Link Parking Ltd at Lakeshore Drive, Bristol

bdark2755

Redx wrote: »

this is also a well publicised Lakeshore case

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4752906/Couple-10-000-fines-using-parking-space.html

How ironic Redx, the photo of the car park on your link shows the car in question, the blue one nearest parked in the £10,000 parking space!

Maybe I should get royalties for that photograph

bdark2755

I have now received the dreaded Letter Before Claim. I'm surprised it has arrived so early, I've only received 2 letters prior to this.
It is asking me to pay or reply within 30 days.
They've added £60 to each of the 3 tickets, and are claiming £480.00.

This is my first draft in response, can someone please take a look, and advise. I am a little confused as to what some of this means, as I copied it from elsewhere on the forum. Should I delete anything I don't understand? I kept it in there as it sounds more professional.
Also how is it best to send it?

Many thanks



Gladstones Solicitors
The Terrace
High Leigh Park Golf Club
Warrington
Cheshire
WA16 6AA

20th December 2017

Your Reference xxxxxxxxxxx

Dear Sirs,

I am in receipt of your Letter Before Claim of 11th December 2017.

Your letter contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of the evidence that your client places reliance upon. Can you please provide me with all photographic evidence that you hold and any other evidence that they intend to use?

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

1. An explanation of the cause of action.
2. What the details of the claim are; where it is claimed the vehicle was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated.
3. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and provide to me a copy of that contract.
4. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.
5. Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the IPC code of practice section B, clause 1.1 “establishing yourself as the creditor”
8. Please explain how your client can warrant adding £180 to the original charge to send out 2 reminder letters.

I do believe I have a valid reason for non-payment as previously given to your client in my initial appeal so please provide a copy of the Information Sheet and the Reply Form so I may pursue this further.

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.


Yours faithfully

Coupon-mad

The only part I don't like is this, because defending is not about excuses for not paying money you owe, and this is weak:

I do believe I have a valid reason for non-payment as previously given to your client

But in fact your position is MUCH stronger than the way you are painting it, as you told us:

I purchased my parking space for £10,000

So I say you need MUCH more to this letter. Be far more robust and angry, you are the owner!

Enclose proof that you own the parking space. State that the PPC is trespassing if they even set foot in it, and that you (the space owner) have never contracted to allow the PPC to operate a business on your land, and certainly not to charge you for using your own property.

Refer them to Link v Parkinson, and Roger Davey v UKPC and warn them off of YOU will sue and will seek all your costs not only in defending or bringing a claim, but also the not inconsiderable cost of an injunction if that's what it takes to order the PPC off your land:

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?377246-UKPC-liable-for-trespass-**SUCCESS**

In the Davey case, he reclaimed the costs of an injunction to stop UKPC. A four figure sum!


http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/link-parking-and-overstone-court.html

From the judgment in that Link v Parkinson case:
''This parking space does not fall within the common parts of the property; it is the property of Mrs Parkinson, and on that basis I cannot see how the management company can interfere with her enjoyment of it, or charge her for its usage via a parking penalty or otherwise. It seems to me that to do so would have required a variation of the original lease and I have not seen such a variation.''

His full judgment, courtesy of Ms Parkinson, is available there as a transcript. Read it and use it!

Tell G's to pass the information straight to their client so they are in no doubt that they are not authorised to operate in that space at all, not to issue tickets, not to 'check permits' - nothing.

Like I asked before - why the heck are you agreeing to display a permit at all? Stop. Tell the MA you opt out NOW and NEVER authorised the PPC to maraud on your own land, which would require a formal variation of your ownership lease, which is never going to happen.

Tell the MA and Gladstones to call their dogs off and crawl back under their stone.

bdark2755

Thanks Coupon Mad, how about my second attempt

Gladstones Solicitors
The Terrace
High Leigh Park Golf Club
Warrington
Cheshire
WA16 6AA

20th December 2017

Your Reference xxxxxxxxxxx

Dear Sirs

I am in receipt of your Letter Before Claim of 11th December 2017.

Your client’s primary function is to monitor illegal car parking, whereas my vehicle is legally permitted to park in the space that I purchased. It is the same wardens who regularly patrol the car park. They will already have seen my car parked in my space many times before. I feel this is a deliberate attempt on their behalf to recoup extra money outside of the legitimate interests of the business. The relevant contracts can be provided upon request.

Despite what the signs in the car park may say. I am not aware of any legal reasons why these tickets should have been issued, as already detailed to your client in my appeal. My vehicle [VEHICLE REG] is authorised to park in this space by way of a signed lease between myself and Lakeshore Timber LLP. No where in that lease does it say anything about having to display a permit to park, or pay penalties to a third party for non-display of a permit. Therefore, there is no obligation to display any sort of permit, and certainly no need to pay any sort of parking ‘fine’. Primacy of contract cannot be amended by private parking company signs unless your client has agreed to a variation of the lease, as in the case of Link Parking ltd vs J Parkinson (2016) C7GF50J7, where the Judge said ''This parking space does not fall within the common parts of the property; it is the property of Mrs Parkinson, and on that basis I cannot see how the management company can interfere with her enjoyment of it, or charge her for its usage via a parking penalty or otherwise. It seems to me that to do so would have required a variation of the original lease and I have not seen such a variation.''
Please also refer to Jopson v Homeguard (2016) B9GF0A9E. In that case Judge Harris QC ruled: “the respondent was not in any position unilaterally to override the right of access which the claimant had bought when she purchased the lease”

Your letter contains insufficient detail of your client’s exact claim and fails to provide copies of the evidence that your client places reliance upon. Can you please provide me with all photographic evidence that you hold and any other evidence that they intend to use?

Please explain how your client can warrant adding £180 to the original charge to send out 2 reminder letters.

Until your client has complied with its obligations and provided my requested evidence/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. I trust you will see sense and instruct your client to cancel these PCN’s, if not then I intend to take this further and I will be looking to recoup all my costs in court.

Yours faithfully

Coupon-mad

Your client’s primary function purports to be to monitor unauthorised car parking

I suggest the above is changed, because parking on private land is not 'illegal' and you and I both know that it's not true to say that any PPC's 'primary function' is parking management! No way, these despicable firms couldn't give a stuff about people complying with rules, in fact they want the opposite!

We all know what their primary agenda is - money. So put 'purported'.

It is the same wardens who regularly patrol the car park.

They are not 'wardens' and they don't 'patrol' so don't give them that respect. Seriously! remove that and remove this, it is irrelevant, who cares how often they've seen your car; what you need to say is they have no right to even look!

They will already have seen my car parked in my space many times before. I feel this is a deliberate attempt on their behalf to recoup extra money outside of the legitimate interests of the business.

The relevant contracts can be provided upon request.

NO. Prove your ownership now. Not 'on request'.

I would also remove this:

Despite what the signs in the car park may say. I am not aware of any legal reasons why these tickets should have been issued, as already detailed to your client in my appeal.

Why don't you just say:

I own this space; here is the proof (attached).

I paid £10,000 for my parking space and your client is trespassing on my property. They must cease and desist. I have never given them any authority to operate a business on my owned space, which does not form part of the common areas. Your client is not so authorised and never has been, and if they do not cancel the charges and stop harassing drivers of cars parked in my space, I will seek an injunction to stop them and then sue for my costs, as occurred in Roger Davey v UKPC, where the parking firm were trespassing in exactly the same way, on land owned by Mr Davey.

Then cite Link v Parkinson and Jopson v Homeguard and remind them these were both Gladstones cases. Finish by giving their client 14 days to respond and confirm that the charges are cancelled and that they have removed this space from their site map immediately.

Send a copy to the Managing Agent as well, and finish by saying if this proceeds to a claim, you will require that the Managing Agents are added to the claim to answer for their conduct in not ensuring that their contractor understands that some spaces are privately owned. Add that it will be your intention to sue or counter-sue if this harassment and trespass does not end now.

Get more angry. You MUST knock this on the head. No 'please'.

bdark2755

Thank you so much Coupon-mad, much appreciated.
I have made the changes and will be sending this letter out today, along with a copy to the Managing Agents.