Thanks guys, that's reassuring. Let's say hypothetically, I went to court and I beat them. What would be the potential consequences of that for them? Would they be forced to leave the residence?

Good on them for following the rules. They still haven't proven that I'm the driver though right? I also checked the council's website and there's no planning permission for the signs. No luck with the organ grinder. I think I'll need to take this to court and win to prove my point to the other freeholders.

Thanks @lolerz. I've attached it to the post. What do you think? What's the organ grinder? NTK.pdf

Probably the case @lookinforinfo Also an update, I've got the registered keeper letter. Just to check that I continue to ignore it until PAP letter comes in?

You'd think so... Separately, I heard the owner of OPS (Gavin Price) is a convicted criminal lol. So, who knows what's going on...

Yes, that would also make sense. But they don't own the site, so their T&Cs are surely irrelevant?

Pre-authorised vehicles would be anyone who has the blessing of the MA to park there without harassment e.g. contractors working on the site. I've been told that despite this, they still get tickets, which is hilarious in its own right. Assigned parking areas seems to help the 'written permission' bit of the lease. Would that give the lease primacy over their imaginary contract with me?

Pretty sure the 'rules' are directed to everyone inc. residents, not just visitors. Have also attached pics of signage. lookinforinfo - not sure, I wasn't around when the decision was made. Seeing as how the Directors operate opaquely, I presume it was done with minimal consultation. I could request records of when/how the decision was made. Knowing them, they'd be stupid enough not to keep any, which could help show that it is unlawful? signage.pdf

Rules below. Key bit highlighted: 1. Pets permitted at the discretion of the Management and can be rescinded at any time. All dogs to be on leads within the confines of the development and any fouling cleared. Failure to adhere to this directive will result in the permission to keep dogs being withdrawn & non-compliance will constitute a breach of Lease Terms. 2. Leaseholders are liable for any damage caused to adjacent properties by themselves or Tenants up to £500.00, eg. Escape of water. This reduces the amount of small claims on our Insurance Policy & any subsequent increases in premium due to claims. 3. Parking restrictions apply & permits available from Managing Agent. Permits allow 1 hour parking in the Parking Bays with no return within one hour. There is a deposit of £10.00 refunded on return of permit. 4. An administration charge of £20.00 will be levied on each occasion any Reminders/Statements are sent to Leaseholders, by letter or email, with regard to Maintenance/Service charges and Ground Rent arrears. 5. Dumping of household items, other than normal household waste, within the confines of the Estate is forbidden. 6. Smoking is prohibited by law within the communal areas. Please dispose of cigarette butts in a responsible manner. 7. It is the Leaseholder’s responsibility to ensure that their Letting Agents/Tenants are aware of these rules if the Leaseholder isn’t resident. 8. Garages can only be transferred to existing Flat Leaseholders. On the DVLA point - how do I prove they've contravened??

Sure, but the part of the lease I mentioned does suggest that one shouldn't park in the common area, without written permission. Or do you think the fact that there is a PPC here with this 1 hour rule, is evidence of permission?

Dave - you're not thick, that's exactly the dilemma here. Hence I want to see how far we can go with this. If the tickets are completely unenforceable, then we can just ignore them. But that's when I would imagine the 'freeholder' would start bringing in the breach of lease threat... lolerz - the garages are quite small indeed. My garage is also used as storage. Yes, I can see the argument that I should find somewhere else for storage, but if there is parking, then why should I? Nicky - that's helpful. So, if OPS have requested planning permission, then how does that go against the ATA code of conduct?

Thanks DX, I'll ignore unless they send an actual letter.

Update: Cabot's lawyers have responded to my letter. Their response was on email. They claim I made a payment in 2018. I've checked my bank account and there's nothing that was paid at the time that they claim. As expected, this is the phantom payment scam they tried before. If this is the best they have then I'm 100% sure the debt is now SB'd and they're desperate. Is it worth replying i.e. you're wrong and I'll contest this at court, so don't contact me any further. Or shall I wait it out until LBC Cheers

Thanks FTMDave the bays are not marked as such, but they're referred to in seperate 'management rules' which could easily be construed as written approval to use them. Otherwise, why are we parking there and having to follow this daft 1 hour policy with the PPC (OPS)?

lolerz - thanks, there is no mention of the exact location of the car park/bay, only the name of the development (which is the first line of the address). Sounds like it could be bogroll. Signature is the MA's name, no mention of freehold in the signature itself. After some digging, I can also confirm now that the 'client' is the freehold company (NOT management company), so it seems like the MA got that bit right. The specific part of the lease that worries me is what I mentioned in the OP (see below). 'No vehicles shall be parked within the grounds of the Property otherwise than in the garage forming part of the demised premises or in any other part of the Property previously approved in writing by the Landlord for that purpose' lookinforinfo - thanks, what's an ATA Code of Conduct? Also, I'm pretty sure they haven't applied for planning permission, so I'll investigate. Surely, OPS have no authority to apply for planning permission in a private residential zone?

Thanks dx and lookinforinfo. I had a look at the above case, and it does indeed seem promising. Also as promised, I've attached a sanitised version of the contract, lease and deed of variation. Based on the info so far, this PNC seems like it may be unenforceable, given that I've not appealed and will follow the process outlined on this website. HOWEVER, I have a feeling that if I keep parking in the bays, despite ignoring PNCS, then there might be the possibility that I'm breaching the lease. I wonder what you guys might think about that… Lease.pdf Deed of Variation.pdf OPS contract.pdf

Alright, will send over a sanitised contract when I next get on a PC. Cheers for looking.

Understood. Okay then I'll wait on the letter of claim, if they send it. Let's see what they do... Will keep you updated.

Alright I'll do some more investigating to figure it out. Let's say the contract is between the freehold company and PCC, then how screwed am I?

So, it's the company referred to as "the landlord" in my lease. This is the same company that takes my service charge. As mentioned there seems to be two companies that I have a share of, but unsure which one is the freehold company.

Hmm... Both seem to have the same address... Any other way to check?

Thanks lolerz, so I just need to figure out the terminology here. What is the freehold company? The company that takes my service charge is referred to as the landlord (and is the PPC client). But the titles etc seem to be with the other company, which has barely any money in it. Noted on the NTK point.

Alright, an update. MA has responded with the contract. I haven't read the whole thing yet, but it seems to be signed by the management company. This may mean the PNC is invalid right? However, I need to double check that it is the management company and not the dormant freehold company. How would I know which one is which? I can see all the leaseholders have 1 share each in the management company. In the lease it's referred to as the landlord, whereas the other company is the 'association'. Your steer here would be helpful. Lastly, MA is p'd off that I'm challenging him and is refusing to cancel the PCN. He suggests I appeal, haha. I'll keep being a nuisance, but it looks like I'll need to wait for NTK. So any thoughts on a defence? Cheers

Thanks lolerz, the freehold company is indeed dormant. I am unsure how the RTM company works, but that seems to be by design, as all of the residents don't know either. I've also asked for the contract and demanded again that the PCN be cancelled. No response yet, but I might be the first lessee to do this in a while, so they're probably a bit shook! Let you know what they say...

Yes agreed. I don't think it will solve it, but it might give the issue more coverage. I'm not the only one who has complained about this, but I seem to be the only one willing to make a nuisance. So will continue doing so. BTW there doesn't seem to be any board meetings that shareholders are invited to me. As mentioned, there are a host of other issues with the MA and Board, who likely are doing shady dealings. However this parking directly affects our wallets and goes against the spirit of why there might be a PPC here e.g. to stop randoms from parking in our area. So, this parking issue might be the best way to also start addressing the wider problems. I'll keep you all updated especially when I get the RTK notice. But any further thoughts or advice would be appreciated.