Link parking residential claim

Legacy_user

Hi guys, I'd be very grateful for any help you can give me and thank you in advance!

I've received a letter before claim from BW legal, acting for Link Parking. They ticketed me for not displaying a valid permit, when I was parked in a residential, numbered parking bay allocated to my flat.

Foolishly I believed the parking company would be reasonable, having no knowledge of the industry at that time, even more foolishly I identified myself as the driver and went though both their and the IPC's appeals process.

Unsurprisingly, as I now know, I was turned down. I simply appealed that as it was my own space I shouldn't have been ticketed to the PPC and then argued that my lease should have primacy of contract to the IPC (my partner has some knowledge of contract law).

I have drafted a SAR request, posted below:

Dear Sir or Madam,

Subject access request ( Data Protection Act 2018 / General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) )

This request is from NAME/ADDRESS and pertains to the letter I have received from BW Legal, dated DATE, concerning the parking of a vehicle at the above mentioned property.

Please supply the data about me that I am entitled to under data protection law relating to myself.

This includes: all photographs taken of the vehicle, photographs of all signage present on the day/s in question, all letters/emails sent and received, including any appeal correspondence earlier, all data held, all evidence you intend to rely on in any court proceedings, a full copy of the parking charge notice and notice to keeper and a list of all parking charge notices you consider are outstanding against myself.

I hereby remind you that any claim must be for all parking charge notices in one claim, not several separate claims.

Furthermore, I require you to restrict processing my data by not sharing it with any third party, ie: any party that is not myself or Link Parking LTD.

If you need any more data from me to confirm my identity please let me know as soon as possible. It may be helpful for you to know that data protection law requires you to respond to a request for data within one calendar month.

If you do not normally deal with these requests, please pass this letter to your Data Protection Officer, or relevant staff member. If you need advice on dealing with this request, the Information Commissioner’s Office can assist you. Its website is ico.org.uk or it can be contacted on 0303 123 1113.

Yours faithfully,

I have also drafted a letter to BW legal posted below:

Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing to you in reply to your letter of claim, DATE. I hereby request all documents your client intends to use in court in order to narrow the issues between us.
Furthermore, I have served your client with a subject access request and require a restriction of processing of my data, therefore this case should immediately be placed on hold.
My address for service is as follows: NAME/ADDRESS. This address is subject to any potential future change, you and your client will be informed of any change in this address.

Yours faithfully,

What do people make of these and can I improve them in any way/is there anything there I should delete?

I've tried to add dropbox links to the letter from BW legal and the signs on the site, but it won't let me as I'm a new user, anyone know any way around this?

I am a tenant at the property and my tenancy agreement contains the following clause:
'Where the landlords interest is derived from another lease ("the headlease") then it is agreed that the tenant will observe the restrictions in the headlease applicable to the property. A copy of the headlease, if applicable, is attached.'

The flat is leasehold and I never saw any copy of any headlease, I'm assuming the leasehold would be the headlease? I've asked my landlord for a copy of the leasehold, but I am yet to receive this. At present I don't know what is said in the leasehold with regards parking and my tenancy agreement makes no mention of it at all.

If my landlord never gets a copy of the leasehold to me, should I still argue primacy of contract in court using my tenancy agreement?

Many thanks for taking the time to read this post and for any help you can give me with this!

Coupon-mad

If you are certain that there is only one PCN ever in play, remove this line:

I hereby remind you that any claim must be for all parking charge notices in one claim, not several separate claims.

Yes you will be arguing primacy of contract as a tenant, on the basis that you have the right derived from the leaseholder, to exclusive use of the allocated parking space.

What do people make of these and can I improve them in any way/is there anything there I should delete?

Have a look at the posts I made on a Premier Park thread - I wrote a reply to put the case on hold and to produce photos of the signage after the case comes off hold after 30 days.

Your version would just get a reply refusing to restrict data. No help to you.

I've tried to add dropbox links to the letter from BW legal and the signs on the site, but it won't let me as I'm a new user, anyone know any way around this?

Break the URL like everyone does. In your reply here, http becomes hxxp, etc.

I am a tenant at the property and my tenancy agreement contains the following clause:
'Where the landlords interest is derived from another lease ("the headlease") then it is agreed that the tenant will observe the restrictions in the headlease applicable to the property. A copy of the headlease, if applicable, is attached.'

OK.

Why not add a section that requires them not only to cough up the signage photos but also the Head Lease that you are 'certain their client must have retained and examined as part of their due diligence before imposing an onerous parking regime on residents who enjoy rights and easements that affect the enforcement'!

They will try to make you produce the Head Lease, but why not put the onus on them!

System

Thank you very much for all the advice Coupon-mad!

Will post the letter once I've got it all together later today.

Here's the amended links:
hxxxs://wxx.dropbox.com/s/pu3oejauidn733u/IMG_1014.jpg?dl=0
hxxxs://wxx.dropbox.com/s/emby1ujfxpkvo7u/IMG_1253.jpg?dl=0
hxxxs://wxx.dropbox.com/s/rwzp9j3p9jpove6/IMG_1254.jpg?dl=0

System

Here's my amended letter to BW legal:

Dear Sir or Madam,

Your client: Link Parking / account number xxxxxxx / VRN xxx xxxx

Any debt is denied and I hereby request all documents your client intends to use in court. I am seeking debt advice from a reputable online source. As such, in accordance with the PAP for Debt Claims, you must now put the matter on hold for at least 30 days from receipt of this communication.

At least that will give me the chance to also receive and review the data that your client deigns to produce, myself having submitted them a SAR, none of which accompanied your template 'Letter of Claim'.

I realise that personal data does not include a copy of the signage that your client purports bound me to a contract. I now request this, and require that you supply all signage photographs that your client intends to rely upon, after the 30 day period and certainly before commencing court action. Additionally, I request the leasehold contract under which my property is bound and which I am certain your client must have retained and examined as part of their due diligence, before imposing an onerous parking regime on residents who enjoy rights and easements that affect the enforcement.

Estimated Claim
This is a baseless claim and pure harassment of a resident of a property with title.

The estimated claim is alarmist, intimidating and contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge, which was not £160 and is in any event, denied in its entirety.

An additional charge - variously described as 'initial legal costs' or 'debt collection' depending on how the mood seems to take BW Legal in your template letters - is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 where only £85 was recovered and it was held that such a case cannot be pleaded in damages.

Further, you have included 'legal costs' twice, despite no solicitor having been involved. Any purported 'legal costs' are made up out of thin air. According to Ladak v DRC Locums UKEAT/0488/13/LA a Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.

Given the fact that BW Legal boasted in Bagri v BW Legal Ltd of processing 'millions' of claims with an admin team (and only a handful of solicitors), the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste robo-claims.

It is an abuse of process for a Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for additional sums which it is not entitled to recover and the court will be invited to strike out the claim.

Further, CPR 44.3 (2) states:
''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.


Enclosures
I will not be filling in financial forms. Your parking firm client is not entitled to such data and there is no debt to discuss. You were named and shamed in Parliament in 2018 during the readings of the long-awaiting Parking Bill (now Act) and you are the last people any honest victim of an unfair 'parking charge' scam would want to furnish with my private financial information.


What you need to do now
(a) Advise your client to cancel this meritless proposed claim to avoid wasted legal action.

(b) Given that I have duly informed you that the debt is disputed and I am seeking debt advice from a reputable online source, in accordance with the PAP for Debt Claims you must now put the matter on hold for at least 30 days from receipt of this communication.

(c) Once the 30 day period has passed you must comply with the PAP for debt claims and supply me with the requested information that does not fall under the SAR, namely all photographs taken on the material date, showing the signage term and the leasehold contract for ADDRESS. This must be supplied in advance of any claim in order to comply with the PAP.

For the avoidance of doubt, I have never have, and never would, contract with any parking firm to allow them to operate their ''outrageous scam'' (Hansard 2.2.18) of marauding around near my property and trespassing on my demised land, harassing me or my visitors with false demands for money.

Further, my lease does not give any standing to a third party such as your client who is not in possession. Link Parking was never a party to my lease and seems to have failed to even carry out the basic checks and balances that a reasonable person would expect to be done to protect the existing easements, right and interests of the residents by exempting them and their allocated parking spaces from enforcement, before blighting the estate with an unwanted and unsolicited regime.


How to get in touch
You may contact me by post or email after the 30 days has elapsed.

My address for service is:

xxxxxx

I trust this is satisfactory and clarifies my position. Should you be dissatisfied with your own response and data processing you may report yourselves by making a complaint to SRA and the Information Commissioner's Office.

yours faithfully

I will send Link Parking the SAR today. Should I wait until near the end of the 30 day deadline before sending the letter to BW legal in order to give myself more time?

Coupon-mad

Should I wait until near the end of the 30 day deadline before sending the letter to BW legal in order to give myself more time?

Yes, I reckon that's a good tactic, especially if you have a Summer holiday booked and don't want a possible court date too soon over the Summer. You'll get a choice to name dates you can't attend but IMHO it's better for the court process to turn slower and any hearing would be in the Autumn, if better for you.

I still suggest you add a point (d) under 'WHAT YOU NEED TO DO NOW':

Why not add a section that requires them not only to cough up the signage photos but also the Head Lease that you are 'certain their client must have retained and examined as part of their due diligence before imposing an onerous parking regime on residents who enjoy rights and easements that affect the enforcement'!

And as you are a tenant, don't call it your 'lease'. Your primacy of contract is based upon the grants & rights within the tenancy agreement you signed and it's not a 'lease'.

The_Deep

even more foolishly I identified myself as the driver and went though both their and the IPC's appeals process.

In residential cases it is often better for the leaseholder to contest this, have you read this?, ha

https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/residential-parking.html

IMO, if this gets to court they will crash and burn, but many PPCs seem to have a death wish when it come to residential parking.

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/324523-ukpc-liable-for-trespass-success/

They are obvious trying to scam you so get your MP involved, Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, and persistent offenders denied access. Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers.

Until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.

System

I'm more than happy with the tone, it's outrageous I'm being pursued for money from parking on land that I have every right to!

I've added paragraph (d) as follows:

(d) Furthermore, you must supply me with the leasehold contract under which my specific property is bound and which I am certain your client must have retained and examined as part of their due diligence, before imposing an onerous parking regime on residents who enjoy rights and easements that affect the enforcement. This must also be supplied in advance of any claim in order to comply with the PAP.

I've also changed 'my lease' to the following wording:
Further, my tenancy agreement, nor the leasehold under which the tenancy agreement is based on, does not give any standing to a third party such as your client who is not in possession.

Is there anything I should add, or change in the SAR I posted earlier?

Many thanks again for your help!

System

Thanks for replying The Deep!

I'm sure it would be helpful to get the leaseholder involved, but it took him a month to replace a broken oven recently, so I'm not too optimistic on that front!

I'm seeing my local MP on Friday to speak to him about this, I know he's been involved in the debates on the legislation in parliament.

Coupon-mad

Just being a grammar pedant, I'd change this as the word 'nor' needs a 'neither':

Further, neither my tenancy agreement, nor the leasehold under which the tenancy agreement is based on, provides for any standing to a third party to interfere with grants and easements enjoyed by residents, who have rights deriving from the landholder in possession.

Le_Kirk

Here are your links made live: -
https://dropbox.com/s/pu3oejauidn733u/IMG_1014.jpg?dl=0
https://dropbox.com/s/emby1ujfxpkvo7u/IMG_1253.jpg?dl=0
https://dropbox.com/s/rwzp9j3p9jpove6/IMG_1254.jpg?dl=0

sa1601

I have just been through exactly this situation with my son who was parked in his allocated space that is demised to him under his lease. He got a PCN for a displaying a faded permit. The PPC took it all the way to court and lost. So don’t worry about this. Happy to help although the experts on the forum here are quick off the mark and way ahead of me! I will be interested to learn if Link back down when you put the primacy of contract argument before them. After all they have already lost on this and you would think they wouldn’t pursuing the same sort of case.