Link Parking - PCN Cancelled!

linkbuster

Hi all. Hoping for some advice on behalf of my partner.
 I will go into the finer details of the case at a later time if required but my specific question pertains to the admissability of specific formats of email communication in court.
Unfortunately we found this forum a little too late, by which time my partner had submitted her appeal directly through Link Parking's website and admitting that she was the driver. 
She has now received further demand letters and BW Legal have been instructed to recover the debt. However, my girlfriend has no record of ever receiving notification that the appeal was rejected.
A SAR has been submitted and Link Parking have provided a HTML file showing my partner's appeal through the website. The same document purports to show their email response rejecting the appeal. However, no email was received on the dates indicated. While it is possible that the email entered her spam box and was subsequently auto deleted, I believe it is more likely that they deliberately failed to send it or there was a failure in their system. How likely is it that the HTML document will be accepted as proof that this was sent in small claims court? Are we able to demand that this is provided in EML format?

BrownTrout

None of what you are stating affects a court claim/defence in any way. It is in essence pointless. Therefore forget about it and await and the court claim in due course 

nosferatu1001

It's more likely than not that they sent it, barring any ability if you to put it in doubt. 

It's most likely your spam filter caught it. Hence why everyone's told to check spam bin on a daily basis. 

Johnersh

Strictly speaking if it's not received its probably not served:
hxxps://www.litigationfutures.com/news/email-blocked-by-tribunals-firewall-not-validly-served
Nevertheless, the advice given holds good - focus on any claim received, not the pre-action skirmishes

linkbuster

Appreciate the responses all. Advice noted with thanks  We'll sit tight and await the LBC.

Le_Kirk

Seems weird having liven your link @Johnersh but here it is: -
https://www.litigationfutures.com/news/email-blocked-by-tribunals-firewall-not-validly-served

Johnersh

@Le_Kirk many thanks.
the operative part is this... 

anyone hoping to rely on email as a consistent and reliable provider of delivery services knows that they are taking a risk in this regard.

“In summary therefore, I have come to the conclusion that in order for a notice to be validly served by email, then it must actually be received by the intended recipient.

The corollary of this is that receipt into a spam folder or by the server is not service, which the PPC can rely upon.  If the evidence is that any relevant message sent electronically was not received, then that should be taken at face value.  I raise the point only to nail the assertion that is now likely to be made that the o/p could have appealed but chose not to do so.  It's moot is the PPC/Claimant decides to commence court proceedings.

linkbuster

Hello again all. Good news. The PCN has been cancelled by the property management agent.
I didn't previously have time to present a full account of events, so here it is:
In November last year my partner was visiting friends at a development managed by Link Parking. She was aware of the requirement to display a permit and had acquired this from her friends in advance of the visit. While driving to the development the permit had slipped from the dashboard. She was able to reach the permit and replace it on the shelf beneath the dashboard while driving. Unfortunately on arrival at the car park she forgot to replace it on the dashboard. Nevertheless, it remained clearly visible on the shelf below. On returning to her car later she had been issued with the PCN. 
She went through Link Parking's appeal process via their website. The photos provided as evidence were insufficiently lit and were of poor quality. The photo taken at the angle which would have shown the permit was so dark and of such poor quality that although the permit could be seen there was no way of identifying it. She appealed on this basis and shot herself in the foot slightly by identifying herself as the driver. As mentioned in the previous post, she didn't receive the rejection although it is possible that this made its way to her spam folder. Fast forward a few months and she was in receipt of further demands for payment from Link Parking and subsequently BW Legal (obviously including their fake £60). In reading other accounts of Link Parking we understood them to be quite litigious and therefore a SAR was requested in anticipation of this going to court. 
On receipt of the SAR, we also made a complaint to the property managing agent. In hindsight this should have been done far sooner, but better late than never. Initially she contacted the Regional Property Manager with a polite but firm complaint explaining the situation and providing an annotated copy of Link Parking's photo to highlight the permit. He was initially very was dismissive and sided with Link Parking, as in his words "I am unable to make out what the object is, it’s certainly not very clear", somehow failing to recognise that it is the parking operators job to provide clear photographs as evidence. He claimed that as the issue had been referred to their solicitors there was nothing he could do. He also provided the following excerpt from an email with Link :

"We rejected this ladies appeal in December of last year and also wrote to her in January however she chose to ignore our correspondence. When we instructed our solicitors she then started to make contact again. There is no way our warden could determine if object she claims is a permit is actually a permit, and if it was he wouldn’t have issued the ticket. We also gave her details of how to appeal independently but she chose not to,  we have clear images of the dashboard as there is nothing display.
If you want us to help her the best we can do is accept £100 as its currently on £160 due to the solicitors fees we have incurred."

 A response was sent addressing all issues raised by both Link Parking and the managing agent and providing our own comparative photos to demonstrate how easily it would have have been to identify the permit with a reasonable quality photo from a basic cameraphone with similar ambient lighting. She also politely requested details of how to go about escalating the complaint if he was unable to help further. This email was ignored, as were 2 subsequent chasers. She subsequently escalated the complaint using details provided on their website, this time pulling no punches and even dropping the Regional Manger in it slightly for ignoring her emails. The email was quite lengthy but in particular she drew attention to the illegal £60, predatory conduct of Link Parking and the fact that Link Parking's evidence was wholly insufficient. She also requested written confirmation from their legal team that they had no power to cancel the PCN as the Regional Manager had implied. We were prepared for a further fob off from the managing agent, but this morning we received written confirmation that the PCN has been cancelled, much to our surprise. Lessons learned - complain early, complain hard, complain repeatedly and escalate as high as necessary. I believe she probably became such a pain in the backside it was easier for them to cancel the PCN.

A big thank you to all of you who provide the invaluable knowledge on this forum. Although it didn't reach this stage, we are confident that we would have had the knowledge to contest the PCN in court and already had multiple lines of defence in mind from the inadequate signage, abuse of process etc. We were even  able to locate a successful defence from 2016 based on the inadequate signage in the same car park. The majority of issues raised in the case still hasn't been addressed by Link Parking. I don't know that we would have had the confidence to stick it out without all the information and advice provided on this forum. Keep up the good work all. Not all heros wear capes.

Umkomaas

Great result and excellent report of events leading to the cancellation. The landowner complaint can be King! 👏

Coupon-mad

Very good to hear about your victory!  Shows the MA has the power to cancel a PCN then.
This is always Plan A:

Lessons learned - complain early, complain hard, complain repeatedly and escalate as high as necessary. I believe she probably became such a pain in the backside it was easier for them to cancel the PCN.

D_P_Dance

now you can contemplate revenge,

https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/letter/letter-before-small-claims-court-claim