TICKET FOR PARKING IN MY OWN SPACE / UK CPM & Gladstone Solicitors

Loadsofchildren123

I think you should mark this letter Letter Before Claim.


The new protocol is for debt claims, it doesn't apply to your potential damages claims.




Add at the end:


As such, I consider your actions in issuing a PCN to the vehicle were a trespass to my parking space and to my vehicle, and I am entitled to make a claim against your company, seeking damages.


Furthermore, your company has breached my rights under the Data Protection Act by obtaining, retaining and processing my personal data, and passing it to third party debt collectors, when it had no right to do so. Again, I am entitled to make a claim against your company, seeking damages.


[if this applies:] In addition, the multitude of unsolicited letters I have received from your client and debt collectors, when there is no valid claim, amount to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act. Again, I am entitled to make a claim against your company, seeking damages and to seek an injunction preventing any such further contact.


The purpose of this letter is to put you on notice of my claims and my intention to bring a claim against you [your client?] should you continue to pursue any claim against me in respect of the PCN.


This letter is written pursuant to the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct. I draw to your attention the obligations set out in the Practice Direction and the sanctions for not complying with them.

alexreid1234

Thanks loadsofchildren great advice. I think I have nearly completed my response, please can you check it over and advise how (if) it needs to be ameneded? There are a few bits near the bottom I need advice on please, these are highlighted by ****

LETTER BEFORE CLAIM

Dear Helen,

You state that my tenancy agreement is ‘silent’ but I strongly disagree with this for the following reasons:

Under the parking clause on my tenancy agreement is states the following “"If we own a private parking area on the estate the property is on, we may allow you to use a parking space on which you can park a private car or motorcycle only". Please see the attached photo of this part of my tenancy agreement.
Although it says ‘may’ I can confirm that I have written confirmation from the landowner (Moat Housing) that confirms I have permission to park in the pool bays here at XXXXXX. With this proof, it confirms my right to park. Please see the attached proof.

Based on the above, I clearly have full rights to park at XXXXXXX.


You referred me to the ‘Link Parking VS Blaney (May 2017) where you said “any landowner’s rights were subject to regulations brought in from time to time and therefore any tenancy agreement must be subject to it as well”.

The above does not apply to me because In the Link V Blaney case the DJ Pratt ruled that the Head Lease did contain the right to vary the parking regime at the location because the tenancy agreement in that case had the following wording:

"landlord is entitled from time to time may introduce regulations with regards to the proper management of the location".

My tenancy agreement does not state anything similar to the above. It doesn’t state anything that permits a management company subject me to terms and conditions from time to time or that my lease can be varied. I will bring my full tenancy agreement to court so the judge can view this.

More specifically though, in my tenancy it states the following under section 8, ‘Changes to this agreement’:

“8 CHANGES TO THIS AGREEMENT
Apart from the rent and service charges, the terms of this agreement can only be changed by:

Written consent between you and us; or
Legislations; or
By us telling you about the required changes and asking for your comments, which we will consider and then decide whether to make the changes"

Please see the attached picture of this section of my tenancy agreement


My contract is with the landowner, not UK CPM. The whole reason I displayed a temporary permit was simply for your client’s convenience but legally speaking, I have no legal obligation to display this. There is nothing in my contract with the landowner that requires me to have a permit to park on the land that I have permission to park on.

As you cannot unilaterally alter my contract, you have no legal right to subject me to your parking conditions or claim that I owe money. Following the case of In Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant’s right to park by requiring a permit to park.

Another case to back-up my dispute is the case of ‘C7GF50J7 Link Parking v Ms P 2/11/2016 Wrexham’ Where it was found that The judge ruled that that for Link or CPML (the management company) to have any right to manage the parking on the Landowner's property, the deeds would have to be altered to state this for the whole site. She ruled that the Landowner could not be penalised for parking in her own space.


On your original LBA letter dated 07/07/2017, you referred me to the Parking Eye V Beavis case in which you were trying to justify that 100.00 was not ‘excessive’ however the charges you are seeking are 160.00 per ticket…

Please can you explain where the extra 60.00 has come from?
The original parking charge (which I do not admit to owing) was for £60.00. PLease can you justify the extra £40.00?

You also stated that the charge was “in your client’s legitimate interest”. I understand that your client’s legitimate interest is to deter non-residents from parking in the car park. I know this because the landowner (who is their employer) has confirmed that UK CPM have been employed to deter unauthorised parking. Please see the attached screenshot of this email from Moat.

One of the key points from the Beavis case was that the charge was necessary to deter overstaying; if they did not issue penalties then the car park would be unfairly used.

In my case, it is in your client’s legitimate interest to charge non-residents as a deterrent from parking in the car park. If penalties were not issued, then shoppers would use it to go to Asda.

My point is that your client’s legitimate interest is to deter non-residents from parking here at Pegler Court. I am a resident and have proved this by providing my tenancy agreement as proof. As I am a resident then it means issuing me with a parking charge is NOT in their legitimate interest. Because there is no legitimate interest, this is deemed a penalty.

Quite clearly you client is abusing their power as an agent of the landowner to try and penalise me for parking in my own space of which I have full rights to peaceful enjoyment under common law:

"The covenant means that the tenant is entitled to enjoy the full benefit of the property free of interference. The covenant is qualified. Therefore, it is restricted to protecting the tenant against interference by either landlord or persons claiming to be under the landlord, this includes but is not limited to: agents, licensees, employees; tenants or successors. If there is breach of the quiet enjoyment covenant a tenant can either seek an injunction to restrain the interference or seek damages for losses caused by such interference"

As such, I consider your actions in issuing a PCN to the vehicle were a trespass to my parking space and to my vehicle, and I am entitled to make a claim against your company, seeking damages.


Furthermore, your company has breached my rights under the Data Protection Act by obtaining, retaining and processing my personal data, and passing it to third party debt collectors, when it had no right to do so. Again, I am entitled to make a claim against your company, seeking damages.

**** I want to ask the solicitors for all of the documents that they intend to use for the claim and also get all of the copies of the PCN’s, letters from UK CPM and Debt Recovery Plus letters, what can I say to get these? ****

[if this applies:] In addition, the multitude of unsolicited letters I have received from your client and debt collectors, when there is no valid claim, amount to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act. Again, I am entitled to make a claim against your company, seeking damages and to seek an injunction preventing any such further contact.


The purpose of this letter is to put you on notice of my claims and my intention to bring a claim against you [your client?] should you continue to pursue any claim against me in respect of the PCN.

This letter is written pursuant to the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct. I draw to your attention the obligations set out in the Practice Direction and the sanctions for not complying with them.

****I want to say something along the lines of asking them to review the parking charges to avoid court which is unnecessary seeing as I have proved I am a resident...any ideas? ****

Loadsofchildren123

alexreid1234 wrote: »

Dear Helen,

You state that my tenancy agreement is ‘silent’ but I strongly disagree with this for the following reasons:

Under the parking clause on my tenancy agreement is states the following “"If we own a private parking area on the estate the property is on, we may allow you to use a parking space on which you can park a private car or motorcycle only". Please see the attached photo of this part of my tenancy agreement.
Although it says ‘may’ I can confirm that I have written confirmation from the landowner (Moat Housing) that confirms I have permission to park in the pool bays here at XXXXXX. With this proof, it confirms my right to park. Please see the attached proof.

Based on the above, I clearly have full rights to park at XXXXXXX.


You referred me to the ‘Link Parking VS Blaney (May 2017) where you said “any landowner’s rights were subject to regulations brought in from time to time and therefore any tenancy agreement must be subject to it as well”.

The above does not apply to me because in the Link V Blaney case the DJ Pratt ruled that the Head Lease did contain the right to vary the parking regime at the location because the tenancy agreement in that case had the following wording:

"landlord is entitled from time to time may introduce regulations with regards to the proper management of the location".

Furthermore, in that case there was a leasehold title - in my case there is not, and I rent my property directly from the freeholder. So there is no "Head Lease" which allows the freeholder to introduce any regulations. The only relevant document in this case is my tenancy.

My tenancy agreement does not state anything similar to the above and contains no clause permitting any person or body to . It doesn’t state anything that permits a management company introduce or subject me to new terms and conditions from time to time or that my lease take care not to confuse tenancy with lease - your landlord is the leaseholder and has a lease with the freeholder, you have a tenancy can be varied. I will bring my full tenancy agreement to court so the judge can view this.

Crucially, More specifically though, in my tenancy it states the following under section 8, ‘Changes to this agreement’:

“8 CHANGES TO THIS AGREEMENT
Apart from the rent and service charges, the terms of this agreement can only be changed by:

Written consent between you and us; or
Legislations; or
By us telling you about the required changes and asking for your comments, which we will consider and then decide whether to make the changes"

Please see the attached picture of this section of my tenancy agreement


For the avoidance of doubt, I have not been informed of any changes and there has been no written consent to any. Should you continue to pursue me then I put you to full proof that such changes have been made and agreed to.

My contract is with the landowner, not UK CPM. The whole reason I displayed a temporary permit was simply for your client’s convenience but legally speaking, I have no legal obligation to do so and cannot be penalised for any failure display this. There is nothing in my contract with the landowner that requires me to have a permit to park on the land that I have permission to park on.

As you cannot unilaterally alter my contract, you have no legal right to subject me to your parking conditions or claim that I owe money. Following the case of In Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant’s right to park by requiring a permit to park.

Another case to back-up my dispute is the case of ‘C7GF50J7 Link Parking v Ms P 2/11/2016 Wrexham’ Where it was found that T the judge ruled that that for Link or CPML (the management company) to have any right to manage the parking on the Landowner's property, the deeds would have to be altered to state this for the whole site. She ruled that the Landowner could not be penalised for parking in her own space.


On your original LBA letter dated 07/07/2017, you referred me to the Parking Eye V Beavis case in which you were trying to justify that 100.00 was not ‘excessive’ however the charges you are seeking are 160.00 per ticket… Please can you explain where the extra 60.00 has come from and explain where on your signage this additional amount is defined or explained so as to bind a driver parking there? The original parking charge (which I do not admit to owing) was for £60.00. PLease can you justify the extra £40.00?

You also stated that the charge was “in your client’s legitimate interest”. I understand that your client’s legitimate interest is to deter non-residents from parking in the car park. I know this because the landowner (who is their employer) has confirmed that UK CPM have been employed to deter unauthorised parking. Please see the attached screenshot of this email from Moat.

One of the key points from the Beavis case was that the charge was necessary to deter overstaying; if they did not issue penalties then the car park would be unfairly used.

In my case, it is in your client’s legitimate interest to charge non-residents as a deterrent from parking in the car park. If penalties were not issued, then shoppers would use it to go to Asda.

My point is that your client’s legitimate interest is to deter non-residents from parking here at Pegler Court. I am a resident and have proved this by providing my tenancy agreement as proof. As I am a resident then it means issuing me with a parking charge is NOT in their legitimate interest. Because there is no legitimate interest, this is deemed a penalty.

Quite clearly you client is abusing their power as an agent of the landowner to try and penalise me for parking in my own space. Pursuant to my tenancy, of which I have the full rights to peaceful enjoyment under common law - this means that I am :

"The covenant means that the tenant is entitled to enjoy the full benefit of the property free of interference. The covenant is qualified. Therefore, it is restricted to protecting the tenant It protects me against interference by either landlord or persons claiming to be under the landlord, this includes but is not limited to: agents, licensees, employees; tenants or successors. If there is breach of the quiet enjoyment covenant I am entitled to seek a tenant can either seek an injunction to restrain the interference and/or seek damages for losses caused by such interference.

I put you formally on notice that As such, I consider your [or your client's??? not sure who you are writing to, the solicitors or the PPC itself] actions in issuing a PCN to the vehicle and your [client's???] subsequent actions in bombarding me with correspondence, including from debt collectors, to have been a breach of my right to quiet enjoyment. Additionally, your [client's?] actions amount to were a trespass to my parking space [if you don't have rights to a particular parking space, but only to a choice of a pool of spaces, I don't think you can say they've trespassed on your space] and to my vehicle. , and I am entitled to make a claim against your company, seeking damages and injunctive relief.


Furthermore, your company has breached my rights under the Data Protection Act by obtaining, retaining and processing my personal data, and passing it to third party debt collectors, when it had no right to do so. This has caused me a great deal of distress and inconvenience. Again, I am entitled to make a claim against your company, seeking damages.

**** I want to ask the solicitors for all of the documents that they intend to use for the claim and also get all of the copies of the PCN’s, letters from UK CPM and Debt Recovery Plus letters, what can I say to get these? I take it you want the latter because you threw them all away - you can ask for copies of these but I wouldn't let on at this stage that you don't have them, so don't ask now but later.
Insofar as docs relating to the claim are concerned, you can say this:
This letter is being written in contemplation of legal proceedings. I draw your attention to the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct, which sets out the obligations of parties to anticipated proceedings and the steps each should take prior to proceedings being issued. Paragraphs 13-16 contain sanctions in respect of any failure to comply with those obligations. Paragraph 6(a) and (c) of the Practice Direction require me to explain my claim and to provide copies of documents which I will rely on. I have complied with those obligatons in this letter. Please note your own [or your client's] obligations in paragraphs 6(b) and (c). Please ensure that when you reply to this letter you explain in appropriate detail any defence(s) you will rely on, and that you provide copies of all documents and evidence you will rely on (including....... then list what you expect them to send you) ****

[if this applies:] In addition, the multitude of unsolicited letters I have received from your client and debt collectors, when there is no valid claim, amount to harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act. Again, I am entitled to make a claim against your company, seeking damages and to seek an injunction preventing any such further contact. [move this up the above the section with ****]


The purpose of this letter is to put you on notice of my claims and my intention to bring a claim against you [your client?] should you continue to pursue any claim against me in respect of the PCN. also move this up to above the section with ****

This letter is written pursuant to the Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct. I draw to your attention the obligations set out in the Practice Direction and the sanctions for not complying with them.

****I want to say something along the lines of asking them to review the parking charges to avoid court which is unnecessary seeing as I have proved I am a resident...any ideas? ****


I do not wish to waste further time on this matter when it is clear to me that your client [you?] has no claim. Please confirm by return that your client [you?] has no intention of pursuing payment of the PCN.

As this letter is a LBC I think you need to end with a deadline for them to reply. "Please reply in full to this letter within 14 days".


I haven't said in the last para that you won't make any claim if they drop their claim. You might consider writing a without prejudice letter to go with it saying that you will not pursue any of the claims set out in your letter if they confirm that they have withdrawn the PCNs.

nosferatu1001

As it is a LBA you should say what you want them to do to avoid the court action
this is e.g. pay damages, cease and desist from ticketing your vehicle or vehicles, etc.

Loadsofchildren123

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

As it is a LBA you should say what you want them to do to avoid the court action
this is e.g. pay damages, cease and desist from ticketing your vehicle or vehicles, etc.

Agree. Sorry I missed that out in my hurry.


Insert at the end of the para beginning "The purpose of this letter is to put you on notice of my claims....".
"Such claims will be for damages for trespass (£150) , for damages for the breach of my right to quiet enjoyment (£250), for damages for the breach of my rights under the Data Protection Act and the Protection from Harassment Act (£500), and for and an injunction preventing further acts of trespass and breaches of my rights."


You might want to seek different figures. I think £150 for trespass is reasonable, this wasn't a serious trespass. I've plucked £250 for breach of qe out of thin air. DPA breaches have been known to get £750 but you need to prove distress.

alexreid1234

Thanks LOADSOFCHILDREN123 once again superb advice I really appreciate you tweaking it and advising what needs to be added in.

To confirm, the letter is going to Gladstone Solicitors who are acting on behalf of UK CPM.

I have amended the letter so it includes everything mentioned plus what NOSFERATU1001 added.

I have not included the trespass bit as I only have access to 'pool spaces' and not an individual allocated space. I will still mention about DBA breach and peace.

I am thinking to get hold of all the documents I threw away from Debt Recovery Plus and UK CPM, I will send a Subject Access Request to get the information? At least I can rely on this moving forward should they take action?

The only question I have now is with the 'without prejudice' letter, shall I send this on a separate letter with the subject stating 'without prejudice' saying that I will not pursue the charges if the drop the PCN's? Sorry I just want to make sure I get this right!

Thanks again everyone!

Loadsofchildren123

Send the LBC with an offer letter marked without prejudice.


Wait to ask for the letters until they've issued proceedings, you don't want them to know you don't have them. Gladstones and UKCPM are not subject to the FOI so I can't think a SAR will get them for you. Even if you ask for them, they probably won't let you have them because they won't want to spend time obtaining copies and the disclosure obligation in litigation does not include sending you correspondence that has already been sent to you. These letters are not central to your claim, they only help in the sense that they show figures being plucked out of thin air, so I wouldn't worry about them. In your WS you can say you didn't keep them, but approximately x number of letters arrived at approximately x intervals, all seeking varying amounts and all making misleading threats about CCJs and bailiffs. Even if you had the letters the court won't take any/much notice of them. In saying they aren't entitled to shove in extra charges it's the end amount being sought that counts, and you'll be relying on the signage not specifying what the extra charges might be.


It 's been decided in a few cases that the discounted part of the charge that gets added back in after the discounted period has ended IS the extra charge - so £100 ticket discounted to £60 for 14 days, goes back to £100 after the 14 days - the extra £40 IS the same thing as the extra admin charges the incur in chasing you. To then add in an extra £50-odd is double recovery.