PCN from PCM

Hogsta · 15 March 2017 at 6:28PM

Thank you CM. I have drafted a letter based around your suggestions. I would be grateful if you could cast your expert eye over it and let me know if you think it is adequate.

Dear Sir,

Re: Your Client - Parking Control management (UK) Ltd

I believe your clients request for payment is based on a non enforceable premise that a contract between the registered keeper of the vehicle and themselves was breached. This is strongly denied for the following reasons.

Employees can park at this car park under the rights and easements enjoyed by employees of the leasehold business, and no third party signs can disregard the pre-existing rights of the occupants in possession of the land and their employees.

I would expect as part of their due diligence before putting up signs alleging they can enforce - indeed unilaterally foist - new terms on employees, PCM should have, as a matter of course, checked the lease position and rights of the employees which the keeper believes, supersede (and certainly do not incorporate) PCM's alleged terms.

Therefore there can be no breach because the 'terms' are unwarranted and unreasonable. This is simply an excuse to make money from employees who already enjoyed rights to park. Nothing of value was being offered by the PCM signs to drivers already granted the right to park without charge. All this regime does is penalise employees.

Perhaps you could ask your client what steps were taken to pay regard to the pre-existing rights and easements enjoyed by the employees of the companies situated at this location.

Additionally, your client’s signage is illegible and not compliant with BPA regulations and previous correspondence from PCM with references to the Parking Eye v Beavis and VCS v HMRC judgements are both erroneous and irrelevant.

Yours sincerely

Coupon-mad · 16 March 2017 at 12:16AM

Nice one - just being pedantic, any letter to a solicitor should start with the plural 'Dear Sirs' and end 'Yours faithfully'.

Hogsta · 24 March 2017 at 7:47PM

I had a reply and I guess this is just another piece of junk mail but as it is from Gladstones I thought I'd run it by the experts. I'm inclined to just ignore this but I would be grateful for any advice.

Hogsta · 25 March 2017 at 10:52PM

I appreciate that I may be wasting my time replying, but it is good practice if nothing else

Thank you to all those whose posts I have shamelessly plagiarized. Any comments gratefully received.

Dear Sirs,

Re: Your Client: Parking Control management (UK) Ltd

Thank you for your correspondence.

You raise a number of points on which your client wishes to rely on should this matter go to court. Each of these points are contested for the following reasons.

Elliot V Loake: This was a criminal case where the defendant was found to be lying to avoid taking responsibility for an accident involving his car. His subsequent conviction was not because he was the registered keeper but because he lied when questioned about whether he was the driver. How you make the connection with this to the non payment of an invoice issued on the spurious grounds of not displaying a permit is beyond my, and I suspect any courts, comprehension.

POFA 2012: To pursue the registered keeper in accordance with POFA 2012 requires the claimant to comply with a number of conditions. Not least, adequate signage and a compliant Notice to Keeper. Your client falls far short of compliance on both these items despite your claim that the signs are clear and unambiguous. The pictures I have seen clearly show this to not be the case.

Beavis v PE: This case can be distinguished from Parking Eye v Beavis which was dependent upon an un-denied contract, formed by unusually prominent signage forming a clear offer and which turned on unique facts regarding the location and interests of the landowner. In addition, it was held that the purpose of a parking charge must not be to penalise drivers. Justification must depend on some other ‘legitimate interest in performance extending beyond the prospect of pecuniary compensation flowing directly from the breach in question’. The true test was held to be ‘whether the impugned provision is a secondary obligation which imposes detriment on the contract-breaker out of all proportion to any legitimate interest... in enforcement of the primary obligation’. As your clients claim concerns the driver being parked legitimately at their place of work the landowner had not, nor would be, affected detrimentally. Your clients charge can be seen as nothing else other than an unenforceable penalty.

Evidence of the driver's right to park on the Relevant Land will be provided when it is incumbent upon them to do so.

This will be my last response to your requests for payment. Please inform your client that this debt is denied and any court action will be vigorously defended.

Yours faithfully,

Hogsta · 27 March 2017 at 12:52PM

It does seem as though the forum is especially busy lately, but I would appreciate any feedback on my proposed reply to Gladstones. Even if it is to say stop wasting our time

Coupon-mad · 27 March 2017 at 1:21PM

Looks fine, won't stop Gladstones badly-oiled and creaky machine but send it anyway.

Hogsta · 13 April 2017 at 7:57PM

My son has now received a "Final Reminder" from GS. It is the usual scare tactics with the additional costs that "may" apply.

I was wondering whether he should treat this as a LBCCC or just another debt collecting letter.

If the latter then I shall just reply referring them to my previous letters and that I will be forwarding a copy of their letter to the SRA together with a complaint about their misleading and bullying tactics.

If the former, then I will write a more pertinent response which I would be grateful of the scrutiny from you wonderful forum experts. :A

Coupon-mad · 13 April 2017 at 11:33PM

I would not treat it as a LBCCC.

Hogsta · 15 April 2017 at 5:42PM

Hi forum experts,
Could you run your critical eyes over my response to the latest demand from Gladstones?. It's the breach of SRA codes that I'm not confident about particularly.

Dear Sirs,

Re: Your Client: Parking Control management (UK) Ltd

I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 10th April.

The debt is denied for the reasons outlined in my previous responses to your demands for payment.

I also believe that this “final reminder”, with its veiled threats of CCJ, falls far short of the professional standards required by the SRA. I shall therefore be reporting your company for breach of the following SRA code.

Chapter 11 O(11.1) you do not take unfair advantage of third parties in either your professional or personal capacity.

In addition, as you also operate the IAS I shall be reporting a breach of the SRA Conflict of interest code;

Chapter 3 Para O(3.4): you do not act if there is an own interest conflict or a significant risk of an own interest conflict.

Please advise your client that any court action will be vigorously defended. I will request costs and may also counter sue for the misuse of my data as provided under the data protection act.

Yours faithfully,

Thank you in advance for your responses.

Coupon-mad · 15 April 2017 at 10:05PM

If it were me I would be more comfortable not calling it 'the debt':

Liability for this inflated sum is denied for the reasons outlined in my previous responses to your demands for payment and an unwarranted parking 'charge' from this industry (described in Parliament only last month as 'cowboys') is certainly not properly described as 'debt'.

I think what you say about reporting them to the SRA is fine and I would in fact put that complaint in already (SRA complaints can be done online I believe) then tell them in this response that you have done so - and give the reference of the complaint and insist they cease and desists.

Better than the idle threat that you *will/shall* report them...they will assume you won't.

PCN from PCM

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free