01-16-2026, 06:06 AM
Thanks for the clarification @Popeye, and it actually helps rather than hurts.
I’ve made a few small but important edits to the draft IAS appeal above, to reflect this, without weakening any of the legal points. The substance of the case is unchanged.
The fact that PPM’s signage was already present when you moved in does not alter the legal analysis in any material way. What matters is not the physical presence of signs, but who held authority, what contractual relationship existed, and whether any enforceable obligation arose from those signs in the context of a residential tenancy.
At the point you took up the tenancy, parking was administered by the managing agent, not PPM. You were instructed by the agent to pay £50 per month to secure parking, and the agent issued or controlled permits and bay allocation. Your parking rights therefore arose from your tenancy and your paid arrangement with the landlord/agent, not from any contract with PPM.
The signage itself is neutral or helpful to you. It states that residents must have a valid permit. It does not state that the permit must be issued by PPM, nor does it explain how or when an agent-issued permit would become invalid or require replacement. Even on the operator’s own signage case, you complied: you were a resident and you did have a valid permit issued by the party who, at that time, had authority to issue it.
What appears to have happened, and what the evidence supports, is exactly as you describe. When responsibility for enforcement was transferred on 28 October 2025, the managing agent failed to pass across the resident whitelist and permit data. PPM then enforced based on an incomplete database. That is an administrative failure between principal and contractor. It does not turn an authorised resident into an “unauthorised parker” and it does not create a contractual breach by you.
This distinction is important. Your case is not “I didn’t know about the signs” or “the signs weren’t there”. Your case is that you were already authorised, already paying for parking, and already compliant with the only condition the signage actually states: having a valid permit. Nothing on the signs required you to do anything further, and nothing on the signs transferred permit authority from the managing agent to PPM.
On the legal side, the operator still faces the same fundamental problems.
First, PoFA hirer liability still fails. The Notices to Hirer were not accompanied by the mandatory documents at the time of service. Whether PPM later obtained the hire agreement is legally irrelevant. Liability under PoFA either arises at service or it does not arise at all. “Available on request” is not compliance, and I’ve strengthened that point in the IAS wording to close off any later-document argument.
Second, contractual formation still fails. Even if signage existed, there was no offer capable of acceptance by a resident who already had permission and a valid permit. A third-party contractor cannot impose a new contract on a resident for something the resident is already entitled to do, particularly where the compliance mechanism was controlled by the landlord’s agent.
Third, standing remains unproven. PPM still has to show that it had authority not merely to enforce parking in general, but to override or interfere with existing residential permits and arrangements issued by the managing agent. That is a much higher bar than simply saying “we manage the car park”, and it has not been met.
Fourth, the managing agent’s conduct strengthens the complaint route. The delay, the “we were on holiday” response, and the absence of a substantive reply within their own complaints process all point to maladministration. Escalation to the Property Ombudsman is entirely appropriate, and involving your MP once that process is engaged is sensible given the number of PCNs and the consequential losses (Hertz admin fees, vehicle disablement, loss of work).
Where things stand now is this…
The IAS appeals should proceed using the slightly revised wording. The purpose is not to expect a fair outcome from IAS, but to lock the statutory failures, tenancy position, and standing issues firmly on the record.
The managing agent complaint should be escalated formally. They are the principal and PPM is their agent. They cannot avoid responsibility by telling a resident to “appeal to PPM”.
The SARs remain important, particularly to establish when PPM first requested the hire agreement and what data was or was not transferred at the handover.
None of your clarification undermines the core case. If anything, it reinforces that this is a textbook example of a resident being penalised due to an administrative failure during a contractor handover, coupled with a parking operator attempting to paper over statutory defects by asserting compliance that does not exist.
You remain on solid ground.
I’ve made a few small but important edits to the draft IAS appeal above, to reflect this, without weakening any of the legal points. The substance of the case is unchanged.
The fact that PPM’s signage was already present when you moved in does not alter the legal analysis in any material way. What matters is not the physical presence of signs, but who held authority, what contractual relationship existed, and whether any enforceable obligation arose from those signs in the context of a residential tenancy.
At the point you took up the tenancy, parking was administered by the managing agent, not PPM. You were instructed by the agent to pay £50 per month to secure parking, and the agent issued or controlled permits and bay allocation. Your parking rights therefore arose from your tenancy and your paid arrangement with the landlord/agent, not from any contract with PPM.
The signage itself is neutral or helpful to you. It states that residents must have a valid permit. It does not state that the permit must be issued by PPM, nor does it explain how or when an agent-issued permit would become invalid or require replacement. Even on the operator’s own signage case, you complied: you were a resident and you did have a valid permit issued by the party who, at that time, had authority to issue it.
What appears to have happened, and what the evidence supports, is exactly as you describe. When responsibility for enforcement was transferred on 28 October 2025, the managing agent failed to pass across the resident whitelist and permit data. PPM then enforced based on an incomplete database. That is an administrative failure between principal and contractor. It does not turn an authorised resident into an “unauthorised parker” and it does not create a contractual breach by you.
This distinction is important. Your case is not “I didn’t know about the signs” or “the signs weren’t there”. Your case is that you were already authorised, already paying for parking, and already compliant with the only condition the signage actually states: having a valid permit. Nothing on the signs required you to do anything further, and nothing on the signs transferred permit authority from the managing agent to PPM.
On the legal side, the operator still faces the same fundamental problems.
First, PoFA hirer liability still fails. The Notices to Hirer were not accompanied by the mandatory documents at the time of service. Whether PPM later obtained the hire agreement is legally irrelevant. Liability under PoFA either arises at service or it does not arise at all. “Available on request” is not compliance, and I’ve strengthened that point in the IAS wording to close off any later-document argument.
Second, contractual formation still fails. Even if signage existed, there was no offer capable of acceptance by a resident who already had permission and a valid permit. A third-party contractor cannot impose a new contract on a resident for something the resident is already entitled to do, particularly where the compliance mechanism was controlled by the landlord’s agent.
Third, standing remains unproven. PPM still has to show that it had authority not merely to enforce parking in general, but to override or interfere with existing residential permits and arrangements issued by the managing agent. That is a much higher bar than simply saying “we manage the car park”, and it has not been met.
Fourth, the managing agent’s conduct strengthens the complaint route. The delay, the “we were on holiday” response, and the absence of a substantive reply within their own complaints process all point to maladministration. Escalation to the Property Ombudsman is entirely appropriate, and involving your MP once that process is engaged is sensible given the number of PCNs and the consequential losses (Hertz admin fees, vehicle disablement, loss of work).
Where things stand now is this…
The IAS appeals should proceed using the slightly revised wording. The purpose is not to expect a fair outcome from IAS, but to lock the statutory failures, tenancy position, and standing issues firmly on the record.
The managing agent complaint should be escalated formally. They are the principal and PPM is their agent. They cannot avoid responsibility by telling a resident to “appeal to PPM”.
The SARs remain important, particularly to establish when PPM first requested the hire agreement and what data was or was not transferred at the handover.
None of your clarification undermines the core case. If anything, it reinforces that this is a textbook example of a resident being penalised due to an administrative failure during a contractor handover, coupled with a parking operator attempting to paper over statutory defects by asserting compliance that does not exist.
You remain on solid ground.
Never argue with stupid people. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
