IMPORTANT REMINDER: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information. If you are uploading images, please take extra care that you have redacted all personal information.
PCN from Parking Control Management
MadMunk
Forumite 19 Posts
Hi experts.
I've done a lot of reading here over the last 8 months and I may be approaching that point of needing to draft a defence. I have received a LBC from Gladstones, on behalf of PCM, doing the usual last minute begging/bullying trying to fleece me for £170 for parking at my own residence in October last year.
Backstory:
I parked my car in their patrolled car park knowing about the signs. I left my car with a fully displayed "removable" permit in the holder provided by PCM. I returned to my vehicle to find a windscreen invoice on it. I found this confusing as I could read the permit, so immediately went online to look at their photos. It seems while away from my vehicle the permit had curled up almost into a tube. The permit was almost new at 8 months old, had been placed in situ and untouched, it does not expire until Q4 2023.
I contacted their appeals expecting an "oh, our fault sir, bad batch of permits, we'll cancel that and issue you a replacement permit ASAP". I think you can guess the response. Get stuffed, pay the fine and buy a new permit you peasant. Their stance was that it is my responsibility to ensure a permit is displayed at all times, 24/7, I parked there so I accepted the terms. As I do not live in my car and their product seems to self fail, I am at a loss as to exactly how they expect me to do this. I also never read a term on their signage about a requirement to revisit your vehicle hourly/daily in case the permit self fails. This stinks of insufficient product testing, cheap stationary and a lack of understanding about the thermal properties of plastic backed permits not directly adhered to a windscreen. Plastic and paper heat at differing temperatures, plastic faster than paper, thusly... curling. Derp! I have checked other vehicles in my area, and over in another town where my mate lives and PCM manage the parking. All removable permits show the same flaw. This is not specific to me.
I even contacted the PCM complaints department with a strongly worded letter and was pretty much accused of causing the issue myself by the compliance representative who responded. They inferred I likely damaged the permit by constant removal and replacement of it. Funny that... I'd never moved it
I have done IAS for fun, knowing it would get rejected but delay things a bit. As soon as Trace contacted me I shut them down and said do not contact me again, pass for litigation, I am not liable for the alleged invoice. I have tried the managing agents of the area I live. They do not even grace me with a response. I tried via my letting agents and they got a response that PCM would be willing to accept a £60 "admin" payment. Unacceptable. I owe them nothing. If anything, they owe me! A new permit and holder plus inconvenience pay for this whole charade.
Now, I have not been summoned to court yet, we're not quite at that stage. Request for SAR sent, no response yet. I am an organised individual and like to be prepared so just in case work and life are mental busy around the time that summons letter appears, I want to be ready. I have looked at the brand new template in the Newbie thread with the references to incoming new regulations etc but would appreciate it if someone could eyeball my additions against #2 and #3 and see if they're acceptable?
I've done a lot of reading here over the last 8 months and I may be approaching that point of needing to draft a defence. I have received a LBC from Gladstones, on behalf of PCM, doing the usual last minute begging/bullying trying to fleece me for £170 for parking at my own residence in October last year.
Backstory:
I parked my car in their patrolled car park knowing about the signs. I left my car with a fully displayed "removable" permit in the holder provided by PCM. I returned to my vehicle to find a windscreen invoice on it. I found this confusing as I could read the permit, so immediately went online to look at their photos. It seems while away from my vehicle the permit had curled up almost into a tube. The permit was almost new at 8 months old, had been placed in situ and untouched, it does not expire until Q4 2023.
I contacted their appeals expecting an "oh, our fault sir, bad batch of permits, we'll cancel that and issue you a replacement permit ASAP". I think you can guess the response. Get stuffed, pay the fine and buy a new permit you peasant. Their stance was that it is my responsibility to ensure a permit is displayed at all times, 24/7, I parked there so I accepted the terms. As I do not live in my car and their product seems to self fail, I am at a loss as to exactly how they expect me to do this. I also never read a term on their signage about a requirement to revisit your vehicle hourly/daily in case the permit self fails. This stinks of insufficient product testing, cheap stationary and a lack of understanding about the thermal properties of plastic backed permits not directly adhered to a windscreen. Plastic and paper heat at differing temperatures, plastic faster than paper, thusly... curling. Derp! I have checked other vehicles in my area, and over in another town where my mate lives and PCM manage the parking. All removable permits show the same flaw. This is not specific to me.
I even contacted the PCM complaints department with a strongly worded letter and was pretty much accused of causing the issue myself by the compliance representative who responded. They inferred I likely damaged the permit by constant removal and replacement of it. Funny that... I'd never moved it
I have done IAS for fun, knowing it would get rejected but delay things a bit. As soon as Trace contacted me I shut them down and said do not contact me again, pass for litigation, I am not liable for the alleged invoice. I have tried the managing agents of the area I live. They do not even grace me with a response. I tried via my letting agents and they got a response that PCM would be willing to accept a £60 "admin" payment. Unacceptable. I owe them nothing. If anything, they owe me! A new permit and holder plus inconvenience pay for this whole charade.
Now, I have not been summoned to court yet, we're not quite at that stage. Request for SAR sent, no response yet. I am an organised individual and like to be prepared so just in case work and life are mental busy around the time that summons letter appears, I want to be ready. I have looked at the brand new template in the Newbie thread with the references to incoming new regulations etc but would appreciate it if someone could eyeball my additions against #2 and #3 and see if they're acceptable?
0
Latest MSE News and Guides
Replies
The facts as known to the Defendant:
2. It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question.
3. The Defendant is a resident, living at the estate where the Claimant performs its parking enforcement activities. The vehicle in question is used approximately once every 2 weeks and remains parked the rest of the time.
4. The parking rights stated within the Defendant’s tenancy agreement allow for quiet enjoyment, and use, of communal areas and parking with an additional clause that states, “Parking Permits x2”. There is no detail within the agreement with regards to further contractual obligations for parking.
5. On the occasion in question, the Defendant parked the vehicle on the evening of 17th October 2021 at approximately 21:00 following a regular round trip to return their child home to the opposite side of London. At that time of the year, it was dark upon the Defendant’s return to their residence. Evidence submitted by the Defendant illustrates the lighting is insufficient to clearly read signage in the dark.
6. Upon returning to their vehicle over a week later, the Defendant observed a penalty charge notice applied to their front windscreen on DD MMM YYYY. This was unexpected and confusing as the Defendant could clearly read a permit in the windscreen but had still been issued a PCN. The Defendant immediately contacted the Claimant to appeal for a fair resolution and discovered within the online PCN evidence that at the time of issue, the permit had invalidated itself by curling up, almost into a cylinder.
7. The Defendant expected that the parking permit would remain displayed within the PCM branded holder between visits to their vehicle. That is the intended purpose of the products. Products which are sold to consumers and therefore subject to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
8. The failed permits were purchased directly from the Claimant 10 months earlier for a fee of £10 per replacement permit (x2), a free permit holder was also provided and in use at the time of the alleged breach of contract. The purchased permits were therefore less than 12 months old and did not expire until November 2023. It would be reasonable to expect a product to last until it expires at the bare minimum.
9. The Defendant has provided the Claimant evidence of proof of residence, a right to park in form of tenancy agreement, and that the alleged invalid permit was valid and in date at the time of failed inspection.
10. The Defendant has contacted their letting agent, landlord and the managing agents holding the service contract on the landowners’ behalf in order to strike the unfair charge from the record to no avail.
11. The Defendant has provided prompt replies to all communications with the Claimant and has appealed to the Claimants complaints department with regards to the supplied permit product self-failing. This was met with accusation by the Claimant that the Defendant had invalidated the permit themselves, thus causing the issue. The permit was placed in the prescribed location, using the resources provided by the Claimant, in the manner instructed, and had not been moved/tampered with, therefore the Defendant is failing to understand the logic behind this accusation.
12. The Claimant has not provided the Defendant any evidence requested with regards to validation of its permit products and feels no obligation to do so. Nor has the Claimant or its agents replied in a timeframe one would deem timely or acceptable in any of its correspondence.
It isn't a 'fine' or 'penalty' charge.
This is exactly what PCM are like:
Ex-clampers who were in Watchdog:
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2015/05/is-it-pcm-uk-who-make-up-stuff-all-time.html?m=1
Don't hang your hat on this debatable extra defence point but worth a look at the signs:
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2016/04/pcm-uk-signage-does-not-create-contract.html?m=1
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
Based on the above comments, which exact points would you suggest I drop? Just ping back the numbers and I'll strip that back out for the WS instead.
Never had to do this before, only ever went to court once in my whole life and even then I was a witness for someone being beaten into a coma. No paperwork for that, so this is a virgin experience for me.
Totally insane these cowboys are still doing what they do and I still feel this is an utter waste of a magistrates time or effort.
Keep 2, 3, 4, 7?
CLICK at the top of this/any page where it says:
Forum Home»Motoring»Parking Tickets Fines & Parking - read the NEWBIES THREAD
A heads-up - at least one is a "Lady"
Massively shortened and slightly reworded defence Coupon-mad + Le_Kirk. I kept the nomenclature so if there were any points from my original you think I should put back in, tell me which number.
2. It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle in question.
3. The Defendant is a resident, living at the estate where the Claimant performs its parking enforcement activities. The vehicle in question is used infrequently and remains parked the rest of the time.
4. The parking rights stated within the Defendant’s tenancy agreement allow for quiet enjoyment, and use, of communal areas and parking. The Defendant displays a permit as a courtesy not an obligation.
7. The Defendant had displayed a permit upon leaving their vehicle and expected that said permit would remain displayed within between visits to their vehicle. That is the intended purpose of the products. Products which are sold to consumers and therefore subject to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
Thanks in advance for any feedback. I appreciate your support.