DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 87728--------------------------------------------------
Re: BaySentry Solutions Ltd - No parking permit
DIR By: Dandalf
Date: August 29, 2025, 2:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all - happy Friday!
So the tenant reached out to their Letting Agent who then had to
request the headlease from someone else (unknown except
abbreviation "PBM" in reply). Once the Letting Agent received a
reply from "PBM" they've forwarded it to the tenant:
I am presuming they means their lease rather than the Head
Lease, we don’t hold individual copies but their lawyer will
have access to the land registry site and all leases will be
able to be downloaded.
Is this an acceptable response, should they be providing the
headlease? It seems like something they should provide upon
request, plus it looks as if the tenant would have to purchase
their own lease from Land Registry otherwise?
Thanks for all help as always.
Cheers,
Dan
#Post#: 88285--------------------------------------------------
Re: BaySentry Solutions Ltd - No parking permit
DIR By: Dandalf
Date: September 3, 2025, 12:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> I have reviewed the tenancy agreement and here are the key
points relevant to whether the landlord, their agent, or a
third-party parking company could require the display of a
parking permit and issue PCNs:
>
> 1. No express clause about parking permits or parking
enforcement
>
> [indent]• The agreement does not contain any clause
authorising the landlord, their agent, or a third party to
require the display of a parking permit, nor does it mention
parking charges, penalties, or PCNs.[/indent]
>
> 2. References to "parking permits"
>
> [indent]• Clause 1.8.4.2 requires the tenant to return "all
keys, access devices, remote controls and parking permits" at
the end of the tenancy.
> • Clause 4.3.14 repeats that all "keys, access devices, remote
controls and parking permits" are to be returned at the end of
possession.[/indent]
>
> These references only confirm that a parking permit may exist;
they do not create an obligation to display one, nor do they
authorise enforcement action for non-display.
>
> 3. Tenant obligations and covenants
>
> [indent]• The agreement obliges the tenant to observe
covenants in any headlease (Clause 4.3.25) but specifically
excludes rent and service charge payments.[/indent]
>
>
>
> Unless the headlease itself requires permit display and
empowers third-party enforcement, this clause does not grant
such rights.
>
> 4. Third party rights
>
> [indent]• Clause 1.9 explicitly states that “no clause of this
agreement may be enforced by any third party, other than the
Landlord’s Agent, pursuant to the Contracts (Rights of Third
Parties) Act 1999.”[/indent]
>
> This prevents a third-party parking company from relying on
the tenancy agreement itself to enforce PCNs.
>
> 5. Quiet enjoyment
>
> [indent]• Clause 5.2 guarantees the tenant “quiet enjoyment of
the Property during the tenancy without any unlawful
interruption from the Landlord or any person lawfully claiming
under or in trust for the Landlord.”[/indent]
>
> Any third-party enforcement interfering with parking rights
could be challenged as a breach of this covenant, unless clearly
authorised.
>
> Conclusion
>
> The tenancy agreement does not grant authority for the
landlord, their agent, or a third-party parking operator to
require permit display or issue PCNs for failure to display.
>
> [indent]• The only mentions of “parking permits” are
administrative (returning them at tenancy end).
> • Enforcement rights by a third party are explicitly excluded.
> • Unless the headlease (not provided here) contains a parking
enforcement covenant, no lawful basis exists in this agreement
for a third-party operator to impose or enforce PCNs.[/indent]
>
> So, without seeing the headless, it is not conclusive.
However, you should be aware of the following points:
>
> [indent]• Your tenancy imports headlease covenants only if
provided, and they exclude rent/service charge obligations. If
you haven’t been given the headlease, you cannot be bound by
unnotified permit obligations.
> • Even if the headlease says “subject to regulations”, courts
require regulations to be reasonable and consistent with the
grant. A right to park is not extinguished by a failure to
display a flimsy permit.
> • Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 exclusion
(Clause 1.9) blocks a parking company from claiming direct
enforcement rights under this tenancy.
> • Any PCN regime imposed on a lawful tenant with parking
rights is likely to be an unlawful derogation from grant and/or
breach of quiet enjoyment.[/indent]
>
>
--- End Quote ---
--- Quote from: DWMB2 link ---
>
> I think it would be wise to try and get sight of the
headlease.
>
> b789 correctly notes that there aren't any clauses that would
seem to create any agreement with BaySentry. The only thing that
gives me some reservation is that none of what you have shown us
would seem to conclusively provide a right to park. The mention
of parking permits would certainly allude to parking being
included in your lease, but ideally something confirming that
parking is provided would do no harm.
>
> Are the bays numbered, or are there just a series of spaces,
of which any may be used? If the latter, the references to use
of 'common parts' might be of relevance.
>
--- End Quote ---
Hi both/all,
Along with the Letting Agent not supplying the head lease (as
detailed in post above) the tenant has now received a letter
from DCBL (Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd) with a "final
reminder".
What are the appropriate next steps?
Many thanks,
Dam
#Post#: 88326--------------------------------------------------
Re: BaySentry Solutions Ltd - No parking permit
DIR By: b789
Date: September 4, 2025, 3:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You can safely ignore all debt recovery letters. Debt collectors
are powerless to actually do anything except to try and persuade
the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to pay up out of
ignorance and fear.
#Post#: 89139--------------------------------------------------
Re: BaySentry Solutions Ltd - No parking permit
DIR By: Dandalf
Date: September 9, 2025, 8:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> You can safely ignore all debt recovery letters. Debt
collectors are powerless to actually do anything except to try
and persuade the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree to pay
up out of ignorance and fear.
>
--- End Quote ---
Okay that's a relief to know, thank you for the response.
Should the tenant be paying for the headlease from land registry
at this point or should this be something the Letting Agent has
to supply?
We're still stumped on who has what obligations.
To be clear also regarding this case, the tenant is not the
owner of the vehicle.
#Post#: 89196--------------------------------------------------
Re: BaySentry Solutions Ltd - No parking permit
DIR By: b789
Date: September 9, 2025, 12:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
In England and Wales a tenant has no automatic right to a free
copy of the head lease from the letting agent, and the agent has
no general statutory duty to supply it. However, if your tenancy
agreement purports to bind you to comply with terms of the head
lease (or the parking rules arise under that head lease), it is
reasonable to request the relevant extracts. Many
agents/landlords will provide those parts (rights granted,
regulations, plans).
If they won’t, the practical route is to obtain an official copy
from HM Land Registry yourself. It’s inexpensive and avoids
delay.
#Post#: 95614--------------------------------------------------
Re: BaySentry Solutions Ltd - No parking permit
DIR By: Dandalf
Date: October 26, 2025, 8:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> In England and Wales a tenant has no automatic right to a free
copy of the head lease from the letting agent, and the agent has
no general statutory duty to supply it. However, if your tenancy
agreement purports to bind you to comply with terms of the head
lease (or the parking rules arise under that head lease), it is
reasonable to request the relevant extracts. Many
agents/landlords will provide those parts (rights granted,
regulations, plans).
>
> If they won’t, the practical route is to obtain an official
copy from HM Land Registry yourself. It’s inexpensive and avoids
delay.
>
--- End Quote ---
Hello, me again!
A few updates:
- I have got a copy of the Title Register and there seems to be
no head lease for this property (page 1
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/0QvsPS3N/Title-registry-Page-1.jpg
, page 2
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/c4CNx0DR/Title-registry-Page-2.jpg
, page 3
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/76wppkGG/Title-registry-Page-3.jpg
, page 4
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/cCJPLBcK/Title-registry-Page-4.jpg
)
- The defendant has now received an N1SDT from BaySentry/DCB
Legal dated 23rd October (attached here
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/Jhqr2K6B/N1SDT.jpg)
- Along with the N1SDT, their is a cover letter regarding not
responding and receiving a CCJ etc (attached here
HTML https://i.postimg.cc/JnSzN0dt/Cover-letter.jpg)
Amongst the list of 'particulars of claim' on the N1SDT, the
defendant is pursued as the keeper or the driver of the vehicle.
To be absolutely clear here, the driver is not the owner/keeper
of the vehicle. But they do have ability to drive the vehicle
(full license and included on the insurance) but they were not
the driver at the time of the incident occurring.
Does this change anything?
To put minds at rest, the defendant is obviously scared of
receiving some kind of CCJ or mark against their credit file
should this go to court etc. Under what circumstances would a
CCJ on the credit file be given as obviously want to avoid that
but also fight these scumbags if possible and you believe
worthwhile?
Could you please advise on next steps, given the 1. Title
registry attached, 2. the N1SDT and particulars of the case, 3.
and fear of CCJ?
Thank you so much as always for helping!
#Post#: 95629--------------------------------------------------
Re: BaySentry Solutions Ltd - No parking permit
DIR By: b789
Date: October 26, 2025, 10:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I will come back to this and provide the deadlines and how to
respond to the claim. However, just to put your mind at ease,
there is zero chance of getting a CCJ and it will not affect
your “credit file” even if you were to receive one, as long as
it is paid in full within 30:days of judgment.
Nothing we advise on here will affect your credit record. Here
is some education about how CJJs happen:
--- Quote ---
> A County Court Judgment (CCJ) does not just happen—it follows
a clear legal process. If someone gets a Parking Charge Notice
(PCN) from a private parking company, here's what happens step
by step:
>
> [indent]1. Parking Charge Notice (PCN) Issued
>
> [indent]• The parking company sends a letter (Notice to
Keeper) demanding money.
> • This is not a fine—it’s an invoice for an alleged breach of
contract.[/indent]
>
> 2. Opportunity to Appeal
>
> [indent]• The recipient can appeal to the parking company.
> •If rejected, they may be able to appeal to POPLA (if BPA
member) or IAS (if IPC member).
> • If an appeal is lost or ignored, the parking company demands
payment.[/indent]
>
> 3. Debt Collection Letters
>
> [indent]• The parking company might send scary letters or pass
the case to a debt collector.
> • Debt collectors have no power—they just send letters and can
be ignored.
> • No CCJ happens at this stage.[/indent]
>
> 4. Letter Before Claim (LBC)
>
> [indent]• If ignored for long enough, the parking company (or
their solicitor) sends a Letter Before Claim (LBC).
> • This is a warning that they may start a court case.
> • The recipient has 30 days to reply before a claim is filed.
> • No CCJ happens at this stage.[/indent]
>
> 5. County Court Claim Issued
>
> [indent]• If ignored or unpaid, the parking company may file a
claim with the County Court.
> • The court sends a Claim Form with details of the claim and
how to respond.
> • The recipient has 14 days to respond (or 28 days if they
acknowledge it).
> • No CCJ happens at this stage.[/indent]
>
> 6. Court Process
>
> [indent]• If the recipient defends the claim, a judge decides
if they owe money.
> • If the recipient ignores the claim, the parking company wins
by default.
> • No CCJ happens yet unless the recipient loses and ignores
the court.[/indent]
>
> 7. Judgment & Payment
>
> [indent]• If the court rules that money is owed, the recipient
has 30 days to pay in full.
> • If they pay within 30 days, no CCJ goes on their credit
file.
> • If they don’t pay within 30 days, the CCJ stays on their
credit file for 6 years.[/indent][/indent]
>
> Conclusion
>
> CCJs do not appear out of thin air. They only happen if:
>
> [indent]• A parking company takes the case to court.
> • The person loses or ignores the case.
> • The person fails to pay within 30 days.[/indent]
>
> If you engage with the process (appeal, defend, or pay on
time), no CCJ happens.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 95631--------------------------------------------------
Re: BaySentry Solutions Ltd - No parking permit
DIR By: b789
Date: October 26, 2025, 10:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The very good news is that because this claim has been filed by
DCB Legal, as long as it is defended, it will in due course,mine
discontinued just before they are required to pay the £27 trial
fee, after it has been allocated to your local county court.
I will not be dealing with the lease or their rights at this
stage as the standard statutory failures in their Particulars of
Claim (PoC) are enough to win. In the highly unlikely event that
this were to ever proceed to a hearing (less than 1% chance) you
can introduce the lease failures as rebuttal points to their
witness statement, which is extremely unlikely to happen.
With an issue date of 15th October you have until 4pm on Monday
3rd November to submit your defence. If you submit an
Acknowledgement of Service (AoS) before then, you would then
have until 4pm on Monday 17th November to submit your defence.
You only need to submit an AoS if you need extra time to prepare
your defence. If you want to submit an AoS then follow the
instructions in this linked PDF:
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/s/xvqu3bask5m0zir/money-claim-online-How-to-Acknowledge.pdf?dl=0
Until very recently, we never advised using the MCOL to submit a
defence. However, due to recent systemic failures within the
CNBC, we feel that it is safer to now submit a short defence
using MCOL as it is instantly submitted and entered into the
"system". Whilst it will deny the use of some formatting or
inclusion of transcripts etc. these can always be included with
the Witness Statement (WS) later, if it ever progresses that
far.
You will need to copy and paste it into the defence text box on
MCOL. It has been checked to make sure that it will fit into the
122 lines limit.
--- Quote ---
> 1. The Defendant denies the claim in its entirety. The
Defendant asserts that there is no liability to the Claimant and
that no debt is owed. The claim is without merit and does not
adequately disclose any comprehensible cause of action.
>
> 2. There is a lack of precise detail in the Particulars of
Claim (PoC) in respect of the factual and legal allegations made
against the Defendant such that the PoC do not adequately comply
with CPR 16.4.
>
> 3. The Defendant is unable to plead properly to the PoC
because:
>
> (a) The contract referred to is not detailed or attached to
the PoC in accordance with PD 16, para 7.3(1);
>
> (b) The PoC do not state the exact wording of the clause (or
clauses) of the terms and conditions of the contract (or
contracts) which is/are relied on;
>
> (c) The PoC do not adequately set out the reason (or reasons)
why the claimant asserts the defendant has breached the contract
(or contracts);
>
> (d) The PoC do not state with sufficient particularity exactly
where the breach occurred, the exact time when the breach
occurred and how long it is alleged that the vehicle was parked
before the parking charge was allegedly incurred;
>
> (e) The PoC do not state precisely how the sum claimed is
calculated, including the basis for any statutory interest,
damages, or other charges;
>
> (f) The PoC do not state what proportion of the claim is the
parking charge and what proportion is damages;
>
> (g) The PoC do not provide clarity on whether the Defendant is
sued as the driver or the keeper of the vehicle, as the claimant
cannot plead alternative causes of action without specificity.
>
> 4. The Defendant submits that courts have previously struck
out materially similar claims of their own initiative for
failure to adequately comply with CPR 16.4, particularly where
the Particulars of Claim failed to specify the contractual terms
relied upon or explain the alleged breach with sufficient
clarity.
>
> 5. In comparable cases involving modest sums, judges have
found that requiring further case management steps would be
disproportionate and contrary to the overriding objective.
Accordingly, strike-out was deemed appropriate. The Defendant
submits that the same reasoning applies in this case and invites
the court to adopt a similar approach by striking out the claim
due to the Claimant’s failure to adequately comply with CPR
16.4, rather than permitting an amendment. The Defendant
proposes that the following Order be made:
>
> Draft Order:
>
> Of the Court's own initiative and upon reading the particulars
of claim and the defence.
>
> AND the court being of the view that the particulars of claim
do not adequately comply with CPR 16.4(1)(a) because: (a) they
do not set out the exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of
the terms and conditions of the contract which is (or are)
relied on; and (b) they do not adequately set out the reason (or
reasons) why the claimant asserts that the defendant was in
breach of contract.
>
> AND the claimant could have complied with CPR 16.4(1)(a) had
it served separate detailed particulars of claim, as it could
have done pursuant to PD 7C, para 5.2, but chose not to do so.
>
> AND upon the Court determining, having regard to the
overriding objective (CPR 1.1), that it would be
disproportionate to direct further pleadings or to allot any
further share of the Court’s resources to this claim (for
example by ordering further particulars of claim and a further
defence, with consequent case management).
>
> ORDER:
>
> 1. The claim is struck out.
>
> 2. Permission to either party to apply to set aside, vary or
stay this order by application on notice, which must be filed at
this Court not more than 7 days after service of this order,
failing which no such application may be made.
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page