Parallel Parking Ltd Parking Charge for Lease car and have received an LBCCC

Umkomaas

Any advice on next steps?

Sit tight and see what PP/Gladstones do next. It will be interesting to see, should it progress that far, what a Judge makes of the 'binding' nature of the IAS' Non Standard Appeal decision.

hop_skotcher

@Coupon-mad ... Heard back from our local MP, they got a response from Parallel Parking, someone called Kim Glasgow who effectively re-iterated that they'd followed all the correct procedures and that as we'd submitted the non-standard appeal with the IAS, which was dismissed, we are now bound to pay the outstanding amount as they are the T&Cs of the non-standard appeal.

Looking at one of your older posts here ... Is that legally binding thing with the IAS? - Or is it something we'd just have to try and argue if and when it ends up going to a small claims court?

Coupon-mad

You can argue it is a kangaroo court. It's meant to be binding but they don't make it clear that in fact you are paying to lose.

Effectively, you'd be saying to the Judge that you feel duped and are certainly entitled to a fair hearing which IAS never has been, IMHO (and going by all the evidence over the years).

96% refused and the fact they are being replaced by the Government as part of the new regulation of the rogue industry this year, tells the real story.

KeithP

@hop_skotcher, what happened next?

hop_skotcher

@KeithP - never heard anything off the back of it.
No follow-up from the IAS, the PPC or even Gladstone solicitors.

hop_skotcher

@Coupon-mad … Not sure if these threads are still active anymore, but to my surprise 5yrs on, and I've just received ANOTHER LBC by Gladstone Solicitors for this parking charge.

With it being such a long time, do I just reply with generic template you'd posted on the Newbies thread?…

"

Dear Sirs,

Your ref: [insert reference number]

Proposed legal proceedings

Claimant: [insert name of parking company]

I refer to your letter of claim.

I confirm that my address for service for the time being is as follows, and any older address must be erased from your records:

[Insert correct address here]

You should revert to your client because the 'propensity to pay' score in my case is zero, so any claim is hopeless and a waste of the court fee (whether 'fronted' by your firm or not). Move on to weaker victims.

The alleged 'debt' is disputed and any court proceedings will be vigorously defended.

Yours faithfully,

"

Luckily, I still have the old emails, which has the attachments where with phone log evidence that we tried to call up to seek help because the pay meter wasn't working.

Just not sure how to reply because it's been so long - I barely remember the circumstances myself!

Would appreciate any help.

Gr1pr

Either reply with the LoC response, especially if you have moved in the last 5 years, to confirm your correct address for the service of papers

Or ignore if nothings changed

But, the Limitations Act 1980 means that they have a 6 year deadline, so end of July 2027, so its in your interests to try to use delaying tactics to get it over that line, as coupon mad recently pointed out to another victim on here

Coupon-mad

Yes I would probably reply but I'd reiterate the facts:

"This particular PCN was on the basis I didn't pay the £1.50 charge for 30 minutes parking on 24th July 2021 at 15:00, whereas I did in fact pay for the parking, unfortunately by cash.
The problem was that when the ticket was printed, I'd noticed there was an additional digit/character preceding my vehicle registration number (VRN).
I immediately tried to call them on the contact number displayed on the parking board - with no answer on both occasions."

Attach your phone logs.

Finish by telling Gladstones that you now know about their very cosy shareholder/director connection between Will Hurley and John Davies, causing a conflict of interests with the IPC and the non-impartial IAS, which were all owned by Uniti or Will Hurley Ltd:

Given the non-independent (Will Hurley invented) 'non-standard' IAS charged you £15 to inevitably lose at their kangaroo court, and given this situation was a single digit keying error (or in fact a single digit system error) you were duped at the time.

But you aren't duped any more and won't be paying a penny. Moreover, tell them you will counterclaim for £300 if they try a claim.

hop_skotcher

Thanks all.

Have emailed Gladstones a reply now based on the above advice… Let's see what happens.