PCN in residential car park from Conkai Security

Umkomaas

ForumUserOne wrote: »

I have also received a 'notice of intended court proceedings' from the parking agent which just appears to be another demand for payment as it quotes ParkingEye v Beavis. The deadline is 28 June, should I respond with anything before this date?

If that's from Debt Recovery Plus (or other bottom-feeding debt collector), ignore it.

If it's direct from Conkai, call their bluff and ask them to issue court proceedings to get this in front of a judge as soon as possible (so he can rip them a new one!) in order to settle this once and for all. Give them 14 days to do so, otherwise, as far as you are concerned, the matter is closed. Any further correspondence, from them or their agents, other than court papers or a cancellation of their fanciful parking charge, will result in you taking legal advice in light of their continuing harassment, which is causing you anxiety and distress.

Their court record to date:

http://www.bmpa.eu/companydata/Conkai_Security.html

Oh look, it's all bluff! As Jim Royle would say, 'Court proceedings my !!!!'.

ForumUserOne

The letter was direct from Conkai, I don't have the confidence to directly ask them to issue court proceedings but wondered if anyone could take a quick look at the letter I have drafted:

Dear [name of debt and litigation manager]

[PCN, Site & VRN refs here]

Thank you for bringing the case of ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 to my attention. However, you reference to this case is incorrect as the circumstances are entirely different. This was established in Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E, where the judge makes it clear that ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 does not apply to residential parking.

The charge was incorrectly issued by your agents because my lease states that my property includes parking. The parking space therefore forms part of my lease. Not only do you not have not right to charge me to use my demised parking space but I did not imply any right of access to my parking space and consider your issuance of the charge, and any future charges, as trespass.

Additionally, my lease does not mention a permit scheme or state any requirement to display a permit. I would like to bring to your attention the cases of Pace v Mr N [2016]!C7GF51J1 and Link Parking v Ms P [2016] C7GF50J7, which clearly establish the primacy of my lease and that you cannot override my right to park by requiring a permit to park.

Finally, your accusation that I chose not to seek Independent Adjudication through the Independent Appeals Service (IAS) is unfounded. I attempted to lodge an appeal with the IAS on 5 June 2017 but was unable to do so as my PCN or Registration Number were not recognised.

Your demands for payment have caused undue stress. Any further payment demands from you or your agents will be construed as harassment and I will consider the options open to me in that regard.

Yours faithfully,

Any pointers would be appreciated, I intend to send this off tomorrow.

The_Deep

Why not threaten them with a counter-claim for misuse of your data or and/or trespass, or, at the very least extra costs due to their unreasonable behaviour under CPR 27.14(2)(g). It makes work for them and costs them money.

ForumUserOne

I'm not sure misuse of my data applies because I (foolishly) provided my details by engaging with them on advice of property management company.

Does CPR 27.14(2)(g) apply to any situations deemed unreasonable behaviour?

Would it make sense to end the letter using your suggestion: "I will consider the options open to me in that regard; such as a counter-claim for trespass or extra costs for your unreasonable behaviour under CPR 27.14(2)(g)."?

Coupon-mad

ForumUserOne wrote: »

The letter was direct from Conkai, I don't have the confidence to directly ask them to issue court proceedings but wondered if anyone could take a quick look at the letter I have drafted:

Any pointers would be appreciated, I intend to send this off tomorrow.

Looks good to go! You could add the sentence suggested.