Letter Before Claim - Gladstones [Residential Parking]

otterpanda

Hi Coupon-mad,

So I've finally heard back from Gstones after my email follow up. These are the two letters I received (sorry still can't post links):

http://i63.tinypic.com/16la8gz.jpg

I'm assuming I have now gotten all information I will from them. One of their letters included a two page set of FAQs that stated they won't show proof of authority for the PPC to operate prior to witness statements.

At this stage, what does my reply to the claim need to include? Is it just a case of telling them I reject the claim and then waiting for the county court papers or does my response need to include justification for the rejection by including the lease and court cases that found in favour of the defendant in the same situation?

Thank you for all your help.

nosferatu1001

http://tinypic.com/m/k0oyzo/3

You are expected to narrow the areas of disagrement, so
a) including an excerpt of the lease showing complete entitlement to park so they can FRO
and
b) court cases which have reaffirmed that they can FRO when dealiing with residents
would be sensible.

SAR the PPC, seperately.

nosferatu1001

For some reason while I can see a thumbanil of what I presume is the response, clicking it doesnt give anything but the image metadata. Odd.

otterpanda

Hi nosferatu1001


Thanks for your reply. I'm not sure why the image isn't working for you, I've tried on a couple of devices and it seems fine. Hopefully it was just tinypic having a bit of a mad moment. If not, I will try and reupload later.


PPC has already had a SAR and given me some stuff - it was quite interesting to read an email chain between the management company and the PPC.


One of the cases I would like to reference is MIL Collections v Hamilton 27/1/17 as it involves the same issuing PPC despite selling the debt and it is a residential case. I can't find a copy of the transcript on Parking Prankster where most of the cases I've read are. Is my best bet to request a copy from the GOV website?


TIA

Coupon-mad

No, you can't get transcripts of court cases (transcripts that do not exist). There are only transcripts if a party to the case paid for one.

beamerguy

Maybe this link will work

http://oi63.tinypic.com/20u77tu.jpg

Coupon-mad

OK, so now respond as nosferatu1001 suggested to do:

You are expected to narrow the areas of disagreement, so

a) including an excerpt of the lease showing complete entitlement to park so they can FRO

and

b) court cases which have reaffirmed that they can FRO when dealing with residents would be sensible.

You can see the 'residential parking' court cases to refer to, mentioned in bargepole's thread from yesterday about one of the cases won at Guildford court v UKCPM. And you can find those transcripts hosted by the Parking Prankster in his case law pages on his Blog website.

otterpanda

Thank you beamerguy.


Coupon-mad - thank you, I feel silly now for asking! As the case did find in favour of the owner in that case, is it still worth quoting it in my response or not ?


*Edit* Thank you Coupon-Mad, I will focus on the transcripts on PP.

Coupon-mad

Yes because you can always include the Prankster's Blog among your evidence at WS stage, later. At lest one Judge remarked that they had seen PP Blogs in evidence before, and you can use what you want (it's not a precedent though, just info for the Judge about a similar reported case).

otterpanda

So I've taken time to do some reading about primacy of contract and to properly read through the lease a few times. It does make reference to amendments that can be made to the lease but my landlord assures me that the copy of the lease they have provided me with is the only lease and to their knowledge there have not been any updates made to it.

I've included my reply below: is it strong enough or should I be adding anything or removing anything? I was a little unsure of whether to include my third point..

Dear GS

Thank you for providing the requested documentation to enable me to gain a better understanding of the claim in question.

After reviewing the documentation that you and your client New World Facilities East Essex Ltd have provided, I have made the decision to dispute your claim. My reasons for this decision are detailed below:

1. Primacy of Contract
The lease for the address above entitles the occupant to quiet enjoyment of the premises which includes an allocated space and the right to pass and repass. It does state anywhere in the lease that occupant must display a permit in order to use the named allocated space. In the cases of Pace v Mr N C6GF14F0 [2016] and Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016] it was found that the property lease is the overarching document, and a private parking company’s right to operate does not supersede the lease. Please find enclosed excerpts from the lease to which I refer.

2. Use of forbidding language
As per the photo of your client’s signage in use at the time of the alleged contravention, the sign states, “No unauthorised parking” and states, “visitors or residents not displaying a valid permit” and “parking in a bay where authorisation has not been granted by the landowner”. The use forbidding language means that there was no offer to park and therefore no contract was entered into when the alleged contravention occurred.

3. Letter from Property Management Company
The letter sent by PMS Leasehold on 29 November 2016, which informs leaseholders of a change in parking operator, does reference the requirement of tenants to display a valid permit at all times; however, this does not constitute a written amendment to the property lease.

I look forward to hearing from you in due course.

Yours faithfully
otterpanda

These are the excerpts I am going to include: http / tinypic. com/3ia97xis

Thank you in advance.