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

Coupon-mad

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?

Well you have got Court papers so I understand why you are concerned. Have you put in a decent defence with the Court and now filled in any other paperwork that's arrived (Directions Questionnaire)? If you have done it all so far I would be holding out and not pay the ransom. But lots of people do pay when they get court papers as they think it's some sort of criminal thing or will get them a CCJ. Not the case, even if you lost at the hearing, as long as you then paid which would not be a huge amount as it's a small claim but maybe double what they've offered to settle for now. Just so you know.

But we think with a decent defence you would be able to win the case. If your defence so far isn't very robust then I can understand why you might settle because you can't add more defence wording now. If your defence was good, having followed the examples in the links provided in February then sleep on it I reckon, and decide whether it's 'fight or flight' for you.

The charge is legitimate.

No it's not. As you said yourself, ''there was no financial loss, so the charge is disproportionate'' and that is a point of law in your defence to a small claim. As long as you have argued that and more, you could win the case. People do - post #5 of the Newbies thread shows you loads of cases won!

The_Deep

I agree with the above.

You will be striking a blow for all tenants/landlords everywhere who are bullied into paying silly money to these PPCs. Let them take you to court, and beat them.

The charge is not legitimate. The purpose of then PPC is to keep parking spaces free for residents, not to try to extract monies for themselves when residents legitimately parked whose permits become detached. That sort of thing can happen to anyone, nobody loses, but why should a MA's contractor profit.