PCM (UK) Ltd PCN in private residential carpark

bu89

ok so so far so good? we're happy to ignore debt collectors until pigs fly I shall await they're response and follow up with next steps as you suggested thank you

bu89

Morning all! So surprise surprise PCM (UK) Ltd have rejected the appeal. Planning to avoid IAS as advised and just wait and see unless you would advise otherwise please.

Here is the letter received.


'Dear ..........

Thank you for your correspondence regarding the above PCN. I have considered your case carefully and have rejected your appeal on the following grounds

You (at no point was the driver named, just keeper) parked in a manner whereby you agreed to pay a charge. The parking attendant recorded that the vehicle was parked without clearly displaying a valid permit.

This site is private land and is managed and operated by PCM. The PCN has been issued in accordance with the parking management scheme. The signage in the area is clear and informs motorists of the contractual obligations you agree to by parking in this area. By parking in this manner, you agree to pay the stated charge.

The restrictions require that a valid permit be displayed at all times, whether that is a PCM residents' permit, visitors permit or pre arranged contractors permit/exemption. Unfortunately as no permit was displayed in the vehicle the operative was unable to determine whether it was permitted to park here therefore liable to enforcement action.

PCM are under no obligation to provide evidence of a contract between ourselves and the Landowner as you are not party to this agreement. In this regard I refer to (and rely) on the decisions in the following two cases:

Parkingeye vs Beavis, VCS vs HMRC blah blah

Both of the above cases make it abundantly clear that the relationship between the Landowner and the parking operator is not relevant to the relationship between the parking operator and motorist.

A contract is formed when a driver parks in this area. As such by parking, the driver's consideration is granted and therefore both parties agree to these terms. An enforceable contract is formed and the signage is clear in outlining the contractual obligations you enter by parking. You parked (again, implying driver not keeper) in a manner whereby you agree to pay a charge, the legal basis of this being a contractual relationship.'

Options follow- pay, IAS or ignore and face debt collection/possible court action.

My questions are these-

Why won't they provide proof of the contract between the landowner and themselves? Does that mean they are simply trying to enforce a parking charge thus I am entitled to request a VAT invoice?

I repeat, this vehicle was parked in a space in a private residents car park where there is absolutely no loss to the landowner. The tenancy agreement doesn't specifically state anything about the use of a space or terms regarding displaying of a permit. There is also no clause to suggest that anybody other than our own managing agent are legally able to act on behalf of the flat owner. There is a clause about Quiet enjoyment - 'That the tenant paying the rent and observing and performing all the tenant's obligations under this agreement may quietly enjoy the premises without any unlawful interruption by the landlord or to any person rightfully claiming to be under the trust of the landlord'.

Since the ticket I have spoken to a number of other residents who have or know others (contractor, estate agent) who have received these ridiculous pcn's. To my knowledge all of whom were let off on the grounds of no legally enforceable charge (except perhaps they simply ignored the ticket and subsequent NTK if any, which we have not done). Another resident said hypothetically in court they could only legally claim for losses of about £5.00....... is this the case?

Should we ignore further letters? Not planning to take to IAS as advised in newbie threads etc.

Advise welcome please

Ralph-y

"My questions are these-"

"Why won't they provide proof of the contract between the landowner and themselves? Does that mean they are simply trying to enforce a parking charge thus I am entitled to request a VAT invoice? "

because they make their own rules up :eek:


"I repeat, this vehicle was parked in a space in a private residents car park where there is absolutely no loss to the landowner. The tenancy agreement doesn't specifically state anything about the use of a space or terms regarding displaying of a permit. There is also no clause to suggest that anybody other than our own managing agent are legally able to act on behalf of the flat owner. There is a clause about Quiet enjoyment - 'That the tenant paying the rent and observing and performing all the tenant's obligations under this agreement may quietly enjoy the premises without any unlawful interruption by the landlord or to any person rightfully claiming to be under the trust of the landlord'. "

again because they make their own rules up:eek:



"Since the ticket I have spoken to a number of other residents who have or know others (contractor, estate agent) who have received these ridiculous pcn's. To my knowledge all of whom were let off on the grounds of no legally enforceable charge (except perhaps they simply ignored the ticket and subsequent NTK if any, which we have not done). Another resident said hypothetically in court they could only legally claim for losses of about £5.00....... is this the case? "

How where they 'let off' ?

so much of the above is part of urban folk law .

please let your fellow residents know that ...

they should NOT ignore

that some PPC'c DO take people to court :eek:

and as for the £5 quote ......

they should all be pointed to forums such as this one to get a better understanding


"Should we ignore further letters? Not planning to take to IAS as advised in newbie threads etc."

yes except and LBCA or actual court papers .....

residents affected could start a campaign / group up to take on the management company

any way carry on and good luck

Ralph:cool:

bu89

Hi Ralph-y, Thank you I will ignore future correspondence unless LBA as advised. In terms of other residents and their personal experiences I don't know how/if they appealed so couldn't explicitly say why they were let off (sorry that was poor terminology!) I''l be sure to refer future scammer victims here for advise

Have a great day!

henrik777

In my opinion you should register your intent to appeal to IAS and see the prima facie case against you. Once you have that then your chances of winning improve. Post it up on here for help and if i miss it and you still need opinion on it, send me a PM.

bu89

Hi Henrik777, thanks for your advice- they have photographic evidence of the vehicle not clearly displaying a valid permit at the time and a picture of the signage- 6 images in total I think. Surely by applying to IAS it would be rejected straight away with these photos forming part/all of the prima facie?

Sorry you've confused me a little if you could explain further please

henrik777

You want to see who they are claiming against as if the mention the keeper then the IAS can't make any assumption that the RK is the driver. Then you tear the statutory notices to bits.

bu89

Ah I see, that makes sense. Well they have referred to the keeper as the driver in their letter back - 'you parked' etc etc which is surely making an assumption that the RK has admitted being the driver which is explicitly not the case and I made sure of that when appealing. What if they say to IAS they're claiming against the driver when infact the driver has not yet been identified?

bu89

henrik777 wrote: »

You want to see who they are claiming against as if the mention the keeper then the IAS can't make any assumption that the RK is the driver. Then you tear the statutory notices to bits.

Ah I see, that makes sense. Well they have referred to the keeper as the driver in their letter back - 'you parked' etc etc which is surely making an assumption that the RK has admitted being the driver which is explicitly not the case and I made sure of that when appealing. What if they say to IAS they're claiming against the driver when infact the driver has not yet been identified?

catfunt

Many IPC members don't bother with POFA, but chase the RK on the assumption that they are the driver, unless you can prove to the contrary.