PCM Ticket x2 for parking in an allocated park space - Mortgage on the Flat

Chippyshell

The letter does claim "Parking control management LTD" which is dissolved so I've put together a letter from the other threads, can you look over in case I missed anything. 

"

According to Companies House records, your client, Parking Control Management Ltd, was dissolved in 2010. By acting for a company that was unlawfully trading after being dissolved, ShakespeareMartineau is leaving themselves open to legal action. I will be reporting to you Solicitors Regulatory Authority if you do not cease and desist. In any case, your client is not lawfully permitted to issue penalty notices.

 

Unregulated private parking companies are not permitted to add debt recovery charges as determined in the Supreme Court case of Beavis V ParkingEye, and the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and the government's head of the DHLUC who said these alleged costs are an attempt at extortion. Debt recovery companies such as Trace Recovery offer a no win-no fee service therefore it is known that their client has NOT incurred any additional costs to date, and only standard fixed court costs can be claimed.

 

Your client is neither a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) nor the International Parking Community (IPC) and therefore has no lawful right to obtain and process registered keeper data from the DVLA.

 

I would suggest, you seek advice about the law pertaining to companies trading once dissolved, and parking on private land before you decide to proceed further." 

Jenni_D

DLUHC ... Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities  

Chippyshell

Received this response today. 

Thank you for your email.

 

Please see attached the final reminders and letters of rejection provided by our client.

 

Unfortunately, the information that you’ve gained from your Companies House search is misguided and inaccurate. Our client is Parking Control Management (UK) Limited with the company number 04395994. Therefore, we are acting for an active company who are not dissolved.

 

Furthermore, Beavis v ParkingEye did not consider debt recovery charges. This was clarified in Britannia Appeal 2020.

 

We have adhered to the Civil Procedure Rules and are acting on behalf of our active client to recover a debt owed due to your breach of terms and conditions.

 

This is an email to confirm that our client continue to uphold the full amount. If payment isn’t forthcoming, we may be instructed to issue court proceedings without further notice.

 

We look forward to hearing from you.

 

Chippyshell

Ironically I had to call PCM to get a new pass and they asked my house number and confirmed that the space is allocated, going to request it again and record it. 

Coupon-mad

Chippyshell said:

Received this response today. 

Thank you for your email.

 

Please see attached the final reminders and letters of rejection provided by our client.

 

Unfortunately, the information that you’ve gained from your Companies House search is misguided and inaccurate. Our client is Parking Control Management (UK) Limited with the company number 04395994. Therefore, we are acting for an active company who are not dissolved.

 

Furthermore, Beavis v ParkingEye did not consider debt recovery charges. This was clarified in Britannia Appeal 2020.

 

We have adhered to the Civil Procedure Rules and are acting on behalf of our active client to recover a debt owed due to your breach of terms and conditions.

 

This is an email to confirm that our client continue to uphold the full amount. If payment isn’t forthcoming, we may be instructed to issue court proceedings without further notice.

 

We look forward to hearing from you

Reply and say their knowledge of and loose citation of case law is misguided and inaccurate:

There was no case called 'Beavis v ParkingEye'; it was ParkingEye v Beavis and that case involved an automated PCN-chaser 'letter chain' of four letters plus a LBC, where £85 was held to more than comfortably cover ALL the "costs of the operation".

This followed an earlier case which did deal with the false costs. ParkingEye v Somerfield was ratified by the Court of Appeal, with no changes to the High Court's judgment that included a whole section on the abuse of the fake 'fees'.

By 'Britannia Appeal 2020' the Defendant assumes the writer might mean the unpersuasive fudgement of Britannia v Semark-Jullien which doesn't help the parking industry at all and should be consigned to the bin.

Chippyshell

Only took them a few hours to respond this time, short and simple.

Good Afternoon,

 

Thank you for your email.

Since no new disputes or queries are being raised and our client has already provided you with letters of rejection to your appeal, we must inform you that we may be instructed to issue without further notice.

 

Kind regards,

Coupon-mad

Is this Gladstones you are playing with? Useless aren't they!

Chippyshell

Coupon-mad said:

Is this Gladstones you are playing with? Useless aren't they!

Dare i say it the even more useless Martineau

Coupon-mad

Rare! Scottish case?

Chippyshell

Coupon-mad said:

Rare! Scottish case?

No England - Funny enough the management company came round today (new development manager) and is removing PCM from the area due to their shady business, no doubt we'll get some othershite soon enough. I've asked for the letter that is being provided by the management company to gather more ammunition if this case still carries on.