PCM Ticket whilst parked outside a friends house visiting, do i pay?

Coupon-mad

It's just template fluff.

Read plenty of other recent Gladstones defence threads as you will need to copy & adapt a defence shortly!

infernouk

Coupon-mad wrote: »

It's just template fluff.

Read plenty of other recent Gladstones defence threads as you will need to copy & adapt a defence shortly!

Hey there, yeah i assumed it was a copy paste response as it didnt address my questions. I have read all the other threads now and posted a defence on the previous page preempting their claim based on a defence you wrote another user a few weeks back.

So need i not reply to this letter now? or is it worth it to prompt further evidence of their negligence? or do i just wait for that claim letter and go from there

Coupon-mad

Personally I would respond, shows you didn't ignore them. Just rebut EvL which you will find all over the forum and say the case can easily be distinguished from 'Beavis'. Tell them they make no valid reasoning to proceed and have shown no cause of action or evidence of who was driving or even what the contract terms said.

Give them 14 days to supply all evidence of same.

Fruitcake

Elliott v Loake is debunked here,

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016_10_01_archive.html

and here.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/skipton-judge-rubbishes-elliot-v-loake.html

infernouk

Thanks guys i will form a response tomorrow and post it here for critique before posting Monday, once again, i appreciate your continued support in the matter

infernouk

Hi all, i have drafted my response based on those two links and a Beavis debunk article, i hope this is sufficient to send in response and doesn't put a foot wrong anywhere? Appreciate the help, i have had one revision from help on pepipoo

Dear Sir/Madam

I am writing to you in response to your letter dated February 2017.

The vehicle was parked with full permission from the property's tenant outside which it was parked
The tenant has an absolute right to park a vehicle in this location that overrides your client's signs
Your client cannot offer him any contract when he can already use the parking space as he chooses, including the right to grant permission to his visitors to use it

Elliott v Loake established no such principle, as would be obvious to any legal professional that actually read the transcript of the case.
Contrary to your assertion, the magistrates were provided with evidence that there was no other possible driver.
The case has since been debunked in court on many occasions.

The fact remains that your client has been unable to establish keeper liability and has failed to meet the conditions of the Protection of freedoms act to pursue the keeper

The signage in the alleged area of offence is inadequate in its visibility, lighting, selected font usage and positioning to consider an ability to communicate a contract clearly.
It is a reasonable belief that it was fundamentally designed with a view to confuse and mislead drivers

Your client's reliance on ParkingEye v Beavis is not firmly founded.
The case concerned an overstay at a retail park where there was both a land-holder and public interest in an effective deterrent to an overstay.
It has no relevance to a vehicle parked with the specific permission of the land-holder.

In addition to your client's failure to identify the driver, you have failed to provide evidence of a contract that surpasses the tenancy.
Neither have you disclosed any cause of action

I will give you 14 days to respond and provide the evidence requested above, otherwise I will assume that your client has no valid reason to proceed with this claim.

I look forward to your response

Yours Faithfully

infernouk

anyone able to read over the response? appreciate the feedback before I post it! im conscious that the tenancy agreement makes no reference to the land or parking so im not sure if i should be claiming that the tenants permission overrides PCM, as they act on behalf of the land owner?

Coupon-mad

Looks fine to me.

im conscious that the tenancy agreement makes no reference to the land or parking

Great, but it also makes no mention of contractual terms on signs or £100 parking charge forming part of the AST. Random stuff can;t be bolted onto a contract afterwards. The tenant might even find their landlord (if an individual freehold or leasehold owner rents this out) owns that demised bay.

Can the tenant contact the flat owner to ask what their actual leasehold title says about the parking or rights to pass and re-pass in the car park? I helped someone before Christmas with a case like this and they found out their landlord actually owned the bay himself, under a Deed of Covenant, so it was never the business of the managing agents to allow the parking firm to trespass & issue charges in that bay.

infernouk

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Looks fine to me.

Great, but it also makes no mention of contractual terms on signs or £100 parking charge forming part of the AST. Random stuff can;t be bolted onto a contract afterwards. The tenant might even find their landlord (if an individual freehold or leasehold owner rents this out) owns that demised bay.

Can the tenant contact the flat owner to ask what their actual leasehold title says about the parking or rights to pass and re-pass in the car park? I helped someone before Christmas with a case like this and they found out their landlord actually owned the bay himself, under a Deed of Covenant, so it was never the business of the managing agents to allow the parking firm to trespass & issue charges in that bay.

The issue is my girlfriend lives in the house and they are provided a tenancy agreement heavily edited down by the estate agents, the estate agents will have the deed to the house i assume as they manage it on behalf of an owner, however this estate agent are very uncooperative and definitely wont respond kindly to tenants making direct contact to the property owner. Im nearly 100% certain the estate agents and parking scheme work in cooperation and so would be resistant to providing evidence to fight it.

As the scheme came in after the houses were built, no property owner signed up for it, it was bought it by the road owners to prevent students leaving cars on the roads. but as tenancy agreements make no reference to parking, they just let PCM send letters round with permits and pretend that they are 'the rules for parking' as the property in the area is 90% rented, no one has knowledge or documentation to override the PCM scheme, its all students living round there with only tenancy agreements

Im just wary of sending that letter claiming the house has the authority over PCM to grant parking on what isnt a designated space, just a designated area as gladstones will just rebut my point with that information?

Coupon-mad

they just let PCM send letters round with permits and pretend that they are 'the rules for parking' as the property in the area

Is that the letter you already showed us? I seem to recall seeing one from PCM (was it here on this long thread?) which fails to mention £100 charge. No contract to pay £100 then.

Gladstones will not even read your letter. You will get a court claim (get used to it) and it's the Judge you must convince in the end. You are totally on the right lines with the defence and should not worry, just send that response, it's perfectly reasonable.