Outstanding PCN from PE

icsys

Hi all, I have been reading these parking threads for several months now, i've read the stickies and other cases.

There are a couple of other threads for this same car park, both of which have no conclusion or are still ongoing... DW sports gym, Beauty salon and part time NHS blood clinic. Car park has since been designated as having a members only section and a non-members section, there was no demarcation between the car parks at the time the PCN for my vehicle was issued.

Looking for a little advice on where this case now stands. PCN was issued in September 2016.
The correct fee was paid as displayed for one hours parking, vehicle was on car park 30 mins.

Exact PCN wording: The signage, which is clearly displayed at the entrance to and throuought the car park, states that this is private land, the car park is managed by Parking eye Ltd, and that all customers must enter their registration (using the terminal inside) to qualify for free parking or the Parking Charge displayed will apply, along with other terms and conditions of the car park by which those who park agree to be bound.
By remaining on the car park for longer than was made permitted, the Parking Charge is now payable to Parking Eye Ltd (as the creditor) [sic]

I have been through the appeal stages which were rejected - insufficient evidence -I should have come here before appealing but it is too late to cry about it now.

I received a letter headed LBCCC back in March, which simpy requested payment within 14 days or further action may be taken which may lead to court proceedings.This arrived thee months after appeal was rejected and after the land owner had assured me they had instructed PE to cancel the PCN and further correspondence should stop.
Then after refusing to pay, debt collection letters started to arrive from two different entities, over a period of eight months.

Bottom line is the latest letter received from PE last week, headed without prejudice save as to costs, which offers a reduced payment if paid within 14 days or full amount remains outstanding. No mention of further action in the letter.

Should I respond to this without prejudice letter? The deadline for payment is tomorrow but as I have refused to date, I don't really want to pay it anyway.

So what can I expect next so I can prepare for it? As I mentioned, I have alredy had a LBCCC but it was just a request for payment or further action may be taken. No further action was taken apart from the debt collection letters.

As the PPC is PE, a serial litigator, I suspect it will eventually lead to a court case.


Thank you for any advice

KeithP

Read post #2 of the NEWBIES FAQ sticky thread.

In there you will see:

If you have a Letter Before Claim (LBC, sometimes referred to on forums as a LBCCC), you must respond robustly.

... followed by guidance on exactly how to respond.

icsys

I have read post #2 several times, and the threads linked in it.
The letter with the words 'Letter Before County Court Claim' was back in March.


Isn't it too late to respond to that as it was nine months ago?

KeithP

Oh, sorry. I missed the 'back in March' bit.

As they never started court action after that LBC, I think you would be safe to ignore everything until you actually get another LBC or court papers.

PE's latest letter seems to indicate that they are not sure of winning a court case and are trying to get some money from you without going to court.
But I may be wrong of course.

Coupon-mad

Bottom line is the latest letter received from PE last week, headed without prejudice save as to costs, which offers a reduced payment if paid within 14 days or full amount remains outstanding. No mention of further action in the letter.

Should I respond to this without prejudice letter? The deadline for payment is tomorrow but as I have refused to date, I don't really want to pay it anyway.

I would respond to that, objecting that they cannot resurrect an out of date LBCCC from March when the pre-action requirements have since been superseded by the 1st October pre-action protocol for debt claims, whether they pretend that somehow 'doesn't apply to their debt' or not. Obviously what they are pursuing is an alleged debt, because in the Beavis case they argued it that way, as a contractual charge 'in debt' and not for damages. This, the new rules now apply.

As such, simply sending a WP letter doesn't fairly pave the way to court after all this time and you will not be paying because this car park is notorious, and has only recently been designated as having a members only section and a non-members section. At the time of the alleged parking event, there was no demarcation between the car parks, as PE well know, and they have no cause of action whatsoever, given the lack of clear signs exposed by publicised POPLA appeals regarding this site in 2015 and 2016.

You could finish by asking for evidence of the signs at the time and the date they were changed, and why, including letters from the landowners/retailers complaining about the misleading set up. Failure to produce the evidence of why the signs were changed (and comparison photographs, and letters/emails which led to the change) will be unfair and prejudicial to your defence.

And ask them to provide a copy of the new pre-action protocol 'Information Sheet' and the Reply Form, given that is indisputably a 'debt claim' by any interpretation, unless they are claiming the money as damages or under the tort of trespass, neither of which was deemed possible for ParkingEye, by the Supreme Court.

Finish with this:

Should you proceed to issue proceedings against me without replying substantively to this letter and complying with your obligations, I will apply for an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 7 of the Protocol and 15(b) of the Practice Direction and I will seek a costs order.

icsys

Thank you for the advice given.

I will update when/if I get a response from PE.

Thank you for taking the time to respond.

icsys

After sending another 'debt is denied' letter to PE (thanks to coupon-mad) in response to the 'WP' letter received, I have received an acknowledgement of it's receipt.

However the content of my letter has been completely ignored and I have merely been informed in one sentence that my letter has been forwarded to DRP and any further correspondence should be directed to DRP.

No doubt I can now look forward to yet another (third) round of useless debt collector junk mail.

I suppose I should feel lucky I got a response at all (probably because this time I sent it Royal Mail Signed For).
The manager for DW Sports has informed me that despite four requests to PE to 'waiver' the PCN over the past twelve months, PE have not responded.

icsys

Just a quick update twelve months on...

No further correspondence has been received from either PE or DRP in relation to the PCN.

Not out of the woods yet though... still two and a half years remaining to the six year deadline.