Paid for a space still got PCN? Do I pay again?

Coupon-mad

To find one, I'd have to search, as I've no idea where they are.  I suggest you search for posts by me including:

Dear Sirs cease and desist

Ab93

Coupon-mad said:

To find one, I'd have to search, as I've no idea where they are.  I suggest you search for posts by me including:

Dear Sirs cease and desist

You are a star my friend, I have read many of your letters (which are gold btw) and think I’ve finally found one that is most relevant to myself as they are writing to me as the registered keeper of the vehicle and therefore liable, I hope you don’t mind but I will paste it below: 

I'd reply by email, with:



Dear Sirs, 

ref:  PCN ref xxxxxxxxx Smart Parking

I'm the registered keeper of VRM xxxxxx and was alarmed to receive a generic template demand from you.

There is no unpaid 'debt' and you should be aware that Smart Parking have never used Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012 and cannot transfer liability from drivers to keepers.

Moreover, neither Debt Recovery Plus nor yourselves can add £70 on top.  Just stop.  Cease and desist.  This matter is disputed on valid grounds.

As such, you must pass the file back to the originating parking firm.  Stop harassing me for a purported parking charge that a registered keeper cannot be held liable for, under any rule of law and certainly not by presumption.

As you are aware, the Government has banned the false 'debt recovery costs' noting that these were never actually incurred because the 'private parking DRAs' were operating free of charge for the parking industry, until the 'fixed late fee' scam was stopped this February.

In his Ministerial Foreword, DLUHC's Neil O'Brien talks of "aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists":  
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice

Under 'Escalation of costs' the statutory Code states: "The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued."

Whilst the Code of Practice is not retrospective, there cannot be a clearer steer for the courts than the fact that the DLUHC has declared the false added fixed fees to have been "designed to extort money from motorists".

Moreover, it is my position that any parking roboclaim legal firm which now issues a claim enhanced by the false 'debt recovery' costs - despite knowing that the DLUHC has banned them and declared this element to be 'extortion' - cannot possibly be acting in good faith.

As such, if the parking firm does now proceed to issue a claim enhanced by the (known to be false) £70 'fees', or if you write to me demanding this sum again, I will report you to the Solicitors' Regulatory Authority for breach of the STaRs: failing to act with 'honesty & integrity' or in a way which upholds public trust and confidence:

https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/standards-regulations/principles/

You have also failed to send a compliant letter before claim and are attempting to mislead a registered keeper about liability.  Your shoddy letter fails to meet CSA and SRA standards and is designed to extort money and to frighten and intimidate me, with dire consequences of CCJs as well as the exaggerated quantum.

Your random threatogram is not a Letter Before Claim and your so-called client is not the parking firm potential Claimant, but a third party: DRP.  They have no cause of action, nor a legal department.  There is no valid reason for DRP or yourselves to be writing to me at all.  The driver will not be named because I have no wish to inflict them with your rubbish.

Be on notice that I will counterclaim for a three figure sum for damages for distress caused by harassment and data abuse, should your clients' clients (the parking firm) now try a claim.

yours faithfully


My only question is that would the second paragraph (referencing the schedule 4/Pofa) still be applicable to my PPC (secureaspace) and if it isn’t, could I just remove that paragraph and chop and change the names of the collection agencies that are sending me letters? In fact I don’t think much would need to be changed as I’ve had letters from DRP,
CST law and now DCBLegal, would it even be worth adding that i’m actually not a fan of my personal details being passed around so freely between these clowns 

thanks again and I do apologise for all the notifications 

Umkomaas

That looks to be an older LBC rebuttal as things have changed in regard to the £70 add-on - the Govt intending further consultation on its level/validity. 

It also looks to be a rebuttal of a CST LBC, yours is from DCB Legal, so your draft seems to be slightly off-point. 

Please do a further search, using the key words @Coupon-mad supplied, but add DCB Legal alongside them.  Also, make sure you sort by 'Newest' rather than the default 'Best Match'. 

Fruitcake

Referring to the PoFA is irrelevant if the NTK was PoFA compliant, or the driver's identity is known to the PPC. In an own space case it is normally better to admit being the driver anyway.

The new CoP has not yet been implemented so you cannot state that the fake add on costa have been banned. What you can say is that the government intends to ban them.

Whatever source you use for your cease and desist instruction, make sure you change the name of the PPC to the one infesting your residential site.

On that matter, you haven't answered the questions I asked two days ago.

Coupon-mad

It's also not "Smart Parking" in your case and surely your main point for this robust response going to be about it being a demised space that you pay for. That's what you should be hitting them with.

Were you driving? If so, the POFA is irrelevant!

When I said look at one of my robust LBC responses, I just meant take inspiration from examples, and copy the assertive style of it, not the substance if irrelevant to your case.  Don't look for what you may think is matching subject matter (NB:  it doesn't look to us like the PoFA is your defence).

You are writing the middle part yourself.  About owning or leasing the bay - primacy of contract.

Ab93

Me again sorry guys, 

Well I have definitely been inspired and I have attempted a robust reply however you’ll have to forgive me as I am struggling with the referencing and quoting of claims which you all seem to be very fluent in, am I right in saying this robust reply shouldn’t include too much or anything at all from my defence? For the same reason I shouldn’t send an SAR? Like a cards close to your chest sort of thing or have I got that completely wrong? Anyway I’ve shamelessly stolen a paragraph or 2 and attached it to my own writing and if it looks alright I’ll go ahead and just send it to them or if I should remove any then I shall, (critique is welcomed) as the issue date was 19th may 

Thanks 

Dear sirs 

DCBLegal reference: XXXXXXX

Requirement for DCBLegal to cease and desist 

To whom it may concern, 

I am writing in relation to the ‘letter of claim’ I have received and deny any ‘debt’ to you or your client and demand you immediately stop implying otherwise. This is harassment. 

As you continue to send letters to my address I can safely assume that you believe I am a resident at the location the PCN was issued, therefore, hopefully it is not beyond the realms of possibility that you have considered that, as a resident, I am entitled to permit(s) permitting parking in the area in question. 

Not only is the sum you are demanding ridiculous, it is unlawful, and can only be seen as extortion. You should know this by now. You have been told by judges in courts countless times. Please explain to me on what legal authority you can increase the damages to myself by the amount you are suggesting and break down the costs incurred. 

Whilst the Code of Practice is not retrospective, there cannot be a clearer steer for the courts than the fact that the DLUHC has declared the false added fixed fees to have been "designed to extort money from motorists".

Moreover, it is my position that any parking roboclaim legal firm which now issues a claim enhanced by the false 'debt recovery' costs - despite knowing that the DLUHC has banned them and declared this element to be 'extortion' - cannot possibly be acting in good faith.

Yours faithfully 

Coupon-mad

I'd just stuck with the usual arguments about primacy of contract!

Ab93

Coupon-mad said:

I'd just stuck with the usual arguments about primacy of contract!

I’ve contacted my landlord and tried to recover my tenancy agreement but am still waiting, so I decided to search for other flats for sale in the same block and it says that one parking space and one visitors parking space is allocated so that is what I’m after correct? How would you word this? 

You are breaching primacy of contract? 

Please refer to primacy of contract? 

Thanks 

Coupon-mad

No. I'm afraid that makes no sense.

As last time, search the forum for the relevant keywords to read the enormous resource if examples already written.

...and read this:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/11/residential-parking.html?m=1

B789

Try something along the lines of:

Dear Sir/Madam,

You have issued a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) No.: XXXXXXXXX. Allow me to reiterate my stance firmly and without any ambiguity: your attempts to impose restrictions on my rightful use and enjoyment of my parking space, as detailed in my tenancy agreement, are utterly baseless and without legal merit.

It is astonishing that UKPC, an unregulated private parking company, has audaciously decided to involve itself in matters that have no bearing on its operations. Your organization is fully aware that you are not a party to my tenancy agreement, and yet you have the audacity to harass me with reminders and debt collection letters. Let me assure you that such vexatious behaviour will not be tolerated.

If you persist in your futile attempts to extract payment from me, I am fully prepared to defend my rights in court. I trust that you are aware that a judge will be the ultimate arbiter of whether I am indebted to your company or not. Rest assured, I will not back down in the face of your empty threats. In fact, I will take this opportunity to inform you that, should this matter proceed to court, I will not hesitate to counterclaim for your unreasonable behaviour and lack of understanding regarding the concept of primacy of contract.

Your embarrassing lack of comprehension of the fundamental principles of contract law and the rights of individuals will undoubtedly come back to haunt you. Your attempts to exploit innocent individuals for financial gain will be met with the full force of legal consequences. I am fully prepared to expose your company's predatory practices and ensure that justice is served.

I demand an immediate retraction of the PCN and an end to all correspondence related to this matter. Your continued harassment will only strengthen my resolve to seek legal redress and hold your company accountable for its actions. 

Let this be a clear warning: I will not be intimidated, bullied, or coerced into submission. I am prepared to defend my rights and pursue justice with unwavering determination. Your organization would do well to reconsider its practices and operate within the boundaries of the law.

Yours sincerely,

Tweak as necessary.