PCM appeal response as a driver

nosferatu1001

Because they can? The parking is "managed" by them, under agency from the management co.

Youre still not getting the IAS.
You cannot say "the operator has not shown their contract" - the IAS will say they have a contract, YOU have to prove they do not. How bonkers and backwards is that?!

Pat26

OK, so basically it's not just about defending myself with all the evidence and proof it's also up to me that prove that PCM is in the wrong and produce all the evidence myself to prove that!

May be I'm analysing this too much but the sign says the SITE is private land and is managed any operated by PCM UK (Ltd). Not parking. Also they don't specify what this "site" is - whether it's the parking space or the site of the housing complex as a whole. It's barmy that these people are able to get away with such loose wording and use it to impose £100 worth of charges on us!

Pat26

I've been reading more forum posts on here about cases similar to mine. Also taken advise from coupon-mad and the others and updated my (what could be) final response to IAS appeal process. Hope it's an improvement on the last one:

As stated in my previous responses to the operator throughout this appeal I maintain that the car was parked in an undercroft and has a defined entrance with gated access. There is no PCM signage at the entrance to this undercroft at least in keeping with the spirit of the guidance provided in Part E Schedule 1 - Signage section of IPC's Code of Practice. So how am I supposed to see any signage? Please refer back to the photographic evidence which was attached with my initial appeal:
<reference photographic evidence with description>
Therefore by logic I did not see any PCM signage as I entered the gated undercroft where the car was parked.

PCM has so far failed to provide any explanation why there is no PCM signage at the entrance to the undercroft (with gated access) at least in keeping with the spirit of the guidance provided in Part E Schedule 1 - Signage section of IPC's Code of Practice.

On entry into the undercroft and in relation to the parking bay <X > and the direction in which the car was parked I did not see any PCM signage in CLEAR view or at least signage directing a motorist to any PCM signage in clear view. Please refer to the following photographic evidence attached with my initial appeal: <reference to photographic evidence>

I am the leaseholder and resident of apartment <?> in the <?> complex on <site>. As per my lease the parking bay <X > in the above mentioned undercroft is allocated to me.

Please refer to the attached copy of my lease (Lease.doc). The parking space is shown marked as number <X > on Plan <?> (included with the lease). The lease grants me the right to use the allocated bay to park a private motor vehicle with a road fund licence. At the time of the incident the car was parked in bay <X > allocated to me, as evident from the photographs taken by PCM for this PCN.

As a resident and leaseholder who pays ground rent and service charges to maintain the premises I have the right to be in the premises, the right to use the parking bay <X > in the undercroft and the right for peaceful enjoyment of the facilities within my housing complex.

My lease does not require me to Iook for PCM signage before using the parking space. PCM isn’t a party to my lease and cannot vary my right as a leaseholder to use the parking space by referring to signs that do not exist at the entrance to the car park or by referring to any signage that is inconspicuous to a motorist using parking bay <X >. Moreover I do not wish to trespass on the parking spaces allocated to other leaseholders/tenants/motorists who use the car park looking for inconspicuous PCM signage. I re-iterate that in relation to bay <X> there is no PCM signage in clear view for the motorist to see.

Please be advised that if PCM feels that they have the legal right to take further action against me then I will use the lease as well as the photographs attached as evidence to defend my case.

Coupon-mad

Pat26 wrote: »

OK, so basically it's not just about defending myself with all the evidence and proof it's also up to me that prove that PCM is in the wrong and produce all the evidence myself to prove that!

Yes that's why we consider the IAS to be a kangaroo court, due to the balance being tipped against consumers who are expected to prove things to the nth degree, and still lose!

In court the burden would lie with the Claimant.

I will attach a copy of the lease (my reluctance is that I consider it a private document). Is it better to reference the clauses relevant to car parking space?

I am not the named tenant on the lease, will this be a problem? I have a notice of assignment and charge with my name. Should I attach this too? The notice has information of my solicitor, mortgage lender etc

Attach the whole lease including the map.

Attach the notice of assignment & charge in your name, but cover the mortgage lender. Leave the solicitor's name showing.

KeithP

Pat26 wrote: »

It's barmy that these people are able to get away with such loose wording and use it to impose £100 worth of charges on us!

You won't find many people here disagreeing with that.

You need to make your views clear to your MP an encourage him to support the forthcoming private members bill currently being promoted by Sir Greg Knight.

Pat26

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Attach the whole lease including the map.

Attach the notice of assignment & charge in your name, but cover the mortgage lender. Leave the solicitor's name showing.

Sure, thanks for the tip. Will post back with the outcome.

Pat26

There is one other PCN now with Gladstones. I received final reminder to pay within 14 days on 29th Dec. The letter refers to their client, the amount and my vehicle registration. However it does not specify the PCN number. Can I reject their letter saying that they have not validated their request for payment with a reference that I can identify with?

I mean any scammer can note down my registration number and slap it on a document and ask for payment!

Coupon-mad

If they are both PCM at the same site, same facts, then write and say you think they are mistaken because the PCN is at IAS stage, ref xxxxxxxxx and you have responded to the evidence.

Add that if they are talking about another PCN, they must give you full details including date, location, PCN number, all photos taken and a copy of the sign they allege was in place on the material date, and an explanation of the alleged issue.

Then you should get a reply around the same time you hear from the IAS (same Directors as Gladstones of course).

Conflict of interests.

Also complain to your MP about this harassment, tell them about it and get support for the new Bill mentioned on this forum lots of times.

Pat26

Yes they are both PCM at the same site, same facts.

Instead of referring to the one still at the IAS appeal stage can I not refer to a PCN I have recently appealed and won at the IAS stage? It's all PCM, same site, same facts. When they do come back with the details I can point out that the facts are the same as the one I won ask for the PCN to be cancelled?

Coupon-mad

Yes, do that, just fire something at them that makes them have to cough up details.