Need Help. Over £12,500!

KeithP

wooderson said:

 the issue date on all the claims is 8th September

With a Claim Issue Date of 8th September, you have until Monday 27th September to file an Acknowledgment of Service. Do not file an AoS before 11th September, but otherwise there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an AoS, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an AoS in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Monday 11th October 2021 to file your Defence.
That's over four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service instructions.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that for filing a Defence.

Rodent3768

Is it a proper claim letter or is it a letter before action as AutoSec are more of a bully boy using scare tactics to try and illicit a payment than actually going to court (although for the value of your invoices it might be worth him doing it). If you haven't already done it, send a SAR to AutoSec using info@autosec.co (it's a strange email I know) for each member of your family and vehicle. When they come back saying the information is available on the payment portal go back and chase for it as it's only the data, not the full PCN. You will never get any information which should make them realise they have no evidence to produce in court.

D_P_Dance

I agree with DC.  If I were you I wold try to negotiate a settlement,    The PPC appears to hold all the trumps.

Snakes_Belly

When you initially rented the flat was there any mention of parking spaces in the lease? You may have been entitled to a permit.

What is the postcode of the property?

Were all the PCN's for the same transgression?

Voyeurmse

Q: with all these cases how on earth can Del Grosso, with ‘zero’ employees manage to distribute so many PCN’s all over the country?

At 58yrs old he must be knackered, being a director of 9 companies, a parking inspector, driver, a secretary, receptionist, DPO, racist, bully and all round scroat.   

wooderson

Update:

I am just filing AOS for all these cases today. We plan to defend and potentially launch a counterclaim for harassment and criminal damage (I need to seek legal advice on this part).

I've found a letter from a couple of years ago from the Property Management company that confirms that we can park there if we have prior agreement with from the commercial units; at the time we did indeed have verbal agreement from the managers of the 2 commercial units.

Also the charge made is excessive because the nobody has suffered loss, injury or damage whatsoever. Is this a correct line of thinking? Doesn't the law (Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999) state that all they can do is charge for any lost income or other losses or damages?

A sidenote: I also found an email where my mum asked the Freehold Company (different from the Property Management company) who it was that owned the land at the back and the asset manager responded that he was "not sure" and they themselves "do not own that part". However, the Property Management company confirmed to us that it was indeed the Freehold Company that owned the land and they were the ones in charge of employing the private parking company. So essentially, during our investigation, we've been lied to by our own Freehold Company regarding ownership of the land. Isn't that illegal?
Also the Freehold Company said he thinks that we "should not have to pay as [we] had a verbal agreement with [the commercial units]".

Last part: In the AOS, there is an option to "challenge jurisdiction".
Would this be an appropriate option for my Dad's claim who lives abroad or is this unrelated?

D_P_Dance

Also the charge made is excessive because the nobody has suffered loss, injury or damage whatsoever. Is this a correct line of thinking?

No, that was squashed in Beavis v ParkingEye  

wooderson

D_P_Dance said:

Also the charge made is excessive because the nobody has suffered loss, injury or damage whatsoever. Is this a correct line of thinking?

No, that was squashed in Beavis v ParkingEye  

But this private land is not land where somebody has to pay to park there i.e. pay and display.

Surely that has to account for something; Beavis parked in a retail centre.

NCC1701-A

wooderson said:

But this private land is not land where somebody has to pay to park there i.e. pay and display.

Surely that has to account for something; Beavis parked in a retail centre.

I paraphrase but the Chelmsford retail that Beavis parked in was private land with free parking for fixed period of time, he overstayed.  The high court found that £85 charge for overstaying was reasonable and provided public benefit as a way of deterring abuse of the free car park.   

patient_dream

wooderson said:

D_P_Dance said:

Also the charge made is excessive because the nobody has suffered loss, injury or damage whatsoever. Is this a correct line of thinking?

No, that was squashed in Beavis v ParkingEye  

But this private land is not land where somebody has to pay to park there i.e. pay and display.

Surely that has to account for something; Beavis parked in a retail centre.

I think what Mr Dance means is all the fake add-ons they claim.

Why don't you get the units to confirm permission.

Also the Freehold Company said he thinks that we "should not have to pay as [we] had a verbal agreement with [the commercial units]".

Take the lead you have been given