Fine in Own Space

Coupon-mad

A third party can't reply to a LBC to a named recipient.

That's like not replying at all! eeek!

The poster's wife must reply, naming her husband as driver and giving his address for service, and attaching his response letter signed by him.

IMHO the drafted response reads as pompous, waffly and far too long (sorry).

The OP needs to do this, and opt out (we know PCM contracts say bays can be opted out of the scam scheme, and continuing to agree to it by accepting a permit and displaying it obediently - like sheep who can't see the wolf - is just daft):

And threaten to sue the Managing Agent, whilst also asking them for a copy of the consultation they reckon allowed them to introduce this ex-clamper bunch of chancers, like this person did:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5884543/parking-at-my-apartment

...and return the permit and tell the MA you formally opt out of the scheme, do not AND NEVER DID agree to be charged to park in your own space and rely upon your primacy of contract and the fact you were not consulted and the MA are liable for a derogation from grant, and they will be liable for your losses if their pet dogs sue you

[Deleted User]

Anyone can reply to a letter of claim.

Whether or not the parking operatror or its solicitors regard it as a reply to a letter of claim is their choice.

The reply does, however, contain both an admission by its sender that he/she was the driver and the driver's full name and address. That is sufficient to bring the correspondence with the keeper to an end. Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 very clearly states that, to be able to recover unpaid parking charges from the keeper, "The first condition is that the creditor (a) has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the unpaid parking charges; but (b) is unable to take steps to enforce that requirement against the driver because the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.".

If the parking operator and its solicitors are not willing to treat the sender's letter as a reply to the letter of claim, they will need to send another letter of claim to the driver. That is no skin off anyone's nose but their own.

I do not mind criticism of anything I draft provided that it is constructive and justified. Making bald comments like "the drafted response reads as pompous, waffly and far too long" is neither constructive nor justified. Your comment demonstrates not only your willingness to be rude but also your own ignorance.

The letter certainly has its fans among knowledgeable regulars on Pepipoo and it seems to be attracting favourable attention here too.

If, however, you believe that you can do better (but also cover all relevant points, issues and principles and request all relevant information and documents), do let us see the fruit of your labour rather than your mere bluster.

The_Deep

IMHO the drafted response reads as pompous, waffly and far too long
(sorry).

It is certainly long, but is that a bad thing when dealing with a low rent solicitor such as this? I disagree that it is either pompous, a subject in which I am something of an expert, or waffly, whatever that means.

Read it again CM

creative-2008

In summary, I've merged the two templates into a letter that denies the debt based on my lease, and also requests the documents that I felt most relevant... and would definitely want to see should I need to mount a defence in court.

My wife has attached a short letter naming me as the driver of the vehicle.

I also contacted the management agency today, and they agreed to contact PCM and request the cancellation, but said there were no guarantees.

I'll be sending it off tomorrow first class, and getting the free proof of posting from the Post Office.

Then, I'll just wait and see what happens.

Once again, I HUGE thank-you to the posters on the forum. Assuming there's a successful outcome, I'll be letting my neighbours know because I know of several that have paid fines in their own spaces!

I'll also be writing to my local MP, as advised.

Coupon-mad

Great, sounds like a plan.

creative-2008

Coupon-mad wrote: »

...and return the permit and tell the MA you formally opt out of the scheme, do not AND NEVER DID agree to be charged to park in your own space and rely upon your primacy of contract and the fact you were not consulted and the MA are liable for a derogation from grant, and they will be liable for your losses if their pet dogs sue you.

See the references to the L&T Act in that linked thread.

As a side note, I do not want to be involved in this again, and am considering this.

My only fear is that if I had issues with someone parking in my bay consistently or for long periods of time in the future, I'm not sure what I'd be able to do about it.

Does anyone have any information to hand about any action that could be taken?

The location of the flat means that it's entirely conceivable that it could be misused by someone else.

Coupon-mad

Put in a parking bollard.