DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 127885--------------------------------------------------
Tickets for failing to display permit twice in residential
parking lot
DIR By: thecheeseman123
Date: August 15, 2026, 4:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Dear all,
I have lived in my shared-ownership property for around 4 years
now. For the first 2-3 years, there was no parking management,
as it was a new estate. However, it is now under PCM's control.
I have received two tickets, both initially £60, later increased
to £100 for failing to display the permit, the first one was
becouse I was demolding my car and could not have any paper
within the car, the second time was due to the sun the permit
curled up, apparently making it unreadable (it has been
incredibly hot in the UK, this was unavoidable). I have made
responses to both PCM and Peabody, with my local councillor in
the loop, who is in support of us residents against the relevant
clauses of my contract. They escalated to debt recovery with
this company, Trace, which I ignored; now they sent a letter by
Moorside Legal. Here is their letter and my response to them
(apologies, this is quite long):
Your account has been transferred to Moorside Legal
Dear ,
We are writing to you regarding an outstanding balance of
£340.00 relating to multiple unpaid parking charges, reference .
Your account has been transferred to Moorside Legal Services, a
law firm authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation
Authority (SRA No. 8006077). We have been instructed by Parking
Control Management UK Limited to recover this balance.
Total amount outstanding
£340.00
Reference:
A formal letter is on its way to you. It will set out full
details of the debt and the steps we are required to take if it
remains unpaid. We strongly encourage you to act before that
letter arrives — doing so is the quickest and easiest way to
resolve this matter.
If this balance is not settled following our letter, we are
instructed to consider issuing a claim in the County Court.
Following court proceedings, if a County Court Judgment (CCJ) is
entered against you, it can remain on your credit record for up
to six years and may affect your ability to obtain credit, a
mortgage, or other financial products.
Pay now at portal.moorsidelegal.co.uk
Ways to resolve this matter
● Pay online
Available 24/7 at
portal.moorsidelegal.co.uk/pay
● Pay by phone
24/7 payment line:
0330 822 8519
● Payment plan
Set up affordable instalments at
portal.moorsidelegal.co.uk
● Speak to us
Mon–Fri 9am–5pm:
0330 822 9950
If you have already made payment, please disregard this notice
and accept our thanks.
Moorside Legal Services
Helpline: 0330 822 9950 · Mon–Fri 9am–5pm
Always quote your reference:
Need free and independent debt advice?
If you are experiencing financial difficulty, free, impartial
advice is available from Citizens Advice, StepChange, National
Debtline and MoneyHelper.
Pay online Customer portal Complaints Privacy notice
Moorside Legal Services Limited
Registered in England & Wales No. 15069347
Authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority
SRA ID: 8006077
PO Box 82112, London N17 1LG · portal.moorsidelegal.co.uk
This email has been sent to you because your contact details
were provided to Moorside Legal Services Limited by our client,
on whose behalf we are acting. Moorside Legal is committed to
protecting your personal data and processes information in
accordance with UK data protection law. If you believe you have
received this in error, please contact us on 0330 822 9950.
Moorside Legal is a trading style of Moorside Legal Services
Limited.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Moorside Legal Services,
I refer to your email dated 14 August 2026 concerning your
reference 40828927 and the alleged balance of £340 said to be
owed to your client, Parking Control Management (UK) Limited
("PCM").
I formally dispute the alleged debt in its entirety.
I have previously made PCM, and the landowner/estate manager
Peabody, fully aware of the legal basis upon which I dispute
liability for the relevant Parking Charge Notices. This is not a
case in which I have simply refused to pay an undisputed debt.
There is an ongoing substantive contractual and leasehold
dispute which has not been determined by a court.
I am the leaseholder and resident of 68 Atwater House, Armstrong
Road, Littlemore, Oxford. My lease expressly grants me a right
to park within the Parking Area. The lease also contains
detailed provisions governing the use of that Parking Area.
The relevant lease provisions contain no express requirement to
display a parking permit and no express provision authorising
PCM to impose contractual parking charges or penalties upon a
leaseholder exercising the parking right granted by the lease.
Peabody has sought to rely upon a general provision of the lease
concerning regulations relating to the Common Parts. I have
challenged the proposition that such a general regulatory
provision can reasonably or lawfully be interpreted as
authorising the imposition of punitive third-party contractual
charges upon leaseholders exercising an express leasehold
parking right.
In particular, PCM and Peabody have been provided with the
relevant lease provisions and have been expressly asked to
identify the contractual provision which they say authorises:
a mandatory permit-display requirement applicable to my
leasehold parking right;
PCM to impose contractual parking charges upon me;
the use of third-party signage to alter or supplement my
existing leasehold rights; and
the recovery of additional debt-recovery or legal costs arising
from such alleged liability.
No such specific contractual provision has been identified to
me.
The legal position therefore remains disputed and is not capable
of being resolved merely by PCM asserting that its signage
creates a contractual obligation.
I have also raised this matter with Peabody's legal/compliance
representatives and with my local councillor, Cllr Tiago Corais,
and the matter has also been raised with the local authority.
The existence of this correspondence and dispute is therefore
well documented.
The alleged £340 balance
I note that your email refers to "multiple unpaid parking
charges", whereas your reference appears to have previously been
used in debt-recovery correspondence concerning the parking
charges issued by PCM.
Please provide, before any further enforcement action is
contemplated:
a complete itemised breakdown of the £340 claimed;
the PCN number, date, time and alleged contravention for each
individual charge;
the original amount of each alleged parking charge;
the date and method by which each PCN was served;
details of every additional sum subsequently added to the
original charges;
the contractual or statutory basis relied upon for each
additional sum;
and confirmation of whether your client contends that any
debt-recovery fee, solicitor's fee or other additional cost is
presently contractually recoverable from me.
I do not accept that the mere referral of a disputed parking
charge to a debt-recovery agent or solicitor automatically
creates a further liability on my part for the costs incurred by
PCM.
Indeed, the Government's current work on the Private Parking
Code of Practice specifically recognises concerns surrounding
private parking debt-recovery practices. The Government's 2025
consultation records that the current industry cap for
debt-recovery fees is £70 and notes that the evidence gathered
to date provides limited support for the proposition that such
fees are an effective deterrent. The Government has also
expressly recognised concerns about motorists being intimidated
or misled during the debt-recovery process.
I appreciate that the current Government Code is subject to the
ongoing regulatory process and I do not rely upon it as though
it were presently binding legislation. I rely upon it as
relevant evidence of the Government's consideration of fairness,
proportionality and debt-recovery practices within the private
parking sector.
Notice of the existing dispute
PCM has already been placed on clear notice of my position, and
Peabody has likewise been informed of the underlying leasehold
dispute.
Accordingly, I do not accept that PCM can reasonably treat the
alleged charges as undisputed debts or incur additional costs on
the assumption that payment will simply follow.
My position is that the underlying Parking Charge Notices are
disputed on substantive legal grounds. Consequently, I also
dispute liability for any consequential debt-recovery or legal
costs which PCM may seek to add to those alleged charges.
If PCM considers that it has a legal basis for pursuing the
matter, it should provide the contractual and legal basis upon
which it relies rather than continuing to demand payment of an
alleged debt whose underlying liability is expressly disputed.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not refusing to engage with a
lawful court process. If PCM considers that it has a
sufficiently arguable case, it remains free to place the dispute
before the appropriate court, where the lease, the alleged
contractual terms, PCM's authority, and the recoverability of
any additional costs can be properly determined.
Until such determination, I do not admit liability for the
alleged £340 balance and I will not make payment.
Please place a formal note on your client's account that the
alleged debt is disputed in its entirety and that PCM has been
on notice of the substantive legal dispute since well before the
matter was referred for debt recovery.
I reserve all rights.
Yours faithfully,
Here is the relevant clause from my contract which grants
parking rights:
The right (on a first come first served basis) in common with
all other persons entitled to the like right to park one
domestic motorcar not exceeding 15 cwt or 2.1 metres in height
or motorcycle in a taxed sound and roadworthy condition only in
the Parking Area subject to the proviso that the Landlord or its
agent reserves the right to alter or agree to the alteration of
the location of and number of parking spaces in the Parking Area
and the location parking spaces at any time and provided that
the Landlord or its agent may temporarily close the parking
spaces for repairs, maintenance or other works.
The clause which Peabody is relying on to legitimise their new
signage scheme through PCM:
Comply with Regulations
To comply with such reasonable regulations as the Landlord may
make from time to time relating to the orderly and proper use of
the Common Parts the Communal Facilities the Estate and security
of the Building the management of the Estate and the welfare of
its occupants and the use of any Service Media, structures or
other items outside the Estate that are used or capable of being
used by the Estate in common with other land.
I do not believe introducing a permit scheme with £100 fines for
not displaying the permit- mind you, they ask £35 for a
replacement permit, which is just paper- is at all reasonable.
Any help and legal advice on this, if it's taken to court, would
be much appreciated!
#Post#: 127917--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tickets for failing to display permit twice in residential
parking lot
DIR By: thecheeseman123
Date: August 16, 2026, 8:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
No one can help me? :'(
#Post#: 127918--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tickets for failing to display permit twice in residential
parking lot
DIR By: Improt999
Date: August 16, 2026, 8:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The only thing you can do now is wait for a LoC or a claim
issued against you. But until then just ignore the powerless
debt collectors.
#Post#: 127919--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tickets for failing to display permit twice in residential
parking lot
DIR By: jfollows
Date: August 16, 2026, 8:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Exactly.
All you have to do is search the forum and find advice such as
--- Quote ---
> (b) the defendant responding within a reasonable time – 14
days in a straight forward case and no more than 3 months in a
very complex one. The reply should include confirmation as to
whether the claim is accepted and, if it is not accepted, the
reasons why, together with an explanation as to which facts and
parts of the claim are disputed
--- End Quote ---
which originates from
HTML https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct#6.1
This isn’t a personal legal service, and asking for and
expecting a personal response within 24 hours is inappropriate.
If this is what you want and expect, you should pay for a
qualified solicitor. Otherwise search the forum and learn from
the advice previously given, such as the quote above.
The people who provide advice here are unpaid volunteers who do
their best based on their experience. Being “told off” for not
responding quickly is unhelpful.
Just about any case, suitably defended, which relies on the
primacy of a lease or similar will be won.
#Post#: 127937--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tickets for failing to display permit twice in residential
parking lot
DIR By: tincombe
Date: August 16, 2026, 11:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have received two tickets, both initially £60, later increased
to £100 for failing to display the permit,
Where are these?
You are not being required to pay because the driver(s) at the
time received tickets(real description 'Notice to Driver'), you
are being required because you were the registered keeper on
both occasions. We need to see these Notices to Keeper.
If in correspondence with the creditor you have admitted to
being the driver, then tell us.
When you 'appealed' the Notices to Keeper did you then take the
matter through the creditor's chosen dispute resolution channel?
If so what happened.
This issue is one of law. It doesn't need you to write War and
Peace, in fact worse than this because you are attempting to
make the same points repeatedly: weight of evidence e.g. number
of pages etc. should not be taken literally.
It seems that you are trying to convince the creditor to abandon
their claim before court proceedings, but I don't understand
why.
If you want the issue of the primacy of your lease to be tested,
then IMO test it.
No need to rush and NO NEED to respond to the current letter. As
posted by others, wait for what would be a Letter before Claim.
You seem to be going at this in a rushed and annoyed fashion.
Why? IMO, just let the legal procedures grind their way through.
As regards your lease:
Is 'Parking Area' defined? It's got capitals, so probably yes.
Out of interest, are leaseholders permitted to transfer their
parking rights to others e.g. how are permits issued, to
leaseholders on simple request, with proof of being RK of a
named vehicle etc. etc?
What are the lease dispute resolution provisions. They'll be
there if you look.
So, as there's no need to respond to Moorside(if you must do
then JUST ACKNOWLEDGE) then with this time in hand pl post:
NTDs;
NTKs;
What happened as regards dispute resolution?
Have you admitted to being the driver?
Lease provisions regarding definition of 'Parking Area' and
dispute resolution.
#Post#: 128839--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tickets for failing to display permit twice in residential
parking lot
DIR By: thecheeseman123
Date: August 25, 2026, 12:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Improt999 link ---
>
> The only thing you can do now is wait for a LoC or a claim
issued against you. But until then just ignore the powerless
debt collectors.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thanks! I did not see your reply before I assumed this post was
dead I have since got a letter of claim which just seems to be
generic boilerplate text with the amounts, £200 for the parking
charges and £140 for additional costs. I will respond by email
saying I dispute it.
#Post#: 128840--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tickets for failing to display permit twice in residential
parking lot
DIR By: thecheeseman123
Date: August 25, 2026, 12:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: jfollows link ---
>
> Exactly.
>
> All you have to do is search the forum and find advice such as
> [quote](b) the defendant responding within a reasonable time –
14 days in a straight forward case and no more than 3 months in
a very complex one. The reply should include confirmation as to
whether the claim is accepted and, if it is not accepted, the
reasons why, together with an explanation as to which facts and
parts of the claim are disputed
--- End Quote ---
which originates from
HTML https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_pre-action_conduct#6.1
This isn’t a personal legal service, and asking for and
expecting a personal response within 24 hours is inappropriate.
If this is what you want and expect, you should pay for a
qualified solicitor. Otherwise search the forum and learn from
the advice previously given, such as the quote above.
The people who provide advice here are unpaid volunteers who do
their best based on their experience. Being “told off” for not
responding quickly is unhelpful.
Just about any case, suitably defended, which relies on the
primacy of a lease or similar will be won.
[/quote]
Thanks a lot, I really appreciate the advice and pointing me in
the right direction.
I did not intend to make anyone feel 'told off', and I apologise
for making you feel that way, but I don't understand how you
could interpret any of what I said that way. I never said this
was a personal legal service. This is my first time posting on
the forum, and I was unsure how it worked, if I missed flares,
etc. I believed it to be dead, which is why I sent that reply. I
was searching on the forums and all over the place for advice,
but I was struggling; hence why I made a post on this forum,
which, dare I say, is the reason for any forum's existence. But
regardless, I upset you, so I apologise, but I think you need to
relax a bit :)
I do have primacy of lease, but the developer is relying on the
clause which essentially states I have to accept reasonable
changes they make to the common area (including the parking
area). I will fight this in court, but I just wanted some
advice, as I could not find similar cases when I searched. I
have the letter of claims now. I will quote the link you sent in
my reply, as well as some cases if I can find any, thank you so
much for this.
#Post#: 128845--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tickets for failing to display permit twice in residential
parking lot
DIR By: thecheeseman123
Date: August 25, 2026, 12:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: tincombe link ---
>
> I have received two tickets, both initially £60, later
increased to £100 for failing to display the permit,
>
> Where are these?
>
> You are not being required to pay because the driver(s) at the
time received tickets(real description 'Notice to Driver'), you
are being required because you were the registered keeper on
both occasions. We need to see these Notices to Keeper.
>
> If in correspondence with the creditor you have admitted to
being the driver, then tell us.
>
> When you 'appealed' the Notices to Keeper did you then take
the matter through the creditor's chosen dispute resolution
channel? If so what happened.
>
> This issue is one of law. It doesn't need you to write War and
Peace, in fact worse than this because you are attempting to
make the same points repeatedly: weight of evidence e.g. number
of pages etc. should not be taken literally.
>
> It seems that you are trying to convince the creditor to
abandon their claim before court proceedings, but I don't
understand why.
>
> If you want the issue of the primacy of your lease to be
tested, then IMO test it.
>
> No need to rush and NO NEED to respond to the current letter.
As posted by others, wait for what would be a Letter before
Claim.
>
> You seem to be going at this in a rushed and annoyed fashion.
Why? IMO, just let the legal procedures grind their way through.
>
> As regards your lease:
> Is 'Parking Area' defined? It's got capitals, so probably yes.
> Out of interest, are leaseholders permitted to transfer their
parking rights to others e.g. how are permits issued, to
leaseholders on simple request, with proof of being RK of a
named vehicle etc. etc?
> What are the lease dispute resolution provisions. They'll be
there if you look.
>
>
> So, as there's no need to respond to Moorside(if you must do
then JUST ACKNOWLEDGE) then with this time in hand pl post:
> NTDs;
> NTKs;
> What happened as regards dispute resolution?
> Have you admitted to being the driver?
> Lease provisions regarding definition of 'Parking Area' and
dispute resolution.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thank you so much for this advice; this has been the most
helpful information I have seen/had so far.
> Where are these?
These are in Oxford Littlemore, Armstrong Road, in the Newman
Place development. Managed by Peabody with parking by PCM.
> You are not being required to pay because the driver(s) at the
time received tickets(real description 'Notice to Driver'), you
are being required because you were the registered keeper on
both occasions. We need to see these Notices to Keeper.
There is no Notice to Keeper; everything has been 'to driver';
however, although I have not explicitly admitted to being the
driver in my initial dispute with PCM (on their website), I gave
mitigation for the first ticket, saying the reason it wasn't
there as It was completely reasonable (the car was being
de-contaminated and could not have anything within the car). I
think they could say that based on this I was the driver. I
never explicitly said I was the driver, however.
> When you 'appealed' the Notices to Keeper did you then take
the matter through the creditor's chosen dispute resolution
channel? If so what happened.
Initially, yes. I can post the full history, but it is quite
long, I will provide a summary:
> If you want the issue of the primacy of your lease to be
tested, then IMO test it.
By this, do you mean have it tested in court?
> No need to rush and NO NEED to respond to the current letter.
As posted by others, wait for what would be a Letter before
Claim.
Yes, I have been rushed and stupid as I just think this is so
ridiculous, and it is the first time I have been through this. I
should have waited, but I already responded and got a
boilerplate response.
> It seems that you are trying to convince the creditor to
abandon their claim before court proceedings, but I don't
understand why.
I would rather this not go to court; I would rather they just
drop the case, so my logic was to make them aware of my lease
etc to convince them to drop it, as all the letters sent seem to
just be automated or boilerplate. I thought if they understood
my lease, they would think it's not worth pursuing anymore. I
saw somewhere that they are apparently likely to drop the fines
if the accused is vocal and articulate; I now understand this
was incorrect advice.
> You seem to be going at this in a rushed and annoyed fashion.
Why? IMO, just let the legal procedures grind their way through.
Thanks, this does help put my mind at ease :)
> Is 'Parking Area' defined? It's got capitals, so probably yes.
Yes, it is defined, but this all came in after the lease was
signed, as before it was all still semi-under construction (when
I moved in)
> Out of interest, are leaseholders permitted to transfer their
parking rights to others e.g. how are permits issued, to
leaseholders on simple request, with proof of being RK of a
named vehicle etc. etc?
So do have a single visitor permit that can be used in certain
spots (denoted by a V painted on the bay), and people have used
this to park multiple cars, but the main permit (which there is
only 1) cannot be transferred to someone else; it must be the RK
and leaseholder. I am not sure how it works with joint leases,
as I am just single occupancy right now, but I assume they could
transfer between them for the cost of the permit (around £30).
The first permit was free and just required proof of V5 (didn't
actually ask for proof of lease, as I assume the developer gave
them my information)
> What are the lease dispute resolution provisions. They'll be
there if you look.
I did not recall seeing this, but I will study the lease further
and try to determine this. A lot of the wording is difficult for
me to comprehend.
>What happened as regards dispute resolution?
I will gather this and post a summary in a separate post, as it
will take a bit of time, sorry
>Have you admitted to being the driver?
I have not explicitly admitted to being the driver, but I will
go over the responses to make sure nothing can be misconstrued
as such.
>Lease provisions regarding definition of 'Parking Area' and
dispute resolution.
I will also have to dig throught the lease to find the specifics
of this, however, I do not believe it is specified explicitly
(the lease excerpt I posted initially is the only section in
relation to the parking area). I was just told in response by
Peabody.
Again, thank you so much for taking the time to help me with
this; I appreciate it dearly.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1