DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 73298--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS sent penalty charge for parking in my own space
DIR By: rjcbooth666
Date: May 26, 2025, 10:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
That's amazing thank you. I'd be totally lost and a nervous
wreck without the help that you have provided.
#Post#: 75855--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS sent penalty charge for parking in my own space
DIR By: rjcbooth666
Date: June 10, 2025, 12:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi Guys
I've had two replies, one each for two different emails I have
sent.
The first reply was to my 'escalation to RMG stage 2 complaints
procedure'. This was the text provided in reply 11 in this
thread. The reply to my stage 2 complaint is included below and
they are offering to pay the parking charge on my behalf!
I'm happy with this but since you have put so much work in I
wondered what you would suggest?
Thanks again
---------
Stage 2 Complaint Investigation 04152778
I want to thank you once again for taking the time to tell us
about your complaint. I have
now completed my review into your complaint regarding a parking
ticket and parking
control.
Outcome
I have carefully considered your complaint and the outcome of
the Stage 1 investigation. I
am sorry to say that on this occasion I have not upheld your
complaint. This is because I
was unable to identify a service failure through my review.
I appreciate this may not be the outcome you were expecting, and
I hope the detail provided
through my review findings will enable you to further understand
my decision and how I
came to this conclusion.
Findings
Your Property Manager, Jessica, has made further contact with
UKCPS regarding the
parking ticket you received in 2023. They have ultimately
advised that due to the age of
the charge, and the stage it has reached they are unable to take
further action. I enclose
an extract of their email below:
I’ve looked into the charge, and I can see that it has been with
Trace Debt Recovery since
November 2024, and it may have progressed to Moorside
Solicitors.
I’m truly sorry, but due to the age of the charge and the stage
it has reached, we’re unable
to take any further action at this point. The motorist will need
to contact them directly for
any further inquiries.
The parking ticket has now reached a stage where neither UKCPS
or RMG can intervene
to remove the ticket or prevent the action that is in progress.
There are UKCPS
enforcement notices across the site advising residents of the
parking enforcement on site.
In addition, although residents have parking bays allocated as
per their lease, there is
parking enforcement on site aimed to prevent non-residents
parking on site. The permits
must be displayed at all times.
If the ticket had been raised with RMG sooner, before the
escalation to legal action, then
they would have been able to intervene. However, I am aware that
this was only raised
with them recently.
Places for People and RMG do wish to bring this matter to an
amicable conclusion and will
therefore be willing to pay the parking charge on this occasion,
if you can provide
confirmation of the cost by return. I would note that in the
future, we would be unable to
make such a offer and you must ensure that the parking permit is
clearly displayed.
Next steps
This is the final stage of our complaint’s procedure. If you are
not satisfied with the outcome,
or the way I have dealt with your complaint, we would welcome
the opportunity to discuss
this. Alternatively, there are further options available to you;
 Contact the Housing Ombudsman.
Dispute Resolution Team
Housing Ombudsman Service
PO Box 152
Liverpool
L33 7WQ
Telephone: 0300 111 3000
E-Mail info@housing-ombudsman.org.uk
Website
HTML http://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk
Thank you for your feedback
I want to thank you again for bringing this to our attention and
telling us about your
experience. We use the feedback given to us by our customers to
continually shape and
improve the services we deliver.
Yours sincerely,
Michelle Wood
Director of Home Ownership
Michelle.Wood@placesforpeople.co.uk
#Post#: 75858--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS sent penalty charge for parking in my own space
DIR By: rjcbooth666
Date: June 10, 2025, 12:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The second reply I got was to my response to their letter of
Claim using the text in reply 15 in this thread.
I copied in info@ukcps,net and I got a replay saying they could
not accept complaints by email.
Like I say, RMG have offered to pay the charge but I wanted to
give you guys all the info.
Thanks for your help.
---------
Thank you for your email.
Unfortunately, we cannot accept Appeals, Transfer Liability or
Complaints via email.
Please complete your appeal or Transfer Liability on our website
ukcps.com/submit-appeal/ or send it in writing to UKCPS Ltd,
City West Business Park, Building 3, Gelderd Road, Leeds, LS12
6LN. Our appeals process can be found on the correspondence you
have received from us.
Please note, we will not enter into further correspondence via
email.
Kind regards,
UKCPS Ltd
#Post#: 75866--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS sent penalty charge for parking in my own space
DIR By: b789
Date: June 10, 2025, 12:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
RMG's Stage 2 response is not only legally flawed but borders on
institutional negligence in terms of its misunderstanding of
leaseholder rights and the doctrine of privity of contract.
Their position is internally contradictory, ill-informed, and
arguably undermines their credibility as a managing agent.
Here is a proposed follow-up letter, suitable for submission to
the Housing Ombudsman. This version can also double as your
final reply to Michelle Wood and her team, should you wish to
restate your position for the record.
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Final Response to Stage 2 Complaint Outcome – PCN
Issued by UKCPS While Exercising Leasehold Right
>
> Dear Ms Wood,
>
> I write in response to your letter dated [insert date],
regarding Stage 2 Complaint Reference 04152778.
>
> I note your decision not to uphold my complaint, and I
respectfully reject the rationale provided in full. With regret,
I find it necessary to escalate this matter to the Housing
Ombudsman Service on the basis of your continued refusal to
recognise fundamental principles of property and contract law,
and your failure to protect leaseholder rights under your
management remit.
>
> These are the core legal failures in your response and, for
your reference, I will be including a copy of this letter in my
escalation to the Housing Ombudsman.
>
> 1. Failure to Recognise Primacy of Contract
>
> I am the leaseholder of Flat [flat number] and my lease grants
me the right to park in my allocated space (number [space
number] subject to the payment of service charges. There is no
mention of a permit system, nor any reference to the involvement
of third-party enforcement agents such as UKCPS.
>
> The legal principle of primacy of contract means that any
subsequent arrangements imposed by RMG or its contractors cannot
override my pre-existing lease rights. That is well-established
in the following case law:
>
> [indent]• Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] UKUT 496 (LC)
> • Pace v Mr N (2016), [C6GF14F0]
> • Link Parking v Ms P (2016) [C7GF50J7][/indent]
>
> 2. RMG’s Admission of Indiscriminate Enforcement
>
> Jessica, your property manager, previously stated in writing:
>
> [indent]"UKCPS issues parking charges to individuals who fail
to display a permit, irrespective of their entitlement to
park".[/indent]
>
> This is a clear admission that UKCPS is permitted to ignore
the legal entitlements of leaseholders, which is indefensible in
law and amounts to unlawful interference with leasehold property
rights.
>
> 3. Section 37 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987
>
> If you assert that my lease was varied to allow this
enforcement regime, please provide:
>
> [indent]• A copy of the written agreement between myself and
the freeholder;
> • Or evidence of an application to, and approval by, the
First-tier Tribunal under s.37(5)(a) or (b) of the Act.[/indent]
>
> You have supplied no such evidence. Therefore, your
enforcement regime is entirely without legal foundation in
respect of my demised property rights.
>
> 4. On the Offer to Pay
>
> While I appreciate the offer to pay the PCN “on this
occasion”, I must clarify that the correct resolution is
cancellation, not payment, of a PCN issued unlawfully. Accepting
payment in this way appears to be an attempt to sweep a
procedural abuse under the rug without admission of fault. Any
future PCN issued in identical circumstances would again
constitute unlawful interference, and I reserve all rights in
that regard.
>
> 5. Misunderstanding of Authority and Agency Law
>
> RMG’s position that it is “unable to intervene” because UKCPS
has passed the matter to a debt recovery agent and bulk
litigators is both factually and legally absurd. The notion that
the contractual principal loses authority over its own agent
simply because the agent has referred the matter on is a
fundamental misunderstanding of basic contract law.
>
> UKCPS remains RMG’s appointed contractor and acts under its
authority. If RMG cannot control the actions of its own agents,
then either it has failed in its duty to manage those agents
properly, or it has chosen not to. The idea that a matter
becomes irreversible just because it has been “passed on” is
nonsense.
>
> RMG should have escalated this matter to its legal advisors.
If this matter was reviewed by legal counsel, then I am forced
to conclude that their advisors are equally incompetent or
unaware of the most basic principles of agency law and leasehold
rights.
>
> 6. Final Position
>
> I do not accept that RMG or Places for People are legally
powerless to instruct UKCPS or its legal agents to cancel a
charge issued contrary to a lease. Your failure to do so,
despite clear evidence, amounts to mismanagement and breach of
your obligation to administer the estate in accordance with
leaseholder rights.
>
> As this is your final response, I will now escalate this
matter to the Housing Ombudsman, requesting an investigation
into:
>
> [indent]• RMG’s failure to uphold leaseholder rights;
> • Your tacit approval of unlawful enforcement activity;
> • The stress and inconvenience caused by your failure to
intervene meaningfully once the facts were made known.[/indent]
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Your Name]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 85348--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS sent penalty charge for parking in my own space
DIR By: rjcbooth666
Date: August 12, 2025, 9:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi guys
I've had two replies since I sent the last message. One from RMG
in which they finally acknowledge and address the legal points
that you have guided me through. I don't think they actually
suggest a way forward though.
The second is from the Housing Ombudsmen stating that since RMG
have sent a new response they are putting my complaint on hold
for a few weeks.
I've copied the email below. Can you suggest an appropriate
reply please; and thanks once again for the amazing support you
have given me.
----------
From: customerservice@rmguk.com
Subject: Case Ref: (04335951)
Thank you for your email date the 3rd July 2025. Michelle Wood
has read over your email and my response and is in approval of
the below content.
To begin, I appreciate the opportunity to respond and clarify
the rationale behind the parking enforcement measures in place
at Merment House.
Firstly, I would like to assure you that we fully recognise and
respect your leasehold right to park in your allocated space
(Space 20). The parking enforcement scheme currently in
operation does not, and is not intended to, override or diminish
any such rights granted under your lease.
The enforcement system was introduced in response to ongoing
issues with unauthorised parking across the estate. These
included instances of both residents and non-residents parking
in spaces not allocated to them, which caused significant
disruption and inconvenience to those entitled to use those
spaces.
To address this, a permit system was implemented to help our
enforcement partner, UKCPS, distinguish between authorised and
unauthorised vehicles. The requirement to display a permit is
not a variation of your lease, nor does it seek to impose new
conditions on your right to park. Rather, it is a practical
measure to ensure that your rights, and those of other
leaseholders, are protected from misuse by others.
We understand your concerns regarding the legal framework
surrounding leasehold rights and enforcement. However, the
permit system is not intended to interfere with your contractual
rights, but to support them by deterring unauthorised use of
private spaces. We do not dispute that you are entitled to park
in your allocated space; we simply ask that you display your
permit so that enforcement officers can verify your entitlement
and avoid issuing a charge in error.
Regarding the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued to you, we
acknowledge that this may have caused frustration. While we
offered to cover the cost of the PCN as a gesture of goodwill,
we understand your preference for cancellation and will take
this into account in future reviews of enforcement procedures.
Finally, we note your intention to escalate this matter to the
Housing Ombudsman. We will, of course, cooperate fully with any
investigation and provide all relevant documentation and context
to support our position.
We remain committed to managing the estate fairly and in
accordance with leaseholder rights, and we thank you for your
continued engagement on this matter.
Yours sincerely,
Jessica McGann
Property Manager
---------
From: casework@housing-ombudsman.org.uk
Subject: Case ID - 202513367 [REF/Qp/Kv/Kd/kw/]
To help us deal with your complaint as quickly as possible:
please do not copy us into your emails with others
please do not send us information that we have not asked you for
Thank you.
Complaint: 202513367 - Places for People Group Limited
Dear [name]
Thank you for contacting the Housing Ombudsman Service.
After reviewing your case, I can see you have had a final
response from your landlord which requires further assessment.
We aim to contact you again within 12 weeks. Please be aware we
are currently experiencing high levels of demand which may lead
to delays in responding as quickly as we would like to. You will
be contacted as soon as possible.
Please tell us what telephone number you would like the advisor
to contact you on. When we call you the caller ID will display
as 0300 111 3000.
Yours sincerely
Andrea
Dispute Resolution Support Officer (DS)
Please note - the signature named in this correspondence is not
your named contact. Your complaint can be dealt with by anyone
within the department. You may see different names in our
correspondence as your complaint progresses.
www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk
View our Privacy Notice
Follow us on
For all the latest news, reports, and guidance from the Housing
Ombudsman Service visit our website.
-----------
#Post#: 85378--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS sent penalty charge for parking in my own space
DIR By: b789
Date: August 12, 2025, 11:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
That reply from RMG is an attempted face-saving exercise, but
it’s legally hollow and still doesn’t deal with the core problem
— the fact that the “permit scheme” is not optional in practice
and is being used to penalise leaseholders despite their lease
rights.
The contradictions in their response are quite stark:
[indent]• They say the scheme is “not intended” to override your
lease rights, but in your case it has already done exactly that
— a PCN was issued to you while you were exercising your right
to park in your own space.
• They claim it’s “not a variation” of the lease, but then
assert you must comply with the scheme to avoid PCNs. That is
imposing a condition on your leasehold right, regardless of
whether they label it a “practical measure.”
• They’re still avoiding the core legal reality that UKCPS acts
as their agent, meaning RMG always retains the power to instruct
them to cancel a PCN — whether it’s at “debt recovery” stage or
not.
• They are conflating “site management” with enforcement against
a leaseholder — it’s one thing to deter unauthorised parking,
another entirely to fine the very people whose rights they claim
to be protecting.[/indent]
You should respond to RMG’s latest email, but keep it short,
factual, and on the record, because:
[indent]• The Ombudsman will review all correspondence — so it’s
useful to clearly point out, in writing, that their latest
position is still contradictory and fails to resolve the core
issue.
• You don’t want to get into a drawn-out back-and-forth — just
one concise reply noting their continued failure and that the
matter is now with the Ombudsman.
• It prevents RMG later claiming you accepted their position or
failed to dispute any part of it.[/indent]
I suggest you respond to RMG with the following:
--- Quote ---
> Dear Jessica,
>
> Thank you for your response.
>
> While I note your assurance that the permit scheme is “not
intended” to override my leasehold rights, the fact remains that
it has done exactly that in practice — a PCN was issued to me
while I was exercising my right to park in my own space, which
is unconditional under my lease.
>
> Your position is contradictory: you state that the scheme is
not a variation of my lease, yet you also require compliance
with it to avoid PCNs. This is, in effect, the imposition of a
new condition on my leasehold right, and is exactly the
interference I have raised from the outset.
>
> I also note that you continue to assert that the PCN cannot be
cancelled because it has been passed to your contractor’s own
agents. This demonstrates either a misunderstanding of the basic
principal–agent relationship in contract law or a refusal to
exercise your authority as principal.
>
> As this matter is now with the Housing Ombudsman, I will not
enter into further debate with you directly. This response is
simply to confirm that I do not accept your position and to
preserve a clear record for the Ombudsman’s review.
>
> Yours sincerely
>
> [Your Name]
--- End Quote ---
The Housing Ombudsman has accepted your case for further
assessment, but it’s in their backlog. This means:
[indent]• You’ve already cleared the procedural hurdle (final
landlord response received).
• They will now review the papers and decide whether to
investigate.
• If they do investigate, they’ll be looking at whether RMG’s
actions amount to maladministration or service failure,
particularly in how they handled the PCN in light of your lease
rights.[/indent]
At this point, your best move is to prepare a concise evidence
pack for when the Ombudsman contacts you, so you can hit them
with a clear narrative:
[indent]1. Lease clause showing your unconditional right to park
in your space.
2. PCN evidence showing it was issued while you were exercising
that right.
3. RMG’s statements:
[indent]• Jessica’s “irrespective of entitlement to park” email.
• Stage 1 & Stage 2 responses admitting they won’t intervene if
it’s at debt recovery stage.
• Their latest “we recognise your right but still expect you to
comply” contradiction.[/indent]
4. Your core argument: The scheme is interfering with your
rights in practice, regardless of their stated “intention.”
5. Legal references: Primacy of contract, agency law, and s.37
LTA 1987.[/indent]
You can also include a timeline along these lines to include
with your evidence that you will submit to the Ombudsman when
they review your case. Something along these lines:
--- Quote ---
> Housing Ombudsman Evidence Pack – Complaint Ref: 202513367
>
> Complainant: [Your Name]
> Landlord/Agent: Places for People Group Limited (via RMG)
> Managing Agent’s Contractor: UKCPS Ltd
> Complaint Subject: Improper enforcement of a private parking
scheme against a leaseholder with an unconditional leasehold
right to park
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------
>
> 1. Background Summary
> I am the leaseholder of Flat [***]. My lease grants me the
right to park one permitted vehicle in my allocated space (Space
20) subject only to payment of service charges. There is no
requirement to display a permit, no reference to signage, and no
contractual relationship with any third-party parking
enforcement company.
>
> RMG manages the estate’s car park and has contracted UKCPS to
operate a permit-based enforcement scheme. This scheme has
resulted in the issuing of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) to my
vehicle whilst it was parked in my own space, despite displaying
a valid permit.
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------
>
> 2. Timeline of Events
>
> 14 March 2023 – Alleged contravention date. My vehicle was
parked in my own allocated space and displayed a permit on the
dashboard. UKCPS issued a PCN claiming “no permit displayed”.
>
> Mid-2023 – 2024 – No contact from RMG. PCN passed by UKCPS to
Trace Debt Recovery and later to Moorside Legal.
>
> Early 2025 – I contacted RMG (Property Manager: Jessica)
requesting intervention and cancellation of the PCN.
>
> [indent]• Jessica confirmed UKCPS issues PCNs “irrespective of
entitlement to park” if they deem a permit not displayed.
> • Jessica stated that because the PCN was at “debt recovery”
stage, RMG could not assist.[/indent]
>
> Stage 1 Complaint – RMG Response – RMG refused to uphold my
complaint, repeated UKCPS’s position, and advised me to deal
directly with Moorside Legal.
>
> Stage 2 Complaint – RMG Response (Michelle Wood) – Again
refused to uphold the complaint, claiming neither RMG nor UKCPS
could cancel the PCN at its current stage. Offered to pay the
PCN as a “goodwill gesture” but insisted permits must be
displayed.
>
> July 2025 – RMG Further Response (Jessica McGann) –
Acknowledged my right to park but insisted the permit scheme
does not override lease rights, describing it as a “practical
measure” to prevent misuse of spaces. Continued to require
compliance to avoid PCNs.
>
> July 2025 – Complaint escalated to Housing Ombudsman.
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------
>
> 3. Legal Position
>
> a. Primacy of Contract
> My lease is the primary and overriding contractual document
governing my rights to park. The imposition of a permit scheme
that penalises leaseholders for not displaying a permit is a new
condition, not present in my lease. This cannot be lawfully
imposed without a formal lease variation in accordance with
s.37(5) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987.
>
> b. Interference with Leasehold Rights
> By issuing a PCN to my vehicle in my own space, the scheme has
interfered with my legal right to park, despite RMG’s stated
“intention” not to do so. Intention is irrelevant when the
effect is to impose a penalty for exercising an existing right.
>
> c. Principal–Agent Relationship
> UKCPS acts as RMG’s appointed contractor. RMG, as principal,
retains the authority to instruct its agent to cancel
enforcement action, regardless of whether the agent has referred
the matter to a debt recovery company or solicitor. RMG’s claim
that it is “unable to intervene” is factually and legally
incorrect.
>
> d. Case Law
> Relevant persuasive county court authorities include:
>
> [indent]• Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd [2016] UKUT 496 (LC)
> • Pace v Mr N (2016, C6GF14F0)
> • Link Parking v Ms P (2016, C7GF50J7)
> All confirm that a leaseholder’s pre-existing rights cannot be
overridden by later-imposed parking schemes.[/indent]
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------
>
> 4. Key Contradictions in RMG’s Position
>
> 1. Acknowledgement vs. Action – RMG claims to “fully
recognise” my right to park yet refuses to take steps to cancel
a PCN issued in direct breach of that right.
>
> 2. No Lease Variation – RMG insists the scheme is not a lease
variation, yet in practice imposes compliance as a condition to
avoid penalties.
>
> 3. Inaccurate Legal Reasoning – RMG’s claim that they “cannot
intervene” because the matter is with a debt recovery agent or
solicitor ignores basic principles of contract law and agency.
>
> 4. Offer to Pay vs. Cancellation – Offering to pay the PCN as
a “gesture of goodwill” is an implicit admission that the PCN is
unjustified, yet they have refused the correct remedy:
cancellation.
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------
>
> 5. Remedy Sought
> I request the Housing Ombudsman find that RMG’s actions and
inaction amount to maladministration and/or service failure by:
>
> [indent]• Allowing a parking enforcement scheme to operate in
a way that penalises leaseholders for exercising their legal
rights.
> • Failing to instruct their contractor to cancel an
unjustified PCN despite having the authority to do so.
> • Providing contradictory and legally incorrect responses
during the complaints process.[/indent]
>
> I request the Ombudsman recommend:
>
> [indent]1. Immediate written confirmation that my space is
excluded from UKCPS enforcement.
> 2. Formal instruction to UKCPS/Moorside Legal to cancel the
PCN.
> 3. A written apology for the stress and inconvenience caused.
> 4. Review of estate parking enforcement to prevent
recurrence.[/indent]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 85388--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS sent penalty charge for parking in my own space
DIR By: rjcbooth666
Date: August 12, 2025, 11:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Amazing, thank you.
#Post#: 91981--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS sent penalty charge for parking in my own space
DIR By: rjcbooth666
Date: September 29, 2025, 7:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So the ombudsman has gotten back to me. They are reviewing
whether my complaint is within their remit to investigate.
They are asking me for a copy of the original formal complaint,
which I have. However, they are also asking me for a copy of my
leasehold to confirm there is a leaseholder/freeholder
relationship between me and RMG places for people.
RMG are not mentioned in my lease. They were not even contracted
when I received my lease. How should I play this do you think?
Thanks as always for any help you can offer. Email is included
below.
----------
Complaint: 202513367 - Places for People Group Limited
Landlord complaint reference: 04108974
I am writing to you in relation to the above case and complaint
you have raised with your landlord.
I am the Dispute resolution Advisor recently assigned to your
case at Dispute Support.
I am currently reviewing your case file and the information
provided. I really do appreciate your patience while I look into
your case.
The complaint
In summary, I understand the complaint is about the landlord’s
handling of reports of a parking ticket being issued in 2023 and
the subsequent escalation and involvement of a debt recovery
company.
More Information required
I am currently reviewing whether your complaint is within our
remit to consider under our Scheme rules. Please can you provide
the following information:
. A copy of the initial formal complaint submitted to Places
for People
. A copy of the leasehold agreement which confirms there is a
leasehold/freehold relationship between you and Places for
People
Once received, I will review and advise further.
Please note that the Housing Ombudsman will only be in position
to investigate complaints in relation to the actions of the
landlord who is a member of our Scheme. We are not able to
investigate the actions or complaints you have against UKCPS
itself. We are aware you would have a procedure available to you
to dispute the parking charge notice with the parking management
company, or with the debt recovery company it has been referred
to. I would recommend you seek independent legal advice on the
matter so you are fully informed on your options.
Yours sincerely
Saber Uddin
Dispute Resolution Adviser
#Post#: 92005--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS sent penalty charge for parking in my own space
DIR By: b789
Date: September 29, 2025, 9:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Send the lease, but add a clear cover note explaining that
Places for People (PfP) is acting as the landlord’s agent and
has already adopted the complaint under its Housing
Ombudsman-linked procedure. The Ombudsman’s remit can cover a
landlord via its appointed managing agent; your complaint is
about PfP/RMG’s handling, not about UKCPS directly.
What to attach
[indent]1. Your original formal complaint to RMG/PfP.
2. Your lease (showing the parties and your parking right).
3. Evidence tying PfP/RMG to the estate management and to this
complaint:
[indent]• RMG’s published complaints procedure stating “RMG
customers on developments RMG manages for Places for People will
have their complaints dealt with under Places for People’s
complaints process which the Housing Ombudsman oversees.”
• Stage 1 and Stage 2 responses (including Michelle Wood’s
letter on behalf of Places for People).
• The latest “clarification” email from Jessica.
• Any service-charge/estate-charge demands or communications
showing PfP/RMG acting for the landlord/freeholder in relation
to the car park/common parts.[/indent][/indent]
How to “play it” since RMG isn’t named in the lease
Make it explicit that:
[indent]• The lease is between you and [freeholder/landlord
named in lease].
• Places for People Group Limited (through its agent RMG) has
been appointed after grant of lease to manage the estate/common
parts including the car park and has handled your complaint as
“the landlord” under the PfP complaints process.
• Your complaint is therefore about the landlord’s handling (via
its agent), not about UKCPS per se.[/indent]
Send the following response to Saber Uddin:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Case 202513367 – Further documents and clarification
of landlord/agent role
>
> Dear Mr Uddin,
>
> Thank you for your email. Please find attached:
> [indent]1. My initial formal complaint submitted to Places for
People/RMG.
> 2. A copy of my lease.
> 3. Evidence demonstrating Places for People’s role and
adoption of this complaint under its Housing Ombudsman-linked
procedure:
> [indent]– RMG’s complaints procedure confirming that
complaints on developments managed for Places for People are
handled under Places for People’s complaints process overseen by
the Housing Ombudsman.
> – Stage 1 and Stage 2 responses, including the final response
signed by Michelle Wood (Director of Home Ownership, Places for
People).
> – The subsequent email from the Property Manager (RMG)
confirming management of the estate car park and the position
taken on the PCN.[/indent][/indent]
>
> For clarity, my lease is between me and [name of
freeholder/landlord shown in the lease]. Places for People
(through its agent RMG) was appointed subsequently to manage the
estate/common parts including the car park. Places for People
has adopted and determined my complaint under its own complaints
process that is overseen by the Housing Ombudsman, and issued
the landlord’s final response.
>
> My complaint is therefore about the landlord’s (Places for
People’s) handling of my reports and its management of its
appointed contractor and agents in relation to my leasehold
right to park, rather than a complaint about UKCPS directly.
>
> Please let me know if you require any further documents.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> [Your name]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 128148--------------------------------------------------
Re: UKCPS sent penalty charge for parking in my own space
DIR By: rjcbooth666
Date: August 18, 2026, 9:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi guys
I hadn't heard anything from Moorside legal or UKCPS for over a
year, then out of the blue I received a second Letter of Claim,
linked below.
To summarize, my car was parked in a parking space that I own,
as specified by my lease.
UKCPS claimed I had no parking permit displayed and sent me a
PCN.
You guys gave me great advice on how to deal with this.
I received an LOC in April 2025.
You advised me how to respond to this.
I received a boilerplate response from Moorside
You advised me how to respond to this
I heard nothing else from Moorside for 15 months
I received a second LOC 31 July 2026.
Shall I resend the original response you provided in April 2025.
Thanks for any advice.
Bob
HTML https://postimg.cc/1f9HSrNr
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page