Shakespeare Martineau/PCM LBCC?

MisTeeeq

Hey,

I’ve been using this forum for a while and find it very helpful and have used the advice to fight a few unfair private parking fines - thank you!!

However I’ve signed up as for the first time I feel like these guys are about to take me to court over me parking in my allocated parking space where I live, but the permit was not visible (because it fell out the window, not that they care ) 

I ignored the letters I got from Trace debt recovery following advice on here. Around a year went by and I recently received the two letters attached from Shakespeare martineau. Am I correct in thinking this is a LBCC? If so, my plan now is to write to PCM making a SAR to find out the data they hold about me, and then tell Shakespeare that I am getting debt advice, and to request they put my case on hold. 

There isn’t much info I’ve been able to find about these guys, other than they’re a reputable solicitors, so it’s a little disappointing they’re caught up with these cowboys. 

Anyway, I intend to fight this the whole way so all and any advice is appreciated!

thanks,

misteeeq. 

Fruitcake

What does your lease/AST/property rental/ownership agreement/head lease say about parking, permits, PCNs, PPCs, paying PCNs/PPCs, court, your right to quiet enjoyment? What it doesn't say is just as important and will have primacy of contract over anything an unregulated parking company says.

I suggest you respond assuming it is a letter of/before claim. 

Start by telling the solicitors that according to Companies House records, their client, Parking Control Management Ltd, was dissolved in 2010. By acting for a company that was unlawfully trading after being dissolved they, ShakespeareMartineau, are leaving themselves open to legal action.
Tell them you will be reporting them to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority. (Make sure you carry out the threat, including a copy of the letters you have received and a screengrab of the Companies House web page).

Tell them that in any case their client is not lawfully permitted to issue penalty notices. 

Also point out that unregulated private parking companies are not permitted to add debt recovery charges as determined in the Supreme Court case of Beavis V ParkingEye, and the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, and the government's head of the DHLUC who said these alleged costs are an attempt at extortion.
Debt recovery companies such as Trace Recovery offer a no win-no fee service therefore it is known that their client has NOT incurred any additional costs to date.
Only standard fixed court costs can be claimed.

You should also point out that their client is neither a member of the British Parking Association (BPA) nor the International Parking Community (IPC) and therefore has no lawful right to obtain and process registered keeper data from the DVLA.

Also add anything you can determine from your lease etcetera to ensure the solicitors are fully aware that this does not require you to display a permit, and it has primacy of contract.

Say that you are surprised that they are not aware of all of the above, and suggest they seek advice about the law pertaining to companies trading once dissolved, and parking on private land before they decide to proceed further.

In addition, tell them that whilst you deny the debt you are seeking debt advice and require the case to be put on hold for 30 days in accordance with court pre-action protocol.

They appear to be new kids on the block with regards unregulated parking, so you need to give them a wakeup call and make them think perhaps this is not a business in which they want to get involved.

Send an SAR to the PPC as per the NEWBIES. You will need to include a copy of non-photo ID with your request.

Meanwhile, complain to the landowner and managing agent and your MP. Talk to your neighbours because some of them are bound to be in the same boat.

Fruitcake

Here's one we saw earlier, again with the name of a PPC that was dissolved. Unfortunately, the poster hasn't been back since June to update the thread.

PCN Charge... What do I do? — MoneySavingExpert Forum

Putting Shakespeare Martineau in the MSE search function brings up a couple of other threads but about non-parking issues.

Galloglass

Fruitcake said:

I suggest you respond assuming it is a letter of/before claim. 

Start by telling the solicitors that according to Companies House records, their client, Parking Control Management Ltd, was dissolved in 2010. By acting for a company that was unlawfully trading after being dissolved they, Shakespeare Martineau, are leaving themselves open to legal action.
Tell them you will be reporting them to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority. (Make sure you carry out the threat, including a copy of the letters you have received and a screengrab of the Companies House web page).

How odd. Some was suing Parking Control Management (not UK) yesterday in Edmonton. Meanwhile on the same day in Birmingham, SM's home turf, Parking Control Management (UK) were taking people to court. Are you sure this is not just a typo or an abbreviation. 

Shouldn't the OP check the paperwork first and then use the knowledge of the dissolution at a later stage? 

Fruitcake

Who is to say it is or is not a typo. The fact remains that on both letters the OP has showed us, the name of a dissolved company has been given as a client, and the named company is not a member of either trade association.

In addition, the letters state that the motorists failed to display permits issued by a different dissolved company. PCM (UK) Ltd was dissolved in April 2017, and PCM (UK) Limited was dissolved in September 2011.

The law is a pedant. If the solicitors are acting for a client, they must get the name absolutely right on their legal documents.

I take your point that there may be some advantage in keeping the above information in the back pocket, but I would be concerned that the next thing to land on the OP's doormat would be a claim form from the CCBC from a currently active company that is a member of a trade association.

Personally, I would show the solicitors up earlier rather than later that their work is shoddy and at the same time show that the prospective defendant knows what they are talking about. The letters already received can still be used in evidence to show that the PPC and/or their solicitor has not followed pre-action protocol.

If it were me, I would stir the pot now with the SRA and the OP's MP rather than leave it until later.

Galloglass

Here's the SRA register for SM. Not tinpot like the others so the threats won't wash.

https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/register/organisation/?sraNumber=442480

Secondly it is still better to look at the original contract (the signs) and the debt (the PCN) but both are missing. The OP would be better advised to get their hands on both or either as that's what will count in court.

So @Misteeq contact SM and ask for a copy of the original PCN if you don't have it and then you can raise the issue with them about the creditor.

Wonder if the poor bloke suing PCM was successful.

Umkomaas

Wonder if the poor bloke suing PCM was successful.

I wonder if there's any connection to this previous thread (other residents)?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6128690/legal-claim-for-damages-against-parking-control-management-uk-ltd

Fruitcake

There is more than one variation of companies with Parking Control Mangement in their name include (UK), (Central Services), (South), (NE), and (Sussex) Ltd.
How is the defendant supposed to know which company has employed the solicitor?

If the solicitors are indeed a reputable company and not a tinpot outfit, they are still legally bound to undertake due diligence, and to follow pre action protocol.

It looks like the OP may have a number of options.

Complain now, and in addition to the points I have already mentioned, warn the solicitors that their claimant has previously lost a similar case.

Keep quiet until a claim arrives then complain that the PAP was not followed because they never received a LBC/LOC from the PPC infesting their residence.

Send a 30-day hold, instruction, then complain as above if/when a claim arrives.

Galloglass

5 DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS

5.1 Early disclosure of documents and relevant information can help to clarify or resolve any issues in dispute. Where any aspect of the debt is disputed (including the amount, interest, charges, time for payment, or the creditor’s compliance with relevant statutes and regulations), the parties should exchange information and disclose documents sufficient to enable them to understand each other’s position. 

Since they have mentioned the PAP, quote 5.1 back at them and, if you wish, combine @Fruitcake 's comment about which company as you cannot recall being in debt to such a named company - some of which did not exist on the dates quoted.

Fruitcake

I've just found this in the thread linked by Umkomaas.

Shakespeare Martineau need to be told about this when they eventually realise that they have got the name wrong. It's ammo to keep in the back pocket perhaps until later.

"Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd was given an ASBO by Windsor and Maidenhead Councils and was the first company to be given an ASBO."

It's also something to include in the public consultation when it eventually happens.

MisTeeeq

Thank you all for your quick replies!

Okay, so I think I understand what I need to do. 

I’ll write to SM asking for a copy of the parking ticket and ask them to place my case on hold whilst I seek debt advice (denying it of course). 

Hopefully that will give me a bit of time. Once I have that, I’ll compose a letter outlining the details of the differing companies that they have quoted. 

I’ll keep you guys updated. Thanks everyone