IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including QR codes, number plates and reference numbers.

Link Parking residently PCN

Back in January I had a friend visiting at my flat. They were parked in my allocated space and the vehicle was registered using their online process. A PCN was on the windscreen the next day.

I appealed on behalf of the driver/keeper and the appeal was denied due to there being no record of the vehicle being registered for the parking bay. I took the appeal further and it was again denied because I couldn't prove I had registered the vehicle and Link Parking said that confirmation of parking is provided at point of registration. This is not true and I have video evidence to prove this.

I later received a letter fro Link Parking requesting payment for the PCN. I emailed this and a copy of my lease to the management company for the site and they advised they will contact Link Parking. Since then I have received a letter before claim from Gladstone Brookes.

I have told Link Parking that I am not the registered keeper or driver of the vehicle but they claim I have admitted that I am - although in my IAS appeal it states I am appealing on behalf of the keeper. I also have a lease that shows the space is assigned to me and photographs of unauthorised vehicles who have previously parked in my space and have not been ticketed.

The main sign at point of entry just says parking is for residents only and the link parking signs don't explicitly say you need to register the vehicle on the website - it just says authorised vehicles only and this vehicle was authorised as it was parked in my space with my permission.

I'm concerned about this going to court and just want to know where I stand :(
«13456710

Comments

  • System
    System Posts: 178,077
    Photogenic Name Dropper First Post
    Community Admin
    You must acknowledge and then send in a defence.

    The defence will be that a) you registered your friend as required b) it is your space and c) you are not liable for the failure in the Link system.

    Get onto the MgtCo to get this sorted and point out Link are using their dodgy system to exploit residents (as is usual with them)
  • beamerguy
    beamerguy Posts: 17,587
    First Anniversary Photogenic Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    edited 10 May 2017 at 8:31AM
    I doubt it is Gladstone Brooks, who advertise on TV

    It will be Gladstones Solicitors who are incompetent at the best of times.

    As Gladstones do not understand the reason of any claims, in your case, it would appear that Gladstones will be whooped again in court.

    Lots of people on this forum will help you beat this lot

    Read up about the infamous Gladstones here

    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=gladstones

    In particular about LINK, read this
    Hopeless solicitors Gladstones bungle another case for Link Parking
    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/hopeless-solicitors-gladstones-bungle.html

    Makes you wonder why Link even bother with Gladstones
  • On the face of it, this is very simple: you were not driver nor registered keeper, have not admitted that you were, and they have no locus to sue you at all.


    However, this needs a bit more information. You refer to an online registration system for visitors, but say that this is not mentioned on the signs.


    Firstly, what system is there for YOU to park: do you have a permit that you are asked to display? Are you a leasehold owner or a tenant, in which case what parking rights to do you have (you talk about an allocated space)?


    Secondly, in relation to visitors' parking: how is this online registration system communicated to you, so that you know it exists and how to use it? Such a system must supercede the signage (or it is a collateral/separate contract to any contract it is claimed is created by the signage).


    Legally, what these claims are for, and what the PPC must prove and you must defend, is as follows:
    1. The signs form a legal contractual offer in their wording;
    2. The driver must have seen the signs because they were prominently displayed;
    3. by proceeding to park, the driver therefore accepted the terms of the contract and a contract was therefore formed;
    4. The terms of the contract have been breached (usually the terms in a residential site will say you must display a permit or you will have to pay a £100 charge);
    5. You committed the breach because you were the driver at the time (usually it is argued that you are alternatively liable as registered keeper - but see below);
    5. The PPC is therefore entitled to seek from you the £100 plus interest, plus admin charges of c. £50 (there will be some vague reference in the small print to extra admin charges if you don't pay within 28 days), which brings the claim to circa £160-180 plus court costs of £25 and allowable solicitors costs of £50 - most claims therefore being around the £250 mark per pcn.


    If they don't know who the driver is, then under POFA they can sue the registered keeper (RK), but to successfully sue a RK they have to strictly follow the provisions of POFA (including strict time limits which is where they normally fall down) for serving a Notice to Keeper (NtK).


    If POFA is not complied with, then they will sue the RK but will claim that the RK is the driver and that the court should make an assumption to this effect. They incorrectly rely on case law which they have knowingly misinterpreted to make you think that there is a precedent for the court to make that presumption, rebuttable by you (which reverses the burden of proof - you have to prove you weren't the driver, rather than than proving you were).


    In your case it seems that they have been distracted from serving a NtK - if there was a windscreen ticket then under para 8 of POFA Sched 4 the NtK has to be received by you between days 29 and 56 after the windscreen ticket. So if you pass day 56 you are outside of POFA and all they can do is ask the court to determine that you were the driver (because you cannot be liable as RK).


    Not that you were the RK anyway, which you can obviously prove (although if you produce the V5 you are outing the RK but I don't think that matters because the RK isn't necessarily the driver, although they will probably start pursuing your friend as RK and argue that she was the driver, as above - perhaps you produce the RK to show the surname and part of the address so they can see it's not you but you don't provide the full address/details).


    As usual, they have f***ed up. We all know that you were not the driver and are not the RK. But they think you were.


    So you defend the contractual claim on the basis that you are not the RK and were not driving and cannot therefore have entered into or breached any contract. You produce the appeal and show that you appealed ON BEHALF OF the driver/RK. You say you know who the driver is but you are not obliged by POFA or any other enactment to identify them.


    Simple so far.


    This is the PPC's claim so they have to prove it. However, it's dangerous to sit back and say "prove I'm the driver and the RK because you can't" - rather, you'd provide some information to say that you live there, evidence that you have, and drive, another car (or can't/don't drive at all) and that you have parking rights for it as a tenant/leaseholder. All of this points towards you not being the driver. You'd say that you know the driver, and they were visiting you and were parked in your spot, that they had in fact registered to park (and how you know this) and so in any event no contract has been breached. You'd also produce evidence of your right to park (either your tenancy in which the space is specifically said to be yours, or your leasehold in which the space is demised to you). And you'd provide evidence that you went through the registration process to allow your visitor to park.


    Remember though that you are only proving you weren't driving. You are not defending on behalf of your visitor. But I think it's worth showing that the visitor does have a good defence so that the PPC will be put off trying to pursue them later.


    If the court is satisfied that you are not the driver (and you are not RK either - and in any event POFA hasn't been followed in respect of the RK) then you cannot be liable on any interpretation.


    The other alternative is just to defend simply: not driver, not RK, here's proof that I was neither (ie nothing about parking rights, visitors, registering the visitor etc).


    Now onto my next point: how do your parking rights exist and how were they granted to you - what is the exact wording of any documents granting/restricting these rights. The reason I'm asking is that if you own or have exclusive rights to the space, then I think the PPC has committed an act of trespass in entering onto the space to ticket a car. You should raise this in your response to the LBC and, in fact, I'd make your response an LBC in itself, putting them on notice that you will be counterclaiming for damages for trespass and explaining how and why the trespass occurred and what damages you are seeking (it seems neat and justifiable for you to claim the same amount they are claiming from you for the original charge plus whatever they've added on top, plus legal fees).


    Next point I'd like you to think about: who brought these cowboys in - the freeholder or a managing agent/committee? The f/h or MA/MC is liable for any tortious acts committed by the PPC on its behalf, or at its behest. So at the same time as you write your own LBC to the PPC you'd also send one to the MA saying they have brought about a trespass to your parking space, they have no right to interfere with your pre-existing parking rights which are not encumbered by any obligation to display a permit etc etc (we'd need to look more at your parking rights, any rights of the f/h or MA/MC to impose controls or management systems in respect of communal areas, the timing of when you moved in viz. when the PPC was contracted to carry out their activities and so on to see what rights you have and what rights the f/h/MC/MA has).


    In short, a bit of homework is needed for you to see where you are going with this.


    The reason I say kick the f/h or MA/MC up the backside is that you might then find that the pcn is magically cancelled.
    Although a practising Solicitor, my posts here are NOT legal advice, but are personal opinion based on limited facts provided anonymously by forum users. I accept no liability for the accuracy of any such posts and users are advised that, if they wish to obtain formal legal advice specific to their case, they must seek instruct and pay a solicitor.
  • Thank you for the response!

    The system they have in place is that you have to go onto the Link Parking website and register the vehicle using a web form. I've done this for my own vehicle and never received a confirmation code which was why I never queried it when I didn't receive one for this vehicle.
    Link parking rebuffed my appeal because I couldn't show any proof of registration and claimed their website offered this. I took a video to show that the form just refreshes to the homepage and no such proof is given.

    We are tenants in the flat to which the space is allocated to. The landlord has sent over the lease document that shows the space is ours.
    In our lease documents it says nothing about Link Parking and the sign at the entrance just says parking for residents only, which I am.
    Plus, the Link Parking sign doesn't explicitly say you have to register on their website anyway.

    I've spoken with Gladstone and explained that I am not the registered keeper and they just said that 9 times out of 10 and that they'll 'go back to their client to get advice'

    The management company First Port that manage the area in question have taken this on as well and are trying to resolve this.
    I did try and explain to Link Parking as well and just received a rather unpleasant email telling me to go through their solicitors
  • beamerguy
    beamerguy Posts: 17,587
    First Anniversary Photogenic Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    I did try and explain to Link Parking as well and just received a rather unpleasant email telling me to go through their solicitors

    Perfect, silly Link, they already know that Gladstones will screw it up for them again.

    NUTTERS in the extreme
  • Right, if your MC is on side, keep up the pressure with them to get it cancelled. Many MCs innocently take on PPCs with no idea that they will target innocent residents.


    So you aren't obliged to display permits at all, just register on the website?
    Do the signs say nothing at all about permits?


    Where does the obligation come from to go on their website and register your vehicle? is there a difference in registering a tenant's car or a visitor's car?


    I think you might have to sit this one out and wait for the court proceedings and then defend on the basis you aren't driver or RK and they can't prove you were (and provide your own evidence that you are/were neither).


    You need to respond to the LBC to say in brief what your defence is and to ask for:
    1. the landowner-Link parking contract
    2. an explanation of why they think you are the driver, given that your appeal clearly stated that you were appealing on behalf of the driver - and say that you are not the RK
    You must tell them that:
    1. you are a tenant and have exclusive rights to park in bay X under your tenancy
    2. the person parked there on the day was a visitor who you had told to park in your spot, to which you have exclusive rights, and that you had followed the instructions given to you (by whom and when?) to register the vehicle on their website
    3. the pcn was not lawfully issued
    4. you have exclusive use and occupation of the parking space and their operative has committed a trespass by entering onto it to put a ticket on the car; they are responsible for the torts of their employees, and if they issue proceedings then you will be counterclaiming for damages.


    You need to put more pressure on your MC to sort this. Tell them that they are responsible for the PPC's actions and that they are committing a trespass on your parking spot and you do not consent to it and that unless they sort it out they are going to become embroiled in court proceedings.


    Any fellow occupants with a similar experience you can club together with the pile the pressure on the MC?
    Does your tenancy specifically include the parking? In a case last week (not on here) the judge held that although the LEASE included the parking, as the TENANCY was silent on it then the parking rights had NOT been included in the tenancy. So you must get a letter from your landlord confirming that he has orally confirmed to you that the written tenancy includes the parking rights in his lease (and what those are).
    Although a practising Solicitor, my posts here are NOT legal advice, but are personal opinion based on limited facts provided anonymously by forum users. I accept no liability for the accuracy of any such posts and users are advised that, if they wish to obtain formal legal advice specific to their case, they must seek instruct and pay a solicitor.
  • There's no obligation for permits at all, the sign doesn't say anything about them it just says the vehicle needs to be registered. That's where the problem lies because I can't prove I registered the vehicle. Link Parking provide no proof.
    The system is basically that you register the vehicle on their website and the the parking company have a list of approved vehicles, if your vehicle isn't on the list you get a ticket.
    There's nothing on the sign to say you should go to the website it just says the vehicle must be authorised.
    The only reason I knew to register in the first place was because I called them to query my space number.

    The system is flawed in that when I originally moved the letting agency gave me the wrong space number and, even though the resident whose space it was, didn't get a ticket because I had registered online. So really anyone can park there by that logic.

    The MC have asked for the lease and vehicle registration and seemed like they were willing to help.

    There's nothing in our tenancy agreement about parking, we were just provided with the lease and oral confirmation the space was ours to use how we wanted.
  • The oral agreement is part of your tenancy. But if you get sued you need that in writing so ask for it now.


    So what you're saying is you can get yourself registered, but the registration doesn't relate to your actual space, but to the parking in general?


    The burden of proof in a claim is the Claimant's. So it's not for you to prove you registered, it's for them to prove you didn't. A bit chicken and egg.


    So your defence to this would be to simply say you were authorised, because you had obeyed the sign saying you needed to be authorised by phoning them up and asking them how to do this, followed by the actual registration. You've got proof that the registration process does not lead to any confirmation at all. Keep evidence of that phone call - call log or mobile/landline phone bill. That's evidence that you phoned them when you moved in, and gives weight to your story that you phoned to ask how to get authorised and then proceeded to do the online registration.


    The judge will have to decide on the balance of probabilities who he/she believes, with the burden on the Claimant. If you can show you made that phone call, and you can show that the registration doesn't issue you with any confirmation by email or otherwise, and your own signed Statement saying that you did register, then I think on balance you would win because they can't actually produce a person to say "no Lillian didn't" because at the other end it's a computer, not a person. This is clearly down to a computer glitch and because there is no means/system of confirmation then you have reasonably assumed that it all went through OK.


    All you can do at present is say this to Link.


    The business model of all PPCs is to ignore any defence the driver has and to keep chasing with more aggressive and frightening letters with bogus charges added on. They hope is that the driver caves in and pays. Most do. Even when you are one of "those" who defend, Link will carry on. They may go away, but don't expect them to. If they issue proceedings, they will go right up to the wire and may withdraw a day or two before, or they will just proceed and have a go anyway. Because many people who start of defending don't have the balls to go through with it and cave in at the thought of going to court.


    So you have to be prepared to tough it out. You have nothing to be afraid of. Your worst case is you lose and end up paying the original charge, a £25 court fee and possibly an extra £50 in costs and a very small amount of interest. As long as you pay that when ordered to, it doesn't affect your credit rating (they will write to you in scary terms telling you it will but they are lying). You've got a good chance of winning here and don't need to worry about court - your defence is very, very simple.
    Although a practising Solicitor, my posts here are NOT legal advice, but are personal opinion based on limited facts provided anonymously by forum users. I accept no liability for the accuracy of any such posts and users are advised that, if they wish to obtain formal legal advice specific to their case, they must seek instruct and pay a solicitor.
  • ^ The registration is meant to be for the space. So you register your vehicle to the bay. But as long as the vehicle is registered it seems they don't take the bay number into consideration, especially since the numbers are so worn anyway.


    I spoke with the management company and the woman I spoke to was a little less helpful than the previous ones. She spoke to Link Parking and then came back to me with what sounded like an automated response and that due to the fact it has gone down the legal route there is nothing she can do.


    Basically, Link told her that I never registered the vehicle. Apparently they sent me authorisation codes for every vehicle I registered and that there was none for this one because I forgot to register it. I explained multiple times that I had never received a code for any vehicle and that I have video evidence to show their system doesn't provide any such auth code.


    The issue I have is since all I have is the video I'm scared they'll just pull codes out of their !!!! for the other vehicles and claim they sent them. Granted, they wouldn't have an email trail of this because it never happened but clearly they're not the most ethical company anyway.
  • The_Deep
    The_Deep Posts: 16,830 Forumite
    edited 23 May 2017 at 3:09PM
    Have I got this right, Gladstones are taking you to court over a parking incident involving a car you do not own, and were not driving, why?

    Surely, all you need do is rock up in court, tell the judge you do not owe this company a penny, and let him sort it out with the PPCs poodler and su,mit you claim for expenses. Occams Razor surely, or have I mossed something?
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.5K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.6K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.8K Life & Family
  • 247.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards