Urgent Help with multiple PCNs!!

Joseph123

Thank you for your response, I appreciate the honesty! I have drafted a response letter and tried to make it as robust as possible. I have also included an offer without prejudice. Your feedback and views on the offer would be very much appreciated!




Dear MIAH Solicitors,

I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 06/01/2017.
It is with much regret that I read the letter to find that none of my previous questions have been answered regarding the parking charge notice.

You have also offered to discuss questions over the phone stating that communication by letter is not productive. You have no basis on which to say communication by letter is not productive as you have made no attempts to answer my questions. Therefore I find this to be an extremely ingenuine attempt to avoid putting answers in writing and this has been noted. I would remind you of the Pre-Action Procedure (section 3) which states that the court will ‘expect the parties to have exchanged sufficient information’. Therefore, I am sure any court will take a dim view of your attempts to cut off communication avenues.

You have offered no explanation as to how this charge amount was reached and on what basis. The premises on which the alleged contravention occurred are not clearly signposted and confused by the opening times of the GP practise which are clearly visible on the window and by the floor markings which indicate spaces are for patients etc. In addition, this is a non-commercial car park so how any estimate of loss has been reached continues to leave me baffled. It was a near-deserted area at a time when the landowners were not using it themselves, had no interest in visitors or customers using it and were not in any way disadvantaged by my vehicle being parked there. I later found that Lucy Tower Car Park which is on the same road charge £3.10 for parking up to 14 hours between the times of 1800 – 0800. Your client is, to all intents and purposes, running a trap in order to catch vulnerable motorists and then harass them for extortionate amounts of money. I do not have a clear understanding of your position, which is a requirement according to the Pre-Action Conduct (section 3a). If you could quite clearly explain how this sum has been reached it would be appreciated.

With regards to your ‘reduced offer’ of £130.00, this dispute could potentially have been settled months earlier had UKCPS responded to my correspondence appropriately. I wrote to your client last year, explaining that I had moved from a permanent to a temporary address and had therefore been receiving mail intermittently. I asked them to consider and clarify the original parking charge which they ignored completely. Although I am clear that this charge has no basis and deny any liability, I am prepared to make a counter offer without prejudice in order to dispose of this matter. I am a medical doctor and simply do not have the time to continue responding to your incessant threats and letters whilst you fail to address my questions. Therefore I propose an amount of £20.00 to settle the claim with no acceptance of liability. This accounts for a parking cost in a similar location (£3.10) plus a DVLA fee (£2.50) plus a generous amount for admin costs (£14.40).

PLEASE NOTE: This offer will remain open for a period of 23 days from the date of this letter (namely 21 days plus two days for service) after which time the offer will be withdrawn and any court action will be defended in the normal way. In the event of you failing to achieve a judgment in excess of the sum offered in this letter, an application will be made for an order that your client pay the defendant's wasted costs of the action in full.

I respectfully remind you of your client's duty to mitigate its losses and trust that you will advice your client accordingly. I look forward to receiving your written acceptance of this offer within the timescale stipulated in this letter

If you refuse this offer then questions that I have previously sought answers to and that remain unclear to me will need answering as per the Pre-Action Conduct. They are as follows;
1. This has been addressed as a ‘contractual charge’ please could you send me a copy of the VAT invoice as any VAT needs to be accounted for, as per HMRC regulations and requirements. My accountant can then advise me accordingly.
2. If this is a contract claim then is it a debt action or a breach of contract claim?
3. How has the parking charge been calculated?
4. As some car park bays are marked ‘patients only’ I would like to know how do they define patients and where can this be found?
5. UKCPS claim the car park is for permit holders only. How would these permits be obtained and in what form do they come? There are no clear instructions as how to obtain such permit to park in the car park. Do patients have to obtain ‘permits’ to park in the health center car park?
6. Are the charges based on a breach of contract? And if yes please provide justification of this sum? I now found that Lucy Tower Car Park which is further down the same road charge £3.10 for parking up to 14 hours between the times of 1800 – 0800.
7. UKCPS have said that they can and will address factual issues of where and how the vehicle was parked. Therefore could you please provide a copy of the signs that you can evidence were on site and which you contend formed a contract with the driver on that occasion, as well as all photographs taken of this vehicle. The car park in question is clearly not appropriately sign posted.

I will continue to seek advice from experts on this matter and any court proceedings will be rigorously defended.

Please could you demonstrate your genuine intention to settle this claim by reading and responding to this letter. If you send me a generic template that does not address my questions then I will be obliged to inform the SRA of your continual breach of conduct.

I would also request some consistency from your firm as you threaten me with a 14 day deadline every time you write to me but have taken 4 months to respond to my last correspondence.

Kind Regards

Coupon-mad

If making an offer, head the letter:

WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVE AS TO COSTS

And I would remove this because it digs a hole you do not want to be in:

In addition, this is a non-commercial car park so how any estimate of loss has been reached continues to leave me baffled. It was a near-deserted area at a time when the landowners were not using it themselves, had no interest in visitors or customers using it and were not in any way disadvantaged by my vehicle being parked there. I later found that Lucy Tower Car Park which is on the same road charge £3.10 for parking up to 14 hours between the times of 1800 – 0800.

You can't argue 'no loss' nor try to justify the parking this way, do not go there...

Joseph123

thank you, Will change the header.

I adapted that argument from a different UKCPS thread where they discontinued just before court action (dont think it was with MIAH) - http:// forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5389512

is it not a valid argument?

Redx

google BEAVIS , 3 court cases , about 11 judges , lost 3 times , the last one being in the supreme court when they made their decision in Nov 2015

not a gpeol is a loser given that their decision is binding on lower courts

you bring up that argument and the PPC will counter it by saying "BEAVIS m`lud" , gives them an open goal to shoot into whilst the goalie is still in the dressing room

here is your live link though

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5389512

bear in mind that they discontinued that case so you have no idea if that argument would hold up or not in court , it was never put to the test , maybe they discontinued for some other reason ?

bear in mind that defence was submitted before the S.C. decision and put on "hold" pending the outcome , so its actually a very old defence

Coupon-mad

Joseph123 wrote: »

thank you, Will change the header.

I adapted that argument from a different UKCPS thread where they discontinued just before court action (dont think it was with MIAH) - http:// forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5389512

is it not a valid argument?

Not any more!

Joseph123

Hi Guys, I hope you are all well.

The tale continues. Miah have responded 6 months later and surprise surprise barely acknowledged my offer without prejudice. They have however said that they are willing discuss valid reasons for cancelling the PCN which is a refreshing approach seen as they have previously evaded and ignored all of my questions.

Here is their letter
http://
i1244.photobucket.com/albums/gg565/parkingproblems123/2115830%20-%20July%2017%20rejection%20of%20offer_zpsem4gvy8m. jpg



I wanted to ask if such a case is disputed in court - in the event you were to lose, is your cost the 160 pounds in the letter only or are there other court costs etc on top of this that you would be expected to pay? If yes, roughly how much do these amount to?


This is my draft response, as always your wisdoms are much appreciated -


Dear MIAH Solicitors,

I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 21/07/2017.
It is with much regret that again I read the letter to find that none of my previous questions have been answered regarding the parking charge notice and you have also not considered my offer without prejudice save as to costs.

I have attempted on numerous occasions now to have a reasonable dialogue with yourselves with a view to resolving this issue. Even though you have been obstructive and refused to provide me with information that may help me to better understand this parking charge.

You state in your latest correspondence that your client, UKCPS, sent me a number of correspondences in an attempt to ‘mitigate their costs’ and that had I attempted to resolve the issue with them that legal costs would not have incurred. I can assure you that I wrote to your client on two occasions, both letters which I still have, in an attempt to mitigate the situation. I explained that I had recently moved property and so there was a delay in receiving correspondence as I was collecting from the old address. I even requested that they consider the original cost of the PCN on the NTK (as opposed to the higher cost later proposed). I was willing to pay this, not in liability as they had not explained any of the queries I had in regard to the PCN but in order to prevent the issue going any further. Unfortunately your client completely ignored this request and did not even address it in correspondence. With regards to the above, please could you clarify with your client why they did not address this request as I strongly believe the situation would have been resolved at the time had they done so.

As a gesture of good will and as proof that I am trying my best to resolve this issue, I again will make a counter offer without prejudice in order to dispose of this matter. I am a medical doctor and simply do not have the time to continue responding to your incessant threats and letters whilst you fail to address my questions. Therefore I propose an amount of £60.00 to settle the claim with no acceptance of liability. This is the charge on the original NTK and I explained to your client at the time why it should be considered and now to yourselves.

I respectfully remind you of your client's duty to mitigate its losses and trust that you will advise your client accordingly.

I am glad that you have said in your last correspondence that you are willing to discuss reasons for your client to cancel the PCN. I am optimistic that you may now answer some of my queries and comply with the Pre-Action Procedure (section 3) which states that the court will ‘expect the parties to have exchanged sufficient information’.
If you could please clearly address the following;
1. The premises on which the alleged contravention occurred are not clearly signposted and confused by the opening times of the GP practise which are clearly visible on the window and by the floor markings which indicate spaces are for patients etc. Please could you clearly explain the conflicting signage of the car park.
a. As some car park bays are marked ‘patients only’ I would like to know how do they define patients and where can this information be found?
b. UKCPS claim the car park is for permit holders only. How would these permits be obtained and in what form do they come? There are no clear instructions as how to obtain such permit to park in the car park. Do patients have to obtain ‘permits’ to park in the health center car park?
c. The signage is not lit, very small in text size and the alleged contravention occurred at night. The signage at entrance to the car park is also at ground level. How does your client reasonably expect anyone entering to see this?
2. Are the charges based on a breach of contract?
3. In addition, this is a non-commercial car park so how any estimate of loss has been reached continues to leave me baffled. If you could quite clearly explain how this sum has been reached it would be appreciated.
4. Your client has said that they can and will address factual issues of where and how the vehicle was parked. Therefore could you please provide a copy of the signs that you can evidence were on site and which you contend formed a contract with the driver on that occasion, as well as all photographs taken of this vehicle. The car park in question is clearly not appropriately sign posted.

I believe the above points are reasonable grounds for this PCN to be cancelled and therefore expect you will answer them, as you have said you are willing to do so in your last correspondence.

I would also request some consistency from your firm as you threaten me with a 14 day deadline every time you write to me but have taken 6 months to respond to my last correspondence.

Kind Regards