Lbc for parking in my own bay

Coupon-mad

I emailed Ms. XXX all the details of the PCN’s the very next day and on 27th March her reply was “The supplier has confirmed that this is at debt control stage now, and they cannot reverse the tickets I’m afraid, despite us asking on behalf of the Client.” – See Section G

Add that it is patently untrue to say that PCNs ''cannot be cancelled'' pre-litigation stage, because a parking operator can always cancel any PCN. Add that you believe this is a term of the contract/agreement they have with xxx whereby there will routinely be a 'right of cancellation' offered to the principal, and if the Claimant disagrees you put them to strict proof to disclose and bring to trial, all documents, schedules and User Agreements relating to the landowner/xxx contract (unredacted) showing all definitions and exemptions, operating hours and landowner rights to cancel.

Further, 'debt collection' stage costs a parking operator nothing at all, thus there is no reason to refuse a landowner/their agent, a request to cancel unfairly issued PCNs for residents, whether that be in the first week or the first year.

Mention that this case can be fully distinguished from the Beavis case, where the facts were completely different and where it was confirmed that a parking firm cannot sue for costs or damages (such as those arbitrarily added to this claim) and that the £85 parking charge in that case more than comfortably covered all the costs of an automated letters parking regime, and was in fact mainly profit. So no damages or loss can be recovered, not even if a debt collector firm was involved, given that parking firms use these firms on a 'no-collection, no fee' basis.

Add that this case can be distinguished from Beavis as there is no commercial justification or 'legitimate interest' here, to save the charge from being struck down by Lord Denning's penalty rules, which still apply (as was stated by the Supreme Court, the penalty rule is 'engaged' in all cases and they must turn on their own facts, and the charges MUST NOT be purely there to punish a driver).

neeraj89

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Add that it is patently untrue to say that PCNs ''cannot be cancelled'' pre-litigation stage, because a parking operator can always cancel any PCN. Add that you believe this is a term of the contract/agreement they have with xxx whereby there will routinely be a 'right of cancellation' offered to the principal, and if the Claimant disagrees you put them to strict proof to disclose and bring to trial, all documents, schedules and User Agreements relating to the landowner/xxx contract (unredacted) showing all definitions and exemptions, operating hours and landowner rights to cancel.

Further, 'debt collection' stage costs a parking operator nothing at all, thus there is no reason to refuse a landowner/their agent, a request to cancel unfairly issued PCNs for residents, whether that be in the first week or the first year.

Mention that this case can be fully distinguished from the Beavis case, where the facts were completely different and where it was confirmed that a parking firm cannot sue for costs or damages (such as those arbitrarily added to this claim) and that the £85 parking charge in that case more than comfortably covered all the costs of an automated letters parking regime, and was in fact mainly profit. So no damages or loss can be recovered, not even if a debt collector firm was involved, given that parking firms use these firms on a 'no-collection, no fee' basis.

Add that this case can be distinguished from Beavis as there is no commercial justification or 'legitimate interest' here, to save the charge from being struck down by Lord Denning's penalty rules, which still apply (as was stated by the Supreme Court, the penalty rule is 'engaged' in all cases and they must turn on their own facts, and the charges MUST NOT be purely there to punish a driver).

Thanks a ton. I will add this and reprint my WS

neeraj89

Also I was not the driver of the car. My wife uses the car more than me and I only use it on weekends if required. However, I am the keeper of the car. - Should I add this point somewhere or it's irrelevant?

Coupon-mad

Yes, state that fact, and include a printout of Schedule 4, highlighting where you think the PPM NTK failed, and that the Act requires 'adequate notice' of the parking charge, and that the Act requires a 'relevant contract or relevant obligation' and there was no such contractual term of obligation falling to your wife the driver to do or comply with, as there were no known terms at all for new residents, and no permit scheme had been communicated at that stage.

neeraj89

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Yes, state that fact, and include a printout of Schedule 4, highlighting where you think the PPM NTK failed, and that the Act requires 'adequate notice' of the parking charge, and that the Act requires a 'relevant contract or relevant obligation' and there was no such contractual term of obligation falling to your wife the driver to do or comply with, as there were no known terms at all for new residents, and no permit scheme had been communicated at that stage.

Do you mean Schedule 4 of my lease ??

Coupon-mad

Errrm..no. Schedule 4 of the POFA about keeper liability!

neeraj89

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Errrm..no. Schedule 4 of the POFA about keeper liability!

Thanks . will go through it and will add it to my WS

Heaps

Can someone please tell me how to post a thread?! Sorry to ask in a "reply" but I'm getting nowhere with this site.

KeithP

Heaps wrote: »

Can someone please tell me how to post a thread?! Sorry to ask in a "reply" but I'm getting nowhere with this site.

To start a new thread, click on this blue button:

MothballsWallet

DoaM wrote: »

Please proof-read prior to sending ... who are Galdstones?

Gladstones - but I think you guys give them Gallstones :whistle: