Letter before claim

Kind_Of_Irritated

Thanks for this advice, bargepole.

bargepole wrote: »

You can defend the claim, and looking at the circumstances as described, the lines of defence are likely to be based on inadequate signage, reasonable endeavours on your part to comply with the contractual terms, and the lack of any legitimate interest in enforcing charges against genuine residents and visitors.

Thanks to the help on these forums I think I'm narrowing this down a bit now. In my case the "lack of any legitimate interest in enforcing charges against genuine residents and visitors" seems to me, as a lay person, and also to my son the property resident, to be one of the strongest arguments.

Re signage - there are three of them, and except that the "£100" fine is written in same font as the rest of the notice, it is arguably clear enough. I know about the existence of the signs as it is the parking lot that my son has attached to his property.

Re contractual terms, I'm not sure I have made any, unless just parking in my son's car park area (where the sign indicates I am agreeing contractually) constitutes "agreement".

If as you say below it is a matter of "interpretation of contract law" perhaps that should be where I do my homework.

If and when the court claim arrives, you should come back and people here can help you to compose your Defence Statement.

But you need to understand that this is not so much a matter of loopholes, more an interpretation of contract law, and you need to be absolutely on top of your arguments so that you can persuade a Judge to rule in your favour.

Kind_Of_Irritated

Update: I managed to speak to the Secretary of the Management Board at my son's flat today. He offered to write to Link Parking informing them that I am not the sort of driver/visitor they need to stop parking in the parking lot and he is asking them if they will cancel the "charge".

He said he couldn't guarantee that it would make any difference, but I imagine it's worth including this information (about his letter to the solicitors) when I write my full response to Gladstones (to get to them by this Thursday, 20th)?

Since Gladstones have already sent me a "Letter before claim" does anyone know if they are likely to stop the procedure at this stage if Link Parking asks them to?

The_Deep

Since Gladstones have already sent me a "Letter before claim" does anyone know if they are likely to stop the procedure at this stage if Link Parking asks them to?

If Link instruct them to if course they, but why should they?

Kind_Of_Irritated

Hi The Deep. I just wondered how long in practice I have before this case is irretrievably on the path to court. And I suppose it's possible Gladstones may not wish to upset a client of a client (the Management Board of my son's premises.)

The_Deep wrote: »

Since Gladstones have already sent me a "Letter before claim" does anyone know if they are likely to stop the procedure at this stage if Link Parking asks them to?

If Link instruct them to if course they, but why should they?

Kind_Of_Irritated wrote: »

Update: I managed to speak to the Secretary of the Management Board at my son's flat today. He offered to write to Link Parking informing them that I am not the sort of driver/visitor they need to stop parking in the parking lot and he is asking them if they will cancel the "charge".

He said he couldn't guarantee that it would make any difference, but I imagine it's worth including this information (about his letter to the solicitors) when I write my full response to Gladstones (to get to them by this Thursday, 20th)?

Since Gladstones have already sent me a "Letter before claim" does anyone know if they are likely to stop the procedure at this stage if Link Parking asks them to?

Coupon-mad

I think you mean Gladstones directors. Is that correct?

Yes. Expose the conflict of interest as blogged several times by the Parking Prankster.

Point 4: Is it worth my saying in my response to Gladstones that I am of a certain age?

No, don't even go there.

Kind_Of_Irritated

OK, Coupon-mad. Understood.

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes. Expose the conflict of interest as blogged several times by the Parking Prankster.

Kind_Of_Irritated

Just a query - does anyone know if email today can be used instead of letters through the post to Parking Companies and their Solicitors?

Coupon-mad

Yes you can use email. I encourage people not to waste a stamp on replying to the letters. It's different if a case reaches court papers, where letters are the way to serve the paperwork for each stage.

Kind_Of_Irritated

Thanks Coupon-mad. I was wondering whether I need to write the same letter and post it as well. If you don't think that's necessary I'll leave it. I have a feeling they won't get back to me in the short term, so I may have to assume they've received it.

Yes you can use email. I encourage people not to waste a stamp on replying to the letters. It's different if a case reaches court papers, where letters are the way to serve the paperwork for each stage.

Coupon-mad

It won't hurt to post and email.