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

infernouk

Coupon-mad wrote: »

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 and it's the Judge you must convince in the end.

Here are links to the letter, theres a bit of a rip in it, this is last years one but wording is the same, and a pic of the sign but its too hard to read apologies! but it does mention the charge somewhere i think, perhaps in the tiniest font? but i cant be sure of that ill have to check tomorrow, im sure they read what i say as they sent that last response? or was that just cookie cutter stuff


http://i.imgur.com/VepXRnn.jpg

and the letter


http://i.imgur.com/HwlLqBs.jpg

Coupon-mad

Don't apologise for that fabulous example of an illegible, poorly lit and small print sign where you cannot make out the terms nor the parking charge, and it appears to be a typical PCM 'forbidding sign' (no parking licence offered, in fact parking is prohibited for non permit displaying drivers). No consideration flows between the parties and this is an attempt at a penalty (unrecoverable, as confirmed in the Beavis case in fact - a parking firm cannot penalise and must have 'offered a contract' that was accepted).

And the letter is the one I remembered - no £100.

£10 is the only sum on that letter.

infernouk

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Don't apologise for that fabulous example of an illegible, poorly lit and small print sign where you cannot make out the terms nor the parking charge, and it appears to be a typical PCM 'forbidding sign' (no parking licence offered, in fact parking is prohibited for non permit displaying drivers). No consideration flows between the parties and this is an attempt at a penalty (unrecoverable, as confirmed in the Beavis case in fact - a parking firm cannot penalise and must have 'offered a contract' that was accepted).

And the letter is the one I remembered - no £100.

£10 is the only sum on that letter.

great so send what i posted above on Monday, await the claim regardless, and then setup the defence which should be pretty strong?

Coupon-mad

Yes, fight it as you have planned all along. It is a shame you can't get the landlord's lease rights but Bobby2k2 won without his lease, by arguing a similar case this week in court.

infernouk

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes, fight it as you have planned all along. It is a shame you can't get the landlord's lease rights but Bobby2k2 won without his lease, by arguing a similar case this week in court.

I can try and get it im just going to have to ask the estate agents and expect them to say no, will update the thread when the next letter comes!

safarmuk

I can try and get it im just going to have to ask the estate agents and expect them to say no, will update the thread when the next letter comes!

Normally the AST itself has the name/address of the tenant AND the name/address of the Landlord on it. This signifies the parties the AST is between - what does yours have?

The_Deep

AFAIAA, the name of the landlord on an AST is a legal requirement, even when the letting agent signs on behalf of the landlord. The LA cannot commit the landlord to inter alia keep the property in a good state of repair, or pay the service charges.

infernouk

The_Deep wrote: »

AFAIAA, the name of the landlord on an AST is a legal requirement, even when the letting agent signs on behalf of the landlord. The LA cannot commit the landlord to inter alia keep the property in a good state of repair, or pay the service charges.

it has the landlord on it, i just feel if the landlord contacted the estate agent asking why tenants are not dealing with them it could kick up a whole new issue

Fruitcake

That picture of the sign is perfect. :T

The letter tells lies. It says things like, "you are required to ..." No, you are not required to do anything of the sort because it is not mentioned in your AST.

I do however agree with the comments in their previous letter where it mentions the innocent party and says they are entitled to damages. Since you are the innocent party, how much are you asking for in damages?

infernouk

Fruitcake wrote: »

That picture of the sign is perfect. :T

The letter tells lies. It says things like, "you are required to ..." No, you are not required to do anything of the sort because it is not mentioned in your AST.

I do however agree with the comments in their previous letter where it mentions the innocent party and says they are entitled to damages. Since you are the innocent party, how much are you asking for in damages?

thanks for the support, in regard to damages if won i was just going to ask to damages to make up the time they have wasted that ive spent on researching the case and posting them letters, however it seems they are worked up from your usual daily pay? and im a freelance software developer so my daily pay isnt fixed! Obviously getting ahead of myself here as theres a lot left to do