6 PCNs - No permit

[b789]

On the IAS decision, nothing in that wording changes the underlying weaknesses in the case. It is simply an adverse ADR outcome from a scheme that has accepted UKCPS’s characterisation of the signage, the tenancy evidence and the PoFA point. It is not a court judgment and it does not create any legal obligation to pay. The practical significance is only that the internal/ADR stage is over and the matter now moves into complaint and pre-litigation territory if UKCPS decide to press on.

The assessor’s reasoning is poor in several obvious respects. Treating “permit holders only” signage as if it creates a contractual offer to those who are not permitted is the familiar analytical sleight of hand in these cases. The same applies to the tenancy point: the fact that the AST is silent on parking and that the managing agent admits it cannot point to any tenancy clause binding the tenant to undisclosed parking rules does not assist UKCPS.

Trinity’s reply is also useful in its own way, because it effectively says they cannot identify any tenancy term they can rely on and are pushing the issue back onto signage and a site policy. That is not the same thing as proving a contractual variation binding a resident.

The Trinity complaint route is worth continuing. Trinity Estates appears on The Property Ombudsman business search, and TPO’s current process confirms that a final response letter, or a statement that the business will not correspond further, is normally enough to let you escalate.

So, keep Trinity moving by escalating to TPO within the permitted timeframe, focusing on failure to provide or identify any contractual basis binding  you, the tenant, to the parking regime, failure to engage with the complaint substance, and reliance on signage to override residential rights without proving authority. 

Retain the IAS decision, the operator evidence, the AST, the property manager correspondence and proof of the broken/open gate as a litigation bundle seed. 

You will now start to receive useless debt recovery letters which can be safely ignored. Debt collectors are powerless to do anything except to try and intimidate the low-hanging fruit on the gullible tree into paying out of ignorance and fear. They are not a party to any contract allegedly breached by the driver and are therefore powerless to do anything. Just ignore them.

Let me know when you have received a response confirming your DRN. There will not be anything more on this until they send you a Letter of Claim (LoC). If/when you receive the LoC, we can deal with that at the time.

Below is a suitable TPO complaint text you can use.

I wish to escalate a formal complaint against Trinity Estates to The Property Ombudsman.

This complaint concerns Trinity Estates’ handling of a residential parking dispute at The Bar, St James Gate (Basement), and their final response refusing to engage further.

I am a residential occupier connected with the development. Multiple parking charges were issued by UKCPS in the basement area. I complained to Trinity Estates because they are the managing agent responsible for the site and for the appointment and oversight of the parking enforcement contractor.

My complaint is not simply that I disagree with the parking charges. My complaint is that Trinity Estates have failed to properly address the substance of the issues raised, have failed to provide or identify any contractual basis upon which I am said to be bound by the parking regime, and have attempted to deflect all responsibility while continuing to assert that residents are bound by signage and “site policy”.

In their final response, Trinity Estates stated that their relationship is with the freeholder/leaseholder, that they cannot advise on or provide contracts to which they are not a party, that any issue regarding quiet enjoyment must be taken up with my landlord, and that by entering and using the managed parking areas all residents and visitors are bound by the terms displayed on site signage. They also stated that they would not engage with the parking company on my behalf and that this was their final response.

My complaint is that this response is inadequate and unreasonable for the following reasons.

First, Trinity Estates have failed to identify any actual term of my tenancy or any other binding contractual provision that makes my occupation or use of the residential site subject to UKCPS’s parking scheme. My AST is silent on parking, permits, third-party parking enforcement, or any obligation to accept contractual terms later imposed by signage. Trinity Estates have not identified any building regulation, estate regulation, lease covenant, variation, or other instrument that was properly notified and incorporated into my occupation.

Second, Trinity Estates have taken the position that signage alone is enough to bind residents and visitors using the site. That is not a proper answer to a residential complaint where the issue raised was whether a managing agent can subject occupiers to a third-party parking regime without showing any underlying authority or contractual basis for doing so. Simply repeating that “by using the car park you agree to the signage” does not answer the actual complaint.

Third, Trinity Estates have effectively refused to engage with the central issue. They say they cannot provide contracts to which they are not a party, but at the same time they assert that the site policy is enforceable and should be upheld. If they are unwilling or unable to identify the legal or contractual basis for imposing that regime on occupiers, they should not simply dismiss the complaint and tell me to pursue the parking company.

Fourth, Trinity Estates have failed to take responsibility for the actions of the contractor they appointed or oversee. Their response treats the matter as though it is solely between me and UKCPS, despite the fact that UKCPS is enforcing a regime said to exist for the benefit of the site under Trinity’s management. A managing agent cannot avoid scrutiny merely by outsourcing enforcement and then refusing to intervene or investigate.

Fifth, the response ignores relevant factual concerns raised in the complaint, including that the basement area was not operated in a manner consistent with a genuinely controlled permit-only scheme, including issues surrounding the gate being broken or left open, and that the permit scheme and alleged restrictions were not shown to have been properly conveyed to me through any tenancy or occupancy documentation.

Sixth, Trinity Estates’ response is unfair because it places the burden entirely on the occupier to obtain documents and clarity from other parties while Trinity itself maintains and enforces the site policy through its contractor. If Trinity wishes to rely on estate rules and signage against residents, it is reasonable to expect Trinity to identify the source and status of those rules and to explain how and when they were made binding.

I am asking The Property Ombudsman to consider whether Trinity Estates have acted reasonably and in accordance with proper standards of residential estate management in:

1. refusing to identify the legal or contractual basis for imposing the parking regime on residents or occupiers;
   

1. refusing to properly investigate the complaint substance;
   
2. relying on signage and “site policy” as a substitute for proper contractual analysis;
   
3. refusing to engage with the contractor despite the contractor acting under the estate management arrangement;
   
4. issuing a final response that deflects responsibility rather than addressing the merits.
   

I would like Trinity Estates to be required to:

1. provide a proper substantive response identifying the contractual or legal basis, if any, upon which residents or occupiers are said to be bound by the UKCPS regime;
   
2. confirm what authority was given to UKCPS and on what basis that authority was said to apply to occupiers in my position;
   
3. review whether the parking regime has been unfairly or improperly applied in this residential context;
   
4. reconsider their refusal to engage with UKCPS regarding cancellation of the charges;
   
5. provide appropriate redress for the poor complaint handling and distress/inconvenience caused.
   

I attach or can provide the relevant correspondence, including Trinity Estates’ final response, the AST, the parking correspondence, and other supporting material.