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

Umkomaas

Chances of getting any 'damages' are extremely limited. If you were employed (and can show wage slips to prove daily pay rate) a maximum of £95. I've seen past cases where self employed defendants have received nothing as there's no proof of loss of earnings on the day.

For time spent dealing with the issues caused by the PPC, the litigant-in-person rate is £19 per hour, but that generally is only paid if the defendant proves the claimant has been unreasonable, and that isn't an easy case to make.

So the chance of any 'windfall' is low to none.

There may be the opportunity of a claim against them under the Data Protection Act, but these are early days in developing such claims against PPCs, so 'watch this space'. You have time on your hands as you have 6 years to pursue such a claim. See how some of the 'range-finder' cases go, then plan your own strategy. Revenge is a dish best served cold!

Half_way

You may be interested in these items that Lynzer on pepipoo has put up, A few useful guides re residential parking cases, here:
residential parking FAQ/info http://www.thebridesmother.co.uk/Media/residential-parking.pdf

Template letters/letter examples http://www.thebridesmother.co.uk/Media/Templates.pdf

infernouk

Hey guys, sorry to bump up my thread without having a development in the case. I am going to visit the estate agents next week to collect any documentation that may help me. We already have the tenancy agreement which as i said makes no reference to parking, what other documentation should I be trying to get hold of that I should be allowed access to? Like the formal name so i dont ask for something that doesnt exist and can sound like i know what im talking about, is it the lease? or the deed?

Cheers!

Coupon-mad

You could ask for a copy of the leasehold title deed (or any excerpt from it that the leaseholder is happy to divulge) which mentions the right to pass & re-pass, right to use the car park/outside area/bays (whatever) and the right to peaceful enjoyment for residents.

You might not get it, a tenant does not normally need to see this and would depend on the leaseholder, if they can be bothered to help you.

You could also ask for any emails or instructions to do with the permit scheme that was provided at any point as regards the letting of this flat. Any rules & regulations attached to the permit scheme that they know of.

Best of luck, you might draw a blank as none of the above is something you have a 'right' to.

infernouk

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You could ask for a copy of the leasehold title deed (or any excerpt from it that the leaseholder is happy to divulge) which mentions the right to pass & re-pass, right to use the car park/outside area/bays (whatever) and the right to peaceful enjoyment for residents.

You might not get it, a tenant does not normally need to see this and would depend on the leaseholder, if they can be bothered to help you.

You could also ask for any emails or instructions to do with the permit scheme that was provided at any point as regards the letting of this flat. Any rules & regulations attached to the permit scheme that they know of.

Best of luck, you might draw a blank as none of the above is something you have a 'right' to.

Cheers, as i say im speaking with the estate agent not the people who own the house, i wouldnt contact them directly as they pay the estate agent to handle tenants for a reason, dont want to provoke an argument there.

Ill ask about scheme realted info but i have a feeling itll be a total dead end so im going to proceed assuming ill get no further documentation

infernouk

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You could ask for a copy of the leasehold title deed (or any excerpt from it that the leaseholder is happy to divulge) which mentions the right to pass & re-pass, right to use the car park/outside area/bays (whatever) and the right to peaceful enjoyment for residents.

You might not get it, a tenant does not normally need to see this and would depend on the leaseholder, if they can be bothered to help you.

You could also ask for any emails or instructions to do with the permit scheme that was provided at any point as regards the letting of this flat. Any rules & regulations attached to the permit scheme that they know of.

Best of luck, you might draw a blank as none of the above is something you have a 'right' to.

just to update you i received the claim form today, they never replied to my second letter i send from the previous page on this thread. I have submitted my acknowledgement online, defending in full and not contesting jurisdiction, it seems the next stage is to submit my defence?

Appreciate any guidance on what the steps are now

Coupon-mad

Yes indeedy. Search this parking forum board for similar defences, maybe using 'Gladstones defence PCM' as your keywords.

infernouk

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes indeedy. Search this parking forum board for similar defences, maybe using 'Gladstones defence PCM' as your keywords.

Thanks i actually did that a while back anticipating this situation, i took the defence you spent time coordinating for another member and adapted it slightly for myself. Is this the right lines or not entirely useful in my situation? I will first reiterate the situation so everyone is on the same page.

The car was parked outside the house my girlfriend rents, with her permission obviously. It is just a street parking, no yellow lines, there are poorly visible PCM signs around. We are provided 2 permits per house (there are 4 drivers in the house) directly via post from PCM, on this occasion the permit fell out of view and i received a ticket.

There is no mention in regard to parking in the tenancy agreement, i am going to try and get lease related info tomorrow from the agents but presume i will get none. The situation is based on the fact that if you park there you agree to the signs terms, and unless you have one of the 2 permits they posted, then you will get a ticket. The land is owned by the property developers i believe, and they employ the PCM scheme to police it as students use it as free parking otherwise, the houses do predate the scheme though.

With this in mind, and i can add any other background info required to clarify further, this is my defence document, with some info redacted:

my queries are on points 2, as the permit wasn't displayed this time, also point 11 where PCM is deployed by the landowner and hence has authority, so it isnt applicable? also point 12 as the permit agreement agreed that there would be charges if it wasnt used? or is that not valid as we didnt sign anything

=====

1) It is admitted that the defendant, Mr , residing at is the registered keeper of the vehicle.

2) The vehicle has a resident's permit and it is common ground that this was displayed at all times.

3) The vehicle was at all times when at the residence, properly parked and it is believed it is common ground that it was neither causing an obstruction nor was it unauthorised, being parked at the permission of a permitted resident.

4) It is denied that any 'parking charges or indemnity costs' (whatever they might be) are owed and any debt is denied in its entirety.

5) This is a completely unsubstantiated and inflated three-figure sum, vaguely and incoherently adduced by the claimant's solicitors. The Particulars are not clear and concise, so I have had to cover all eventualities in defending a 'cut & paste' claim.

6) This claim merely states: ''parking charges and indemnity costs if applicable'' which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. For example whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract' or contractual 'unpaid fees'. Nor are any clear times/dates or coherent grounds for any lawful claim particularised, nor were any details provided to evidence any contract created nor any copy of this contract, nor explanation for the vague description 'parking charges' and 'indemnity costs'.

7) The Claimant’s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar poorly produced claims and the solicitor's conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the SRA.

8) I believe the term for such conduct is ‘robo-claims’ which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.

9) I suggest that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support.

10) No evidence has been supplied by this claimant as to who parked the vehicle. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 there is no presumption in law as to who parked a vehicle on private land nor does there exist any obligation for a keeper to name a driver. I choose to defend this claim as the registered keeper, as is my right.

11) It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner.

12) The claimant cannot overrule the rights of way and easements of the lease or introduce any new terms or charges subsequent to the permit agreement, as made when the permit was accepted by the resident.

13) Parking terms cannot be re-offered by a third party contractor on a day-to-day basis (on far more onerous and potentially, completely variable terms) because these were never incorporated into the permission to park as granted by the landowner, which was a stand-alone contract, concluded at the point in time of the provision of a permit which carried very few terms of use and no 'parking charges' nor 'indemnity costs'.

14) In the event that the court finds a contract based on signage can supersede the permit terms already agreed and the lease, I put the claimant to strict proof of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to this claimant which enable these charges to be pursued in court by this contractor, for these alleged contravention(s), whatever they may be.

15) The alleged debt(s) as described in the claim are unenforceable penalties, being just the sort of unconscionable charges exposed as offending against the penalty rule, in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.

16) Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA), a registered keeper can only be held liable for the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (a sum which is less than this claim). This depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts.

17) It is denied that there was any 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract' relating to any single parking event.

18) Notwithstanding the provisions of the POFA and/or the existing easements, rights of way and the permit agreement already concluded, it is denied that the signs used by this claimant can have created a fair or transparent contract with a driver in any event.

19) It is not believed that the Claimant has incurred additional costs - be it legal or debt collector costs or even their unlawful, fixed sum card surcharge for payments - and they are put to strict proof that they have actually incurred and can lawfully add an extra sums and that those sums formed part of the permit/parking contract formed with the resident in the first instance.

20) This case can be easily distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes. Charges cannot exist merely to punish drivers. This claimant has failed to show any comparable 'legitimate interest' to save their charge from Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty, which the Supreme Court Judges found was still adequate in less complex cases, such as this allegation.

23) The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts claimed due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, I am keeping a note of my wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter.

24) I request the court strike out the claim for reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a similar claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.

Statement of Truth: I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

infernouk

I assume this will be the previous case i want to base defence on: http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/pcm-uk-signage-does-not-create-contract.html

as the sign where i parked was the same http://i.imgur.com/nGU9zbN.jpg

infernouk

Hi all i spoke to the estate agents today, they said there is no other documentation beyond the leaseholder agreement which I have a copy of, this is what was signed by the tennants. It makes no reference to a parking scheme. However he also said he doesnt think i can use it as defence as im a guest and that authority from a lease holder to park doesnt bare any weight especially without permit.

Is it worth pursuing this route of defence anymore? or am i better arguing that the sign is prohibitive and so a contract cant be established? Or do i use both...

He has said he will write my a statement that out personal parking space is in constant use by an unknown 3rd party that they are trying to track down as that prohibits us 1 space of our 3 (2 permits and 1 private space) but im not sure thats relevant to me parking in a permit zone? It was done as a direct result of this issue, but im sure theyd argue that isnt a valid reason