PCM UK (Great West Quarter, Brentford)

Redvers_Buller

I've updated Paragraph 11 as follows:

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. Evidence has been obtained showing that (at best) only a very limited, possibly income-sharing commercial, contract exists between PCM UK and the location’s Managing Agent. There is no evidence that a chain of authority exists, showing that the PCM UK has the authority of the landowner.
Furthermore, the contract in question clearly states that PCM UK are to operate the scheme in accordance with the BPA (British Parking Association) and AOS (Approved Operator Scheme) Code of Practice. However PCM UK are not members of these organisations, thus in breach of their contract with the Managing Agent and consequently not legally entitled to enforce parking restrictions on the site.

Coupon-mad

Yes that is definitely worth including.

Your defence seems to cover the bases for this stage, to give you the foundations upon which to build your WS and evidence before the hearing.

amrit_mufc

Hi. I too have a parking ticket in the same location from the same agency (PCM).

I was wondering if you have any update regarding this case. If there is insufficient evidence to suggest that PCM have interest in the land or with the land owner could I argue it on that bases? I do not have and excuse I simply parked in the wrong bay (for hotel use) when I was supposed to park in the bay for the gym users.

Any reply is appreciated. Thanks

Coupon-mad

You need your own new thread and if you are only at PCN stage, you just appeal as per the 'NEWBIES PLEASE READ THESE FAQS FIRST' thread.

Redvers_Buller

Good evening
It's been a while since I posted simply because nothing moved with this case until recently. The first court hearing was scheduled for November 2017 (in Reading where I had it transferred) and got postponed by the court.

It was re-scheduled for last month and without having to say too much, because the judge effectively said it for me, I won the case!

I'm not sure if I got lucky (?) but I was able to use PCM (UK) vs Christopher Bull (21/06/2016) as my primary defence. Essentially this case was won by Mr Bull because he was able to "prove" that the parking charge issued for breach of contract was invalid because the wording on the signs clearly stated that NO PARKING was allowed at anytime by any vehicle. This wording effectively meant that a contract could not be formed (for parking) and therefore no contract could be broken for a charge to be raised! In my case the same signs (and therefore wording & layout) were used but for one subtle difference: parking was allowed for permit holders at particular times. However as I was not a permit holder I wasn't allowed to park where I did.....thus no contract could be formed to be broken!
NB Essentially I was trespassing and of course only the landowner (and not a representative) can claim "damages" .

My apologies I haven't explained things very well - hopefully reading the PCM (UK) vs Bull case file will make things clearer (particularly Sections 8 & 18).

My advise therefore is: if anyone is issued a PCN by PCM (UK) get photographic evidence of the sign(s) in question and compare them to those in the Christopher Bull case.

It's probably an indication of the attitude PCN (UK) have, but I don't think I'm the first person (since the Christopher Bull case) to win on these grounds: it's just that PCN (UK) can't be bothered to change the wording on the signs because the relative cost is lower than the money they raise through people simply paying up!

Coupon-mad

Yay, well done, 'forbidding signs/no contract' can be hard to argue and you did very well!

Another one bites the dust. Did you claim your costs too, before you skipped out?!

Redvers_Buller

Morning
No I didn't claim....I did think about it but as the judge seemed keen to "move" on I thought better of it!
TBH the win was compensation enough....and it was never about the money but the principle! Whilst I won on a technicality there were plenty of other more valid reasons (in my eyes) for denying the claim, although these probably wouldn't have stood up in court.