forms part of the contractual terms governing parking use.
PPM may be acting ultra vires — beyond the authority granted by the landowner or their agent.
The Blue Badge scheme does not apply on private land. Requiring a badge as a condition to use a disabled bay is a contractual term, not a statutory one.
Additionally, the Notice to Keeper (NtK) simply states that the period of parking to which the notice relates is the period that immediately preceded the incident date and time. The notice is not complaint with PoFA 2012 para 9(2)(a) which means that the Keeper is under no legal obligation to identify the driver and there can be no Keeper liability.
So, recapping the facts, and correct me if I'm wrong...
• The management company, Neil Douglas, previously stated in writing that anyone with a permit may use disabled bays, regardless of Blue Badge status.
• The pregnant visitor was told by the resident to park in the bay based on this policy.
• A PCN was issued by an unregulated private parking firm for not displaying a Blue Badge.
• The NtK is not PoFA-compliant, meaning keeper liability cannot be enforced.
Whether the statements were made in email, meeting minutes, or formal policy documents, they are still written representations. In contract law, written representations made by agents of the landowner (or their appointed management company) can form part of the terms and conditions governing use of the land.
If JJ and CW were acting as representatives of Neil Douglas during an official meeting and their statements were recorded in writing, and residents were led to believe they had authority to speak on behalf of the company, then Neil Douglas is bound by those representations, even if JJ and CW were not senior managers.
This is supported by case law principles such as
Freeman & Lockyer v Buckhurst Park Properties (Mangal) Ltd [1964] 2 QB 480, which established that a company may be bound by the acts of an agent if the agent was held out as having authority.
The case held that a company was bound by the actions of an agent who had no formal authority, but was held out as having it. What matters is how the company, through JJ and CW, presented the agent’s role, not their job title
The parking firm is enforcing a rule (Blue Badge required) that contradicts written representations made by the landowner’s agents. The visitor parked in good faith, based on those representations. The signage and enforcement are therefore misleading, and the PCN is unenforceable under contract law and unfair under consumer protection principles.
What you, as the resident, should complaint to the management company. Include the meeting minutes or written record and assert reliance on the representations. Demand cancellation of the PCN and clarification of policy.
Here is a draft of what you should write. DO NOT conduct any negotiation verbally, either face to face or by phone. It should all be in writing:
Subject: Formal Complaint — Request to Cancel PCN Issued in Contravention of Estate Guidance
Dear Neil Douglas Property Management,
I am writing to formally request that you instruct your parking enforcement contractor, Parking & Property Management Ltd (PPM) to cancel the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued in relation to a vehicle that visited me at [insert flat number and address] on 10June 2025.
During a residents meeting on 9 August 2023 attended by your representatives JJ and CW, it was stated — and recorded in writing in the minutes — that:
• The disabled bays on site are not regulated
• Parking operates on a first-come, first-served basis
• Permit holders may use disabled bays, regardless of Blue Badge status
The vehicle in question was displaying a valid visitor permit and was directed to park in a disabled bay based on this guidance. The bay was used respectfully and without obstruction.
Importantly, the individual who exited the vehicle was heavily pregnant and required additional space to safely access the vehicle. This use was both reasonable and necessary. Enforcing a penalty in these circumstances — especially when your own staff have confirmed that disabled bays are available to permit holders — is not only unjust but may constitute indirect discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, which protects against policies that disproportionately disadvantage individuals with protected characteristics, including pregnancy.
As the landowner’s appointed agent, you are responsible for ensuring that enforcement practices reflect the terms communicated to residents. Your contractor is acting beyond its authority by enforcing restrictions that you have explicitly disclaimed.
I therefore request that you:
• Immediately instruct the parking firm to cancel the PCN
• Confirm in writing that permit holders may use disabled bays as previously stated
• Review signage and enforcement practices to ensure consistency with your published guidance
Please treat this as a formal complaint. I expect a written response within 14 days confirming cancellation of the PCN and clarification of your policy.
Yours sincerely,
[Resident’s Full Name]
[Flat Number]
[Contact Information]
What your friend should do, only as the Keeper of the vehicle, is appeal the PCN. 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:
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, the estate management company, who previously confirmed in writing that disabled bays on site are not regulated and may be used by any permit holder.
As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012 — specifically failing to define the period of parking as required by Paragraph 9(2)(a) — 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. P&PM 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. P&PM have no hope should you ever try and litigate this, especially given the landowner’s written guidance and the Equality Act implications of penalising someone who required extra space due to pregnancy. You are urged to save us both a complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
