1. The exact wording of the appeal you submitted to P4Parking.
   
2. The relevant tenancy wording dealing with the parking space, permits and any obligation to comply with estate regulations.
   
3. The email or other document confirming that the numbered parking space was included with the flat.
   

(Yesterday, 09:21 PM)b789 Wrote: @KHarHar, before I can sensibly advise you any further, I need to know exactly what you said in the appeal to P4Parking.

The important issue is whether you identified yourself as the driver. If you appealed saying things such as "I parked", "I did not have a permit", "I was not given a permit" or otherwise made it clear that you were the person driving, then you may have shot yourself in the foot on one potentially useful defence. P4Parking would no longer need to rely on Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 to transfer liability from an unknown driver to the registered keeper, because they would already know who the driver was.

That would not make the charge automatically valid, because there is still a potentially much stronger tenancy/primacy argument here. If your tenancy or associated documents grant you the right to use that specific allocated space, and do not make that right conditional upon displaying a permit, then the later introduction of P4Parking and its permit scheme does not necessarily override the rights already granted to you.

The agent's response also rather misses the point. This is not simply a case of "you parked without displaying a permit". If a permit was necessary to exercise the parking right included with the tenancy, then somebody should have ensured that you were provided with one or at least told that one was required.

So, before going any further, please post:

1. The exact wording of the appeal you submitted to P4Parking.
   
2. The relevant tenancy wording dealing with the parking space, permits and any obligation to comply with estate regulations.
   
3. The email or other document confirming that the numbered parking space was included with the flat.
   

Once I have those, I can tell you much more accurately where you stand.

(Yesterday, 10:09 PM)b789 Wrote: @KHarHar, yes, that answers the important questions and, importantly, I do not think you have identified the driver in either of those appeals.

You consistently describe yourself as the tenant/resident and refer to "my vehicle", but you never say that you were driving or that you parked it. Ownership/keeper status and driver identity are not the same thing. So, unless there is something else you have sent them which identifies the driver, I would continue on the basis that the driver has not been identified. Do not now volunteer that information.

The tenancy position is also rather better than I initially feared. The tenancy defines "the Property" by reference to the contents of the Inventory, and that Inventory expressly identifies Parking space [number]. You also have the agent's pre-tenancy confirmation that the property "comes with an allocated parking space within the complex". Taken together, that is useful evidence that use of that particular space formed part of what was granted with the tenancy.

What I would want to check next is the exact wording of the tenancy clause dealing with parking permits, particularly the clause requiring permits to be returned at the end of the tenancy. The crucial question is whether anywhere in the tenancy you are actually required to display a permit, comply with a third-party parking scheme, or pay parking charges for failing to do so. A clause merely requiring any permit to be returned when the tenancy ends is not the same thing.

I would also slightly temper some of the wording used in your original appeal. "No loss or breach has occurred" is not particularly helpful because private parking charges do not depend upon the operator proving financial loss. Likewise, I would not rest the argument solely on a broad assertion of "primary right of occupation". The stronger point is much more concrete: your tenancy documentation and inventory appear to grant you use of this specific allocated parking space, and we need to establish whether that grant contains any condition requiring display of P4Parking's permit.

So please post the full permit-related clause from the tenancy. Subject to what that says, you potentially have both the tenancy/parking-right argument and, because the driver appears not to have been identified, any applicable keeper-liability arguments still available.

• expressly grants or restricts parking rights;
  
• identifies a particular parking space or bay;
  
• requires vehicles to display a permit;
  
• requires compliance with parking regulations or a managing agent's rules;
  
• permits the landlord/managing agent to introduce or vary such regulations during the tenancy; or
  
• makes parking conditional upon compliance with any third-party scheme.
  

(Yesterday, 11:43 PM)b789 Wrote: @KHarHar, that is useful and actually helps. On what you have quoted, there is nothing in the tenancy requiring you to display a permit, participate in P4Parking's scheme, or pay a third-party parking charge for failing to display one.

The clause about complying with headlease/covenant obligations also appears qualified by the words "a copy of which has been provided to the Tenant". If no such parking-related obligations were ever provided to you, that clause does not obviously assist the landlord or P4Parking in imposing some undisclosed permit regime after the event.

However, I still need you to check the tenancy agreement for all references to parking, not merely references to "parking permits".

Please search the agreement for terms such as parking, car, vehicle, motor vehicle, space, garage, bay, estate regulations, regulations, communal areas, common parts, management company, headlease, covenant and allocated space.

What I am trying to establish is whether there is any clause anywhere which:

• expressly grants or restricts parking rights;
  
• identifies a particular parking space or bay;
  
• requires vehicles to display a permit;
  
• requires compliance with parking regulations or a managing agent's rules;
  
• permits the landlord/managing agent to introduce or vary such regulations during the tenancy; or
  
• makes parking conditional upon compliance with any third-party scheme.
  

So far, the documents you have quoted are favourable: the inventory identifies a specific parking space, the agent expressly confirmed before the tenancy that the property came with an allocated parking space, and the tenancy contains no permit-display obligation that we have yet seen.

But I want the complete parking-related picture before drawing a firm conclusion.

• Parking - All of the references to parking are above - there are no others.
  
• Car - None
  
• Vehicle -  the only clause relates to not keeping a variety of non-roadworthy vehicles on the property:
   "Not keep any vehicle that is not validly licensed for use on the highway, any commercial  vehicle, boat, caravan, trailer, hut or shed on the Property."
• Motor Vehicle - none
  
• Space - only refers to loft space and space heater
  
• Garage - only one clause referring to keeping bikes within agreed spaces:
  "Not keep motorcycles, cycles, e-bikes, e-scooters or other similar machinery in any  communal areas, or inside the property, except in any defined outside area or garage."

• Bay - None
  
• Estate Regulations - None
  
• Regulations - Only references are to Gas Safety regulations, electrical device regulations, and home businesses under the Tenant act (or as defined by regulations made under it).
  
• Communal Areas - only the above note on cycles and e-scooters.
  
• Common Part - Obstruction to 
   "Not cause obstruction in any common areas of any building of which the Property forms  a part. The Landlord reserves the right to remove or have removed any such obstruction  and, at their discretion, to charge the reasonable costs, payable on demand, to the Tenant  for so doing."

• Management Company - No mention of management company, only mention of 'company' is insurance related, and no mention of 'management'.
  
• Headlease - Two mentions. One is the above:
  

• Covenant - only the above clause
  
• Allocated space - none.