4 PCM parking tickets - do I have a case?

staram

Hi everyone,

I am in a bit of a dilemma over how to handle the FOUR parking tickets that I have recently received from PCM - I have been closely following the advice on the newbies thread so far (brilliant info that has been really helpful by the way!) but am now not sure whether I have an arguable defence with all of the tickets, especially based on the volume of tickets I have.

The tickets we've received have been at the apartment block where my boyfriend is renting in St Albans - the Property managers have hired PCM to manage the parking at the property. The tickets I am not sure about are tickets 2 and 3 - my current progress with them all and my intended course of action is as follows:

PARKING TICKET 1
Received when parking in a visitor's space without a permit. Had been parking there for ages without a permit and without getting any tickets! There are signs about the parking but the writing isn't huge and you could argue not visible at night time (unfortunately does say 'parking is permitted for residents and visitors with a permit' so can't argue the trespassing angle.) Not sure if I have a very strong defence but willing to risk it and appeal all the way. Received NTK and appealed using the template in the newbies thread, have received letter 2 offering discounted fine of £60 or IAS appeal service - plan to ignore this letter and happy to see what happens with this one.

PARKING TICKET 2
Again received when parking in the visitor's space when popping into my boyfriend's to drop something off. Shouldn't have risked it having received a ticket before but did it anyway so here we are....am at same stage as ticket 1 in receiving NTK and 2nd letter offering IAS.

PARKING TICKET 3
Same again....risked the visitor's space when dropping off something - should have known better! Have received NTK but not responded yet.

PARKING TICKET 4
Ticket on my partner's car in his own designated residential parking space - his resident's permit had dropped down onto the floor of the car so wasn't visible. He plans to appeal this all the way seeing as he is a resident. He has already called the Parking management company to complain about harassment but they say they are happy with PCM and wouldn't support him - he is soon going to move out of the flat due to this ridiculous system. He hasn't checked the exact wording of his contract yet about parking.

I am really really really reluctant to pay any of the fines at all (don't want to help fund an apparently horrible soul sucking company) but I am concerned that I don't have much of a case for parking tickets 2 and 3. Will the fact that I'd already received parking tickets work against me as I cannot claim ignorance? Do you think I would have a reasonable defence if they were taken to court level? Do I risk ignoring them too? I hate to say it but it is tempting to pay the reduced £60 for those 2 and then try and appeal tickets 1 and 4.

I now have a valid visitor's pass received from the landlord which I am using to park as a visitor without getting penalised. We took a while to request this from them to be fair, but they were relatively speedy in coming back with one.

Would really appreciate some advice - this building up of fines is very very stressful!!

catfunt

Have a read of this thread:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5598342

These are beatable.

safarmuk

#1 Check your b/f's AST.
#2 Get the landlord to check the lease

If neither mention anything about the need for parking permits, £100 charges etc. but do mention your rights to park in your allocated bay and/or use visitors spaces for genuine visitors then I suspect you have a very strong case should it come to that.

I think I probably know the area in St Albans you are referring to ...

The problem with the Management Agent is that they should not be putting in a scheme that does not protect residents and genuine visitors and they should be able to cancel these tickets for you. Get your landlord to complain as well. Their objective in setting the scheme up would have been to stop commuters parking there and thus keep the parking spots free for guess what ... residents (your b/f) and genuine visitors (you)

So, first things first, check the paperwork and get back to us.

Quentin

staram wrote: »

Would really appreciate some advice - this building up of fines is very very stressful!!

You know they aren't fines from the reading you have done already.


Just keep doing what you have been doing, as you will have seen the IAS appeal is a waste of time, and gives the ppc the advantage of being able to say you were rejected by an "independent" appeals service, so maybe once you get to that stage you ignore unless you get court correspondence

staram

Thanks guys I appreciate the feedback. That is a really good point about the landlord needing to preserve the parking spaces for both resident's and genuine visitors...I didn't think of it that way. We can try talking to him again and getting him to check the lease.

The only mention of parking in my bf's contract is as follows:

The tenant agrees
90. To park in the car parking space, garage or driveway allocated to the property, if applicable
91. to keep any garage, driveway, or parking space free of oil and to pay for the removal and cleaning of any spillage caused by a vehicle of the Tenant, his family, contractors or visitors
92. To remove all vehicles belonging to the Tenant, his family or visitors at the end of the Tenancy
93. Not to park any vehicle at the Property that is not in worthy condition or fully taxed.

Also interesting to note this on quiet enjoyment (which we are not experiencing here):

Conditions to be kept by the landlord
1. The following clauses set out what can be expected from the landlord during the tenancy in addition to the main terms found in the Tenancy agreement, if any of these terms are broken, the tenant may be entitled to claim damages from the landlord, or ask a court to make the landlord keep these promises.
Quiet Enjoyment
2. To allow the tenant to quietly hold and enjoy the property during the tenancy without any unlawful interruption by the landlord or any person rightfully claiming under, through, or in trust of the landlord.

Based on the advice I will continue to appeal the NTK stage but ignore at IAS and await more letters to ignore? (but not ignore at solicitor stage I believe)

Guys_Dad

Not any mention of tenants' guests or visitor rights there.

I would be happiest with ticket 4, and if the car was the boyfriend's (or he was driving it ), be happier with the others.

staram

****UPDATE*****

I have now received 2 letters from Gladstones solicitors about Parking ticket 1 above. The first letter I responded to using some of the templates I found in the newbies thread, but they have responded to this and I am now stuck. Can anyone help with what my response could be? I'm pretty worried now that this is going to go to court...

My response to letter 1:
Thank you for your letter.

I deny any debt to Parking Control Management (UK) Limited. The driver is not identified in your letter and your client has failed to meet the requirements of The Protection of Freedoms Act to pursue me as keeper.

Your letter contains insufficient detail of the claim, including the cause of action, and no mention of what evidence your client intends to rely on, nor does it enclose copies of such evidence.

This action on the part of your client is a clear breach of its pre-action obligations set out in the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct, with which as solicitors you must surely be familiar (and with which your client, a serial litigator of small claims, must also be familiar). As you (and your client) must know, the Practice Direction binds all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time.

I require your client to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:

1. an explanation of the cause of action
2. whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper
3. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012
4. what the details of the claim are (where it is claimed the car was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated, what contractual breach (if any) is being claimed)
5. a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim
6. a copy of any alleged contract with the driver
7. a plan showing where any signs were displayed
8. details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)
9. If they have added anything on to the original charge, what that represents and how it has been calculated.

Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.


Their response:
Thank you for your correspondence.

The Criminal Case of Elliott v Loake 1983 Crim LR 36 held that the Registered Keeper of a vehicle may be presumed to have been the driver unless they sufficiently rebut this presumption. You have been invited on numerous occasions to identify the driver, yet have failed to do so. Our client therefore concludes it more likely than not that you were the driver.

Notwithstanding the above, you are also pursued as the Registered Keeper of the vehicle pursuant to Schedule 4 (4)(1) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (‘the Act’) which states:

“The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.”

The relevant Notices were sent in accordance with the Act and you failed to nominate who was driving the vehicle prior to these proceedings (which is required under the Act (paragraph 5(2)).

The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Sched 4 (para 2) states that; the “keeper” means the person by whom the vehicle is kept at the time the vehicle was parked, which in the case of a registered vehicle is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to be the registered keeper.

The charge was incurred on 14 December 2016 due to you failing to display a valid parking permit at Warwick House.

My client relies on the case of ParkingEye v Beavis 2015. In that case it was accepted as an established principle that a valid contract can be made by an offer in the form of the terms and conditions set out on the sign, and accepted by the driver’s actions as prescribed therein.

The signs on the Land are clear and unambiguous. By parking in the manner in which you did, the charge was properly incurred.

Further evidence will be provided in our client's witness statement should the matter proceed to a hearing.

Payment remains outstanding in the sum of £160 and can be made at Gladstones Solicitors

In the event payment isn’t made in the next 14 days further legal action will be taken.

beamerguy

WAKEY WAKEY GLADSTONES

Get up to speed, keep up to date with what the courts think about
Elliott v Loake

Elliott v Loake IS NOT RELEVANT

NOT RELEVANT >>> NOT RELEVANT >>> NOT RELEVANT

If Gladstones seriously believe this rubbish then it's whooping
time again in court for them

As far as them referring to the Beavis case ..... RUBBISH
Beavis was in a retail park which he overstayed and claimed
the £85 charge was unfair

THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO A RESIDENTIAL AREA and your rights to a
peaceful existence


There is nothing you can do when conversing with the brain dead.

They may well go down the brain dead route and issue
court action but the experts on here will help you beat them as
they always do.

Gladstone Solicitors are well known for their incompetence

You may consider their letter as misleading and menacing and a
complaint to Trading Standards is now in order

waamo

What Gladstones have told you is a pack of lies. Search on here for Elliot vs. Loake it is frequently discussed.

staram

Thanks guys for the help, I'm going to start on a draft response now.

I also forgot to mention that I sent my response to the first letter via post, to which I received a second letter saying they had received nothing from me and would be charging even more. I was about to go on holiday so I found an email address online on the Gladstones website (no other contact method apart from address was on the letter) and forwarded on my response (luckily I had emailed it to myself) - so the 2nd letter from Gladstones above was received via email.

I've just been looking at some of the newest posts on Pepipoo, and there is a discussion about people receiving letters on GLADSTONES HEADED PAPER that isn't actually from them. I've just noticed that neither of my letters have 'Letter before claim' as a title on them, so I'm assuming this is what has happened to me?! Hope I did the right thing by emailing, I thought at least that way I can prove I've responded.....

pappa_golf

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/excel-lose-in-cardiff-judge-explains.html

what address are the gladstone letters from , and I think on pepipoo it was discussed about the letter reference number (1st didget) being the giveaway