PCN from PCM

Hogsta

Hi All,

My doughnut of a son has managed to get another PCN for not displaying his permit when parked at his place of work.

However, this time we responded as per the guidance on the Newbies thread. The company is Parking Control Management Ltd, an IPC member so not much chance in any appeal but I think it best to at least respond to the NTK.

He's had a reply and I was wondering what your thoughts are particularly in regard to the paragraphs quoting Parking Eye v Beavis and VCS v HM Revenue & Customs.

Hopefully I have posted the image below correctly.

Thanks in advance for your replies.



http://tinypic.com/r/juz9mg/9

Fruitcake

The sign is not saved by the Beavis case which had wording in clear large font, and the parking charge being in the largest font. I can't see the parking charge on the PCM sign.

The contract may not have been relevant in the Beavis case where parking lie paid the landowner to mis-manage the car park, thus effectively making then the landholder. If PCM do not pay the landowner a grand a month like PE did, then they would have to demonstrate where the landowner has said they have authority to charge motorists.

What did your son's employer say when he contacted them? Is he a member of a Trade Union and has a decent rep who can help?

Hogsta

Thanks for your reply Fruitcake.

His employer does not own the land. It is a business park and they just lease offices there. He did contact the landowner with his previous PCN and they just refered him back to PCM. So he didn't bother this time.

He does not belong to a trade union either.

He is quite prepared to take it to court if need be, which may be more likely now he has two PCN's with PCM.

Fruitcake

OK, so the keeper sends the IPC template from the NEWBIES thread, one for each ticket, then sit back and wait to see what happens for the next six years.

Hogsta

Yes, the a letter has already been sent. (Huge thanks to those who have taken the trouble to provide the template). We take the advice to not bother with the IPC appeals process.

What I find confusing with the reply above is that Lord Justice Lewison says that it is perfectly legal to enter into a contract to sell something knowing full well that the the completion of that contract is not possible. Surely that's fraud.

Hogsta

I suppose it was only to be expected. My son has received a letter from Gladstones. It doesn't look like a LBC, more like a debt recovery letter. It contains no reference to the original claim which strikes me as odd. I am aware that some debt recovery firms are trying to disguise their demands as coming from Gladstones however, this one looks a bit different. The phone number and web address are not the same as those from DRP or Trace.

I would appreciate confirmation or otherwise that it is safe to ignore this letter.

Coupon-mad

They don't know their own new address, on the 'gslcollections' webpage:

http://www.gslcollections.com/How-to-Pay.html

'Red Cow Yard' is the old address.

Anyway I would reply with a yawn, telling them this is not a 'debt' and in any case, PCM's sign is completely illegible as proved by their own photo of it in their reply before Christmas, citing the complex and irrelevant (to this situation) Beavis case and the embarrassingly badly-argued 'selling Buckingham Palace' analogy.

State that employees can park at that car park under the rights and easements enjoyed by employees of the leasehold business for many years, and no third party signs can disregard the pre-existing rights of the occupants in possession of the land and their employees. State that you would expect as part of their due diligence before putting up signs alleging they can enforce - indeed unilaterally foist - new terms on employees, PCM should have, as a matter of course, checked the lease position and rights of the employees which the keeper believes, supersede (and certainly do not incorporate) PCM's alleged terms.

Therefore there can be no breach because the 'terms' are unwarranted and unreasonable. This is simply an excuse to make money from employees who already enjoyed rights to park. Nothing of value was being offered by the PCM signs, to drivers already granted the right to park without charge. All this regime does is penalise employees.

Ask Gladstones what steps were taken to pay regard to the pre-existing rights and easements enjoyed by the employees of the companies situated at this location?

Hogsta

Thank you so much CM for your detailed reply.

PCM were already operating in the car park when my son started working there so could he still use the point you make in your second paragraph?

Coupon-mad

Yes, the point is that the company was there first...and his company leases the land, yes?

Hogsta

Thanks CM.
I'm not sure who was there first but I see your point.

It's a relatively new business park and my sons company rented some office space for a couple of years (they moved out at the end of last year) but I think it's a fair bet that PCM were already operating there. However, if it got to court that would be for the claimant to prove otherwise I guess.

Coupon-mad

Yes and to prove that the signage terms are actually a feature of the company lease, because modern leases (even business ones) are likely to include rights and easements and may well NOT include any reference to a 3rd party protection racket and 'charges'.