I've been naive and foolish following getting a PCN.

johnbb99

Firstly, I didn't come straight here and get good advice [as I didn;t know it was here ].
Sorry about a long post but would some kind soul experienced in these affairs give me a pointer as to whether I have cooked my goose and should just pay up, or if I can still fight this?
Basic facts:- I had parked in a Visitor space at the block of flats where we live. I had put a valid permit visible in the car so was correctly parked - no problem. I later [maybe a day, perhaps longer] went to the car to get something from it [not move it] and the storm force winds (that occurred at that time) blew the permit onto the floor so it was no longer easily visible. Link Parking (who are employed by the flat management company - who are employed by me in effect) employee comes round and issues PCN.
I appealed to Link P according to their rules (giving the mitigating circs [I know, I know] ) but they rejected. (also I did not deny being the driver.) I then failed to send an appeal (mea culpa) to the IAS at all.
TBH I could not believe they were going to pursue this (as I felt it was so unfair - after all, I pay them [in effect] to keep a space free for me!!)
I have now received 2 letters from Gladstones Solicitors, the second of which (just arrived) is headed [FONT=&quot]LETTER BEFORE CLAIM, [/FONT]and listing a charge of £150 to be paid in 14 days.
It refers to the Practice Direction - and I've seen the thread dedicated to that topic - thanks.
I did telephone the flat management co, to see if they would call off Link Parking, but they said it wouldn't do any good.
Any hope, or do I cough up?
Very many thanks to anyone who responds.

The_Deep

I assume that, as a resident, you had good reason to monopolise a visitors space, but your behaviour is precisely why MAs employ PPCs.
However, as my dislike for PPCs exceeds my dislike for selfish residents I will give you some advice.

This is probably a contractual charge and the idea that a resident would enter into such a contract is ludicrous, and it would be foolish indeed for them to try to convince a judge that they would. Tell them therefore that you will defend the action, and you look forward to seeing them in court.

Quite frankly I doubt if they will go through with it. The contractual charge model is riven with flaws.

http://nebula.wsimg.com/d8670de1426ea2c4f588c4cf1c9c1ff2?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

johnbb99

The Deep - you've misread the Visitor parking space situation. What I did was entirely within the rules and socially acceptable - they are for residents' use as well as visitors! But I forgive you.
Thank you for your comments, but I am still concerned that my previous actions (or lack of...) have undermined any future ones.

What is the link you included? It opens a new web page that then downloads something with a long inscrutable filename and no file extension. A bit unnerving to be honest!

johnbb99

Any other specific suggestions before I respond - which I must (according to them) soon!
Thanks,
John.

Hot_Bring

Link Parking have never done court and given they can't even use basic sentences constructed in English on their website, I would now ignore them if I were you ( and Gladstones ).

If you want to do anything then threaten your managing agents that you will take them to court for harassment by their agents.

Coupon-mad

I then failed to send an appeal (mea culpa) to the IAS at all.

Don't beat yourself up, you'd have lost anyway at IAS. Just ignore Link unless they actually issue court papers.

johnbb99

Well they have issued court papers.
I've spoken to the manager of the block of Flats (he employs Link Parking) and he says he will speak to them, adding that they had in the past been a little over zealous. He also said he had no control over them.
Meanwhile I shall send off the acknowledgement of service, so I maximise my time to return a defence (deadline 12th March).

What are my best arguments in this situation?
A that there was no financial loss, so the charge is disproportionate?
B that I am [indirectly] paying them to keep a slot free for me, so it is nonsense for them to be asking me for money?

Anything else?
Thanks, John

Cygnus_Alpha

johnbb99 wrote: »

Well they have issued court papers.
I've spoken to the manager of the block of Flats (he employs Link Parking) and he says he will speak to them, adding that they had in the past been a little over zealous. He also said he had no control over them.
Meanwhile I shall send off the acknowledgement of service, so I maximise my time to return a defence (deadline 12th March).

What are my best arguments in this situation?
A that there was no financial loss, so the charge is disproportionate?
B that I am [indirectly] paying them to keep a slot free for me, so it is nonsense for them to be asking me for money?

Anything else?
Thanks, John

He is wrong to say he has no control over them. He hired them. If they don't do as he says then he should find another PPC that will. If he is unwilling to help then you need to kick up a big fuss.

johnbb99

Or am I on a hiding to nothing, and pay up?

Ralph-y

lots of things to do quick ish .......

first what does your tenancy say re parking?

read through

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4816822

post #5

visit

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/

and consider

"Click for help with low-cost appeals and court defences"

strongly recommended!

go back and see management guy and tell him he / they will be named / called in any court case.

Ralph:cool:

johnbb99

Forgive me Cygnus Alpha, but I think that's a little facile.
Yes, he can get another co to do the job, but he probably can't dictate day to day actions. If they act against their contract with him [not relevant in this case] he can replace them [but probably only with considerable cost and effort to himself].
But thank you for responding, and the moral support.