Letter before claim

Coupon-mad

Misuse covers "process" use of it, does it?

Yes and you would be stating now that your name and address was merely provided to inform the parking firm that the driver was a legitimate visitor relying upon the rights pertaining to a resident, which a random ex-clamper thug can't unpick!

Btw, Coupon-mad, I have concerns about threatening the Management Company with a claim, although the secretary truly deserves a kicking as after I went to see him he wrote a useless letter to them saying I was a resident's relative but he would "not be mediating".

Fair enough, but at this stage you are only 'theatening' that to the solicitor of the parking firm in a robust letter, not threatening the managing agents directly. They won't see it, but even if it doesn't get the claim discontinued it is further evidence to include within your WS and bundle, that you have been banging your head against a brick wall to try to show this random third party firm that residents have primacy of contract and enjoy rights under their grant or easements at the location.

Is there any point in writing to the Management Company's board members, directors etc and informing them of all of this? I doubt very much if the secretary has told them.

I would do that after you win...!

Kind_Of_Irritated

Noted all the above. Thanks as always for your much valued advice, Coupon-mad.

Do we know that Link Parking are "random ex-clamper thugs"? I thought they were into sex toys or something, before.

Re this:

at this stage you are only 'theatening' that to the solicitor of the parking firm in a robust letter, not threatening the managing agents directly. They won't see it...

What if they are in cahoots? I have a feeling the Secretary might be in some sort of deal with Link re these "charges". I could be wrong, of course, but I wasn't there long and suddenly I have a "PCN". I think someone rang them. And they took their 5 photos in less than one minute and scarpered. When I saw the Secretary about it he actually said unprompted "we don't have cameras on the car park". I felt he was absolving himself of any involvement.

Anyway, that's only a suspicion. But he SHOULD have argued forcefully in favour of the tenants/residents and their visitors, and he didn't.

But my son likes it there and doesn't want to fall out with his landlord if there is general fallout. So it's all a bit delicate.

The reason I wondered about the Management Board is that someone (elsewhere, I think) said if you can find out who the freeholder is, write to them. But I'm not sure how to go about this, without chasing my son's landlord and him chasing the secretary etc.

Kind_Of_Irritated

Hi there Coupon-mad. Am about to send an email to Gladstones as you suggested above. I have more or less cribbed it from your suggestions in the above two messages. Can you tell me if I should adjust the order of these points, or leave them as they are? Also, in this email should I add hyperlinks to the cases I am referring to (Jopson etc)?

Ref case no/court hearing date etc (Do I need to include the original pcn number and date here?)



This is to inform you that my defence will be including the Jopson v Homeguard Appeal case and other relevant transcripts such as Pace v Mr N. All of these support a defence relying partly on primacy of contract and the fact that a parking firm cannot override existing implied grants under a lease which allow vehicles to pass and re-pass on site, including loading/unloading as part of that right.


The lease will also be provided in evidence on the day.



It is known that Link have already failed in similar cases at a residential car park at Overstone Court. As such, Gladstone have no cause of action.


When I prevail at any hearing, and if you decide not to discontinue, a claim for misuse of data is likely to be pursued against your client and the landholder with whom they contracted, with no regard to the rights and grants enjoyed by residents on site and their allowed visitors.


This letter is an 'objection to processing' data (Section 10 of the DPA applies). The driver's name and address was only provided for the sole purpose of appealing the unfair charge and to inform the parking firm that the driver had a right to pass and re-pass, as was found in the Jopson case (a Gladstones case). It will be noted that HHJ Harris QC remarking that otherwise, life in a development of flats/houses would be 'unworkable'.

Since the parking operator knew this, but has thereafter disregarded the driver's rights under the lease, as soon as the fact was disclosed that the car was there in connection with a resident under their rights to pass and re-pass, the PCN should have been cancelled.


To continue to then process data, ignoring the rights of way of the resident and their visitors was a matter of derogation from grant. As agents for the managing agent, Link was negligent and had no right to pursue the charge and/or continue to process the data supplied which informed them in no uncertain terms that the driver was not a trespasser.


To summarise, the purpose of this letter has these elements:
1) to avoid wasting the court's time.
2) to reinforce the defence from a driver whose rights under the lease have been disregarded
2a) and who has subsequently been bombarded with threats from a third party agent
2b) whose terms did not feature at all in the resident's AST
2c) nor was his Tenancy Agreement varied to include the onerous terms later foisted on residents.
3) To warn your client that continuing to process data when they have no cause of action is opening them up to a claim against them and the landholder.

As such, I encourage the claim to be discontinued and the hearing vacated forthwith.

Coupon-mad

Yes, looks good. I would include the PCN number as well as claim number.

A small suggested wording change needed here, as it's not Gladstones who are the Claimant:

As such, [STRIKE]Gladstone[/STRIKE] your clients have no cause of action.

Kind_Of_Irritated

Thanks Coupon-mad. Will email it to them in the morning, with those changes.

Kind_Of_Irritated

Should I also add the date of the hearing?

Yes, looks good. I would include the PCN number as well as claim number.

Coupon-mad

Yes - and that reminds me - give them a short time to confirm the claim has been dropped (14 days).

Then if they ignore it, just crack on with your WS and evidence anyway, including that letter in your WS facts of what happened/how you have tried to resolve the dispute.

Kind_Of_Irritated

Emailed them now, Coupon-mad.

Btw, surely this on ISPA closing (and its reasons) will have an effect on the courts? http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/ispa-to-close-after-bpa-remove-funding.html

"The IPC appeals system funnels motorist failed appeals to Gladstones Solicitors, who then file a claim. Gladstones are owned by Will Hurley and John Davies, the same two people who own and run the IPC and IAS. Gladstones then take these motorists to court. There is now an overwhelming body of evidence that judges disagree with the bogus reasoning of the 'baristas' who work for the IAS, and that cases are being thrown out by the bucketload.

There is therefore a clear conflict of interest in that the IPC is run by two discredited solicitors who have no idea of the correct legal issues surrounding parking. Gladstones in all known cases fail to obey practice directions and regularly ignore court deadlines, file incorrect evidence, discontinue at the last minute and generally act in a way which appears to bring the legal profession into disrepute."

Redx

why would the courts care about the ISPA closing (was funded by the BPA) when the IPC (Gladstones) dont even have that system ?

I doubt that the courts or the judges even know about it when it comes to small claims , nor do I think it will affect their decisions either, especially not when it has no bearing on the IPC

The IPC are in the gutter, the BPA are bringing themselves down to the same level !!

Kind_Of_Irritated

Don't ask me why, ask beamerguy. He seemed to link them in his article.

Fourth post here: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5595741