UK CPM/Gladstones LBC for Residential Parking - Permit fell off dashboard

aquantumwombat

I used to live in an apartment building that had around 10 spaces on a concrete driveway outside it which was monitored by UK CPM and required a permit to park there. 
The permit was sorted out for us by our letting agent, and arrived in a letter where it could be stuck to the windshield or used as a loose permit if it needed to be transferred between vehicles. As I would have to give the permit back to the letting agents at some point, I kept it unattached from my car.

After around a year of parking on the driveway each day, I got a PCN sent through the post, to my parents house where my car is registered. A few weeks before my permit had blown off my dashboard whilst my girlfriend and I were in the car (I can't remember who was actually driving) and it had ended up face-up on the center console. I guess it had probably sat there for about a week, still perfectly visible from outside of the car, but requiring more than a minimal glance through the windshield to see. As I didn't get a ticket attached to my car at the time, the PCN only came some time later through the post, I was unable to take a picture/video of where the permit actually was at the time (I guess this is entirely intentional by UK CPM).

Not having received a private PCN before and not being familiar with this forum, I naively assumed that the parking company would be reasonable and I appealed the charge giving evidence that I was a resident in the building and held a permit. Clearly that appeal was rejected, as I had broken the terms of some contract by not displaying the permit on top of the dashboard. I had decided that I wouldn't pay out of principle, as in my opinion UK CPM were acting in bad faith and clearly have some very predatory business practices. I did some research and found this forum and some other websites. I decided I wouldn't pay as I believe the case against me is entirely unlawful. I assumed that at some point it would be reviewed by a human being and it wouldn't be taken any further. 

Clearly I was wrong once again. Over the next few months I received two separate additional PCNs from UK CPM. However on both of these occasions my permit was clearly visible in their own evidence that they attached to these PCN letters. I can only assume these further PCNs were an attempt to harass or intimidate me? I suffer from anxiety, for which I take daily medication, and so these letters had no small affect on my mental wellbeing, although I am still determined not to reward UK CPM for their predatory behaviour. I did somewhat rashly appeal the 2nd and 3rd PCNs using their own appeal system explaining that the permit is visible in the photos and that I suffer from anxiety would push for damages if they continued to pursue the fines. Luckily I didn't hear anything further about the 2nd and 3rd PCNs, although I believe I blocked their email address due to my anxiety so don't know the result of the appeal. 

This weekend I received a LBC from Gladstones solicitors, which I believe is just in reference to the 1st ticket.
I understand from the newbies thread that my next step is to send off a SAR to UK CPM and then also email Gladstones. Do I have sufficient grounds to seek damages for mental distress and should I mention my intention to do so in my letter to Gladstones? I wonder if this may be enough incentive to stop them taking such a weak case to court and I have genuinely experienced significant mental distress due to this over the last year and a half.

Should the case progress to court I think the below details would be relevant. Please correct me if I am wrong or if there is anything else that I could include:

• The sign which supposedly constitutes a contract between me and UK CPM (which I hadn't read or noticed until I got the PCN) is vague enough that I believe it could be argued that my ticket was in an acceptable location. "...permit must be clearly displayed in the front windscreen at all times", to me this sentence means it should be embedded within the glass of the windscreen which is obviously impossible, however you could certainly look through the front windscreen and clearly see the ticket. Granted it wasn't sat on top of the dashboard, which seems to be what they want, but that's not what the sign says. 

• I had written into my tenancy agreement permission to use the drives of the building, with no mention of any permit required. I believe the permit was only mentioned to us by the letting agency after we had signed the contract and we were certainly never asked to agree to any terms by accepting it.

• UK CPM doesn't own the land and are not paid to look after it. They only make money from issuing fines. Only residents park there, we never had issues with other people taking our spaces, so they only benefit by fining residents, which is clearly not why they were asked to monitor parking outside the building. Perhaps they also charge for the permits, but I never paid this charge as the permit was provided by the letting agent. I spoke to both the building management and the letting agent, who both agreed that I shouldn't be fined, but both claimed to have no control over the parking company. The building management claimed that the parking company acted in the instruction of the leaseholders and the letting agents claimed the building management arranged the parking company and that the landlord has no say over the matter. The building management did email the parking company asking them to rescind the fine, but were refused. Ultimately neither the building management or letting agents/landlord claimed that they had any control or responsibility over the parking company. 

• My understanding of the Parking Eye v Beavis is that it doesn't apply here. You don't pay for the parking as it requires a permit, and I do in fact hold a permit. Therefore issuing a fine has no value as a deterrent, and hence the fine they have issued me constitutes a penalty. Clearly £100 is disproportionate, as no money is actually paid to use the parking spaces, it is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss on the part of the parking operator as they haven't lost a penny.

Coupon-mad

Don't use the first nor last points.

Do not admit to where the permit was, and absolutely never use the phrase 'it is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss'.

Gladstones won't drop the case.

I would tell them that there are 3 PCNs (duplicate facts, car, location and keeper).  The Defendant was a resident with a right to park without a permit and there was no breach of a 'relevant obligation' or 'relevant contract'.

The charges were all issued in a predatory manner, more than once when there was a permit on display as a courtesy (but not under any contractual agreement), and if their client is to proceed to issue a small claim, they must firstly narrow the issues, consolidate the duplicate PCNs into one case file, review ALL three parking charges, and confirm which ones they are now cancelling.

And tell Gladstones to forget the 'nice little earner' game of adding a false +£70 per PCN on top, which is believed to be done to line their own pickets and sidestep the cap on small claims legal fees.  That extortion just won't wash. 

Not_A_Hope

Your tenancy agreement takes primacy over any contract the PPC may claim you entered into by parking. If there is no requirement in your tenancy to display a permit you had been displaying one as a courtesy not as a requirement. Have a look for other residential PCNs

aquantumwombat

Thanks for the responses. Just so I'm clear then, is it worth mentioning any of this in the letter to Gladstones. Or should I leave all this information for my defense once they have made the claim?

Fruitcake

It is not a fine.

Your SAR needs to do to the DPO of the PPC along with non-photo proof of ID. Do this asap.

Then near the end of the 30 day deadline given on the LBC, send a hold instruction stating that whilst you deny the debt you are seeking debt advice therefore require the case to be put on hold for 30 days as per pre-action protocol.

This will give you breathing space to send a complaint to the landowner and your MP (plan A), as well as digging out your lease/AST.

Proving unreasonable behaviour is very difficult to do, therefore proving that it affected your mental health is difficult to prove.
On the other hand, a claim or counterclaim for a data breach is much simpler because you do not need to prove you suffered any financial loss.

Not_A_Hope

You can try telling Gladstones but they will almost certainly ignore it as that doesn’t earn them any money. Whereas continuing to harass you might. The people most likely to listen to you will the landowner or a judge

Coupon-mad

aquantumwombat said:

Thanks for the responses. Just so I'm clear then, is it worth mentioning any of this in the letter to Gladstones.

I wrote exactly what to say. Re-read what I advised.

aquantumwombat

I've been reading some of the other residential parking threads. Most of them mention the terms of the lease when discussing primacy of contract.

In this case I was a tenant, and my rent was being paid to a leaseholder through a letting agency. I have no idea what the terms of the lease were, I just know that my tenancy agreement had a statement allowing me use of the drives with no mention of a permit.

Does a tenancy agreement hold the same weight as a lease when using primacy of contract as a defense?

I'm fairly confident that the letting agent wouldn't allow me to see the lease, as they were consistently rather unhelpful when I spoke to them about the PCNs. They wouldn't even pass along my questions to the leaseholder and have I since moved and am no longer a tenant of theirs.

Coupon-mad

A tenant has primacy of contract.

A leaseholder's position is stronger but Miss Jopson was a tenant and this appeal decision is persuasive authority:

https://www.miltonkeynes.co.uk/news/milton-keynes-woman-secures-landmark-victory-flat-tenants-parking-dispute-873057?amp

aquantumwombat

So having received the LBC from Gladstones over 2 months ago, I responded with the recommended reply claiming I was seeking debt advice to put the case on hold for 30 days. I have been expecting to receive notifcation of a case being opened against me any day now but I instead have received a letter from Debt Recovery Plus, in the style of the letters I received early on from UK CPM, asking me to pay up without mentioning filing a case against me.

I'm not quite sure what this means? Have Gladstones passed on making a claim against me and passed the case over to another company who have started the process over again, or could that case still be coming any day?

aquantumwombat

On further inspection it seems that this is a separate, 4th parking ticket from UK CPM for parking in my own parking space.