DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 69954--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: b789
Date: May 4, 2025, 9:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You could ask your landlord what does his head lease say about
parking.
#Post#: 69958--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: 3Sh3roo
Date: May 4, 2025, 10:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure he'll share that, especially if the head lease
mentions parking permits etc and his AST with his tenants does
not, will that have an impact on us?
#Post#: 69963--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: b789
Date: May 4, 2025, 10:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it can have an impact, but only in specific circumstances,
and usually not to the tenant's detriment unless the tenancy
agreement explicitly incorporates those superior lease terms.
Tenancy agreement governs the tenant–landlord relationship. If
the AST makes no mention of parking permits, signage, or
compliance with estate rules, the tenant is not bound by such
external terms unless they are expressly incorporated into the
AST.
Superior lease obligations can “flow down” only if incorporated.
The landlord may be bound by the head lease to enforce parking
control measures (e.g. requiring tenants to display permits).
However, unless the AST explicitly states that the tenant is
also bound by the terms of the superior lease (or unless a copy
of the superior lease is provided and referenced), the tenant
cannot be presumed to be bound.
See Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001]: where the landlord had
covenanted not to obstruct a tenant’s right of access and could
not override that by later action (or by imposing third-party
restrictions).
Clause 1.3 of your AST is important:
[indent]"If we have given you a copy of a superior lease... you
agree that you will also be bound by these promises..."[/indent]
So unless you were given a copy of the superior lease and agreed
to be bound, it has no effect on you, the tenant.
#Post#: 69966--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: 3Sh3roo
Date: May 4, 2025, 10:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the detail, we were only asked to sign the AST that
has been shared, there was nothing else so we're all good should
this need to be taken further.
#Post#: 71268--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: 3Sh3roo
Date: May 13, 2025, 8:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I got the following response from VCS after appealing on their
website as advised, can you please advise how to respond?
[attachimg=1]
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 71273--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: jfollows
Date: May 13, 2025, 8:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
See reply #2 above, VCS won’t give up before taking this to
court, that was always expected. I would ignore their latest
load of rubbish and wait for them to get on with their threats.
#Post#: 74928--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: 3Sh3roo
Date: June 5, 2025, 8:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I received an email from VCS today to either pay or appeal to
the IAS, having read about them on this forum it seems to be
waste of effort and time as they nearly always side with the
parking operator.
Would it be wise to just sit back and wait for the 'Letter of
Claim' from their appointed solicitor?
#Post#: 74929--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: jfollows
Date: June 5, 2025, 8:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes
#Post#: 74958--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: b789
Date: June 5, 2025, 10:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: 3Sh3roo link ---
>
> I received an email from VCS today to either pay or appeal to
the IAS, having read about them on this forum it seems to be
waste of effort and time as they nearly always side with the
parking operator.
>
> Would it be wise to just sit back and wait for the 'Letter of
Claim' from their appointed solicitor?
>
--- End Quote ---
That's what we normally do but considering that it costs the
operator whether they win or lose an IAS appeal to send one
anyway. The only way they don't pay anything is if they concede
the appeal.
Just use the following as your IAS appeal:
--- Quote ---
> Grounds of Appeal:
>
> 1. No Valid Contract – Pre-Existing Parking Rights Granted by
Tenancy Agreement
>
> The Appellant is the lawful residential tenant of the property
associated with the parking space in question. An Assured
Shorthold Tenancy Agreement (AST) grants the Appellant an
express and exclusive right to use an allocated parking space.
The AST does not contain any clause requiring the display of a
permit, nor does it incorporate or acknowledge the signage,
terms, or scheme operated by the parking company.
>
> The Appellant's rights under the tenancy agreement override
any alleged third-party terms displayed on signs. The operator
is put to strict proof that their signage terms can override an
existing contractual right of quiet enjoyment and exclusive use,
and that any such signage forms part of the tenant's agreed
obligations.
>
> 2. No Evidence of Contravention – Permit Displayed / Not
Required
>
> The operator has not shown that any contravention occurred.
The vehicle was parked in the Appellant’s allocated space. A
valid permit was present on the dashboard at the time, although
the operator’s photograph is inconclusive. In any event, the AST
grants an unqualified right to park, and the display of a permit
has always been a courtesy, not a condition. There is no breach
of any enforceable term.
>
> 3. No Standing to Enforce – No Evidence of a Valid Landowner
Contract
>
> The Appellant puts the operator to strict proof that they hold
a valid, contemporaneous, and unredacted contract with the
landowner, not a managing agent, which:
>
> [indent]• Grants them authority to enter into contracts with
drivers;
> • Permits them to issue Parking Charge Notices (or Penalty
Notices, as described on the NtK);
> • Allows enforcement on residential tenant-controlled
spaces.[/indent]
>
> A copy of the superior lease (if any) is not binding on the
Appellant unless it has been incorporated into the AST and
provided to the tenant, which it has not.
>
> If the operator cannot produce such a contract, their
authority to operate at this site is in serious doubt.
>
> 4. Failure to Establish Keeper Liability under PoFA 2012
>
> The Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Protection of
Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, Paragraph 9(2)(a), because it
does not specify the required “period of parking.” A single
timestamp is not a period. This failure invalidates any attempt
to transfer liability from the unknown driver to the registered
keeper. If the assessor is indeed a solicitor or a barrister
they should be familiar with the persuasive appeal decision in
[I]Scott Brennan v Premier Parking Solutions Ltd[/i] (2023)
[H6DP632H].
>
> Furthermore, the operator has not shown that the vehicle was
parked for longer than the minimum consideration period required
under the Private Parking Single Code of Practice (Section 5.1).
No contract could have been formed without first allowing the
driver an opportunity to review and accept the terms.
>
> Conclusion
>
> The Appellant denies any contractual liability and invites the
assessor to require the operator to either:
>
> [indent]• Provide the unredacted landowner contract showing
their lawful authority to issue charges at residential
properties, including over spaces subject to tenancy rights;
> • Acknowledge that the alleged breach is unsupported by
evidence and withdraw the charge.[/indent]
>
> Should this appeal be dismissed, the Appellant will consider
the matter closed and will not engage further outside of formal
litigation. Any claim will be defended robustly and with full
reliance on tenancy rights, evidential deficiencies, and
operator misconduct.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 74977--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Chester Private Car Park
DIR By: 3Sh3roo
Date: June 5, 2025, 11:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks filling in the IAS form now, it asks if I am being held
liable for the charge with an option to select 'yes' or 'no', I
guess it's a 'yes'? The rest are clear...
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 9
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page