Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Hogsta
    • By Hogsta 16th Dec 16, 4:24 PM
    • 55Posts
    • 45Thanks
    Hogsta
    PCN from PCM
    • #1
    • 16th Dec 16, 4:24 PM
    PCN from PCM 16th Dec 16 at 4:24 PM
    Hi All,

    My doughnut of a son has managed to get another PCN for not displaying his permit when parked at his place of work.

    However, this time we responded as per the guidance on the Newbies thread. The company is Parking Control Management Ltd, an IPC member so not much chance in any appeal but I think it best to at least respond to the NTK.

    He's had a reply and I was wondering what your thoughts are particularly in regard to the paragraphs quoting Parking Eye v Beavis and VCS v HM Revenue & Customs.

    Hopefully I have posted the image below correctly.

    Thanks in advance for your replies.



    http://tinypic.com/r/juz9mg/9
Page 1
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 16th Dec 16, 4:39 PM
    • 40,305 Posts
    • 80,507 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    • #2
    • 16th Dec 16, 4:39 PM
    • #2
    • 16th Dec 16, 4:39 PM
    The sign is not saved by the Beavis case which had wording in clear large font, and the parking charge being in the largest font. I can't see the parking charge on the PCM sign.

    The contract may not have been relevant in the Beavis case where parking lie paid the landowner to mis-manage the car park, thus effectively making then the landholder. If PCM do not pay the landowner a grand a month like PE did, then they would have to demonstrate where the landowner has said they have authority to charge motorists.

    What did your son's employer say when he contacted them? Is he a member of a Trade Union and has a decent rep who can help?
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • Hogsta
    • By Hogsta 16th Dec 16, 6:04 PM
    • 55 Posts
    • 45 Thanks
    Hogsta
    • #3
    • 16th Dec 16, 6:04 PM
    • #3
    • 16th Dec 16, 6:04 PM
    Thanks for your reply Fruitcake.

    His employer does not own the land. It is a business park and they just lease offices there. He did contact the landowner with his previous PCN and they just refered him back to PCM. So he didn't bother this time.

    He does not belong to a trade union either.

    He is quite prepared to take it to court if need be, which may be more likely now he has two PCN's with PCM.
    Last edited by Hogsta; 16-12-2016 at 6:10 PM.
    • Fruitcake
    • By Fruitcake 16th Dec 16, 8:40 PM
    • 40,305 Posts
    • 80,507 Thanks
    Fruitcake
    • #4
    • 16th Dec 16, 8:40 PM
    • #4
    • 16th Dec 16, 8:40 PM
    OK, so the keeper sends the IPC template from the NEWBIES thread, one for each ticket, then sit back and wait to see what happens for the next six years.
    I married my cousin. I had to...
    I don't have a sister.

    All my screwdrivers are cordless.
    "You're Safety Is My Primary Concern Dear" - Laks
    • Hogsta
    • By Hogsta 17th Dec 16, 8:38 AM
    • 55 Posts
    • 45 Thanks
    Hogsta
    • #5
    • 17th Dec 16, 8:38 AM
    • #5
    • 17th Dec 16, 8:38 AM
    Yes, the a letter has already been sent. (Huge thanks to those who have taken the trouble to provide the template). We take the advice to not bother with the IPC appeals process.

    What I find confusing with the reply above is that Lord Justice Lewison says that it is perfectly legal to enter into a contract to sell something knowing full well that the the completion of that contract is not possible. Surely that's fraud.
    • Hogsta
    • By Hogsta 13th Mar 17, 8:11 PM
    • 55 Posts
    • 45 Thanks
    Hogsta
    • #6
    • 13th Mar 17, 8:11 PM
    • #6
    • 13th Mar 17, 8:11 PM
    I suppose it was only to be expected. My son has received a letter from Gladstones. It doesn't look like a LBC, more like a debt recovery letter. It contains no reference to the original claim which strikes me as odd. I am aware that some debt recovery firms are trying to disguise their demands as coming from Gladstones however, this one looks a bit different. The phone number and web address are not the same as those from DRP or Trace.

    I would appreciate confirmation or otherwise that it is safe to ignore this letter.

    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Mar 17, 9:17 PM
    • 50,183 Posts
    • 63,564 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #7
    • 13th Mar 17, 9:17 PM
    • #7
    • 13th Mar 17, 9:17 PM
    They don't know their own new address, on the 'gslcollections' webpage:

    http://www.gslcollections.com/How-to-Pay.html

    'Red Cow Yard' is the old address.

    Anyway I would reply with a yawn, telling them this is not a 'debt' and in any case, PCM's sign is completely illegible as proved by their own photo of it in their reply before Christmas, citing the complex and irrelevant (to this situation) Beavis case and the embarrassingly badly-argued 'selling Buckingham Palace' analogy.

    State that employees can park at that car park under the rights and easements enjoyed by employees of the leasehold business for many years, and no third party signs can disregard the pre-existing rights of the occupants in possession of the land and their employees. State that you 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.

    Ask Gladstones 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?
    Last edited by Coupon-mad; 13-03-2017 at 9:19 PM.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Hogsta
    • By Hogsta 13th Mar 17, 9:47 PM
    • 55 Posts
    • 45 Thanks
    Hogsta
    • #8
    • 13th Mar 17, 9:47 PM
    • #8
    • 13th Mar 17, 9:47 PM
    Thank you so much CM for your detailed reply.

    PCM were already operating in the car park when my son started working there so could he still use the point you make in your second paragraph?
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Mar 17, 10:03 PM
    • 50,183 Posts
    • 63,564 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    • #9
    • 13th Mar 17, 10:03 PM
    • #9
    • 13th Mar 17, 10:03 PM
    Yes, the point is that the company was there first...and his company leases the land, yes?
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Hogsta
    • By Hogsta 14th Mar 17, 6:42 AM
    • 55 Posts
    • 45 Thanks
    Hogsta
    Thanks CM.
    I'm not sure who was there first but I see your point.

    It's a relatively new business park and my sons company rented some office space for a couple of years (they moved out at the end of last year) but I think it's a fair bet that PCM were already operating there. However, if it got to court that would be for the claimant to prove otherwise I guess.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Mar 17, 1:20 PM
    • 50,183 Posts
    • 63,564 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Yes and to prove that the signage terms are actually a feature of the company lease, because modern leases (even business ones) are likely to include rights and easements and may well NOT include any reference to a 3rd party protection racket and 'charges'.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Hogsta
    • By Hogsta 15th Mar 17, 5:28 PM
    • 55 Posts
    • 45 Thanks
    Hogsta
    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
    • By Coupon-mad 15th Mar 17, 11:16 PM
    • 50,183 Posts
    • 63,564 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Nice one - just being pedantic, any letter to a solicitor should start with the plural 'Dear Sirs' and end 'Yours faithfully'.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Hogsta
    • By Hogsta 24th Mar 17, 6:47 PM
    • 55 Posts
    • 45 Thanks
    Hogsta
    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
    • By Hogsta 25th Mar 17, 9:52 PM
    • 55 Posts
    • 45 Thanks
    Hogsta
    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
    • By Hogsta 27th Mar 17, 12:52 PM
    • 55 Posts
    • 45 Thanks
    Hogsta
    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
    • By Coupon-mad 27th Mar 17, 1:21 PM
    • 50,183 Posts
    • 63,564 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Looks fine, won't stop Gladstones badly-oiled and creaky machine but send it anyway.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Hogsta
    • By Hogsta 13th Apr 17, 7:57 PM
    • 55 Posts
    • 45 Thanks
    Hogsta
    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.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 13th Apr 17, 11:33 PM
    • 50,183 Posts
    • 63,564 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I would not treat it as a LBCCC.
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

    • Hogsta
    • By Hogsta 15th Apr 17, 5:42 PM
    • 55 Posts
    • 45 Thanks
    Hogsta
    Gladstones Final Reminder Response
    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.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,824Posts Today

7,701Users online

Martin's Twitter