PCM/Gladstones Court Claim

DrAculaGonzo

Hi All,

I need some advice please:

My wife parked in our residential developments’ loading bays (yellow lines etc). These were intended for commercial units which are on ground floor of most blocks around however these are virtually all unoccupied (15 years after development was completed). Unless there is a street parking available this is the only viable place for her to park for few minutes to bring the shopping back home. At the time there wasn’t any availability on the street so she parked in the loading bays (does so frequently to be fair). Unfortunately she got a ticket from PCM. The signage is displayed right next to where she has parked and is rather clear so she cannot really claim the defence of having not seen it (aside from the fact that we live here for 10+ years and full well know that in theory every parking there means risk of a PCN. In fact we had a few before, but ignored them and they went away, i.e. not further comms post letter before claim were received). I am a registered keeper so all correspondence is addressed to me and I have never responded to any of the letters.

Chronology:

1X/07/21 – date of “offence” and postal notice (PCM)

X9/08/21 – date of keeper liability letter (PCM)

X4/09/21 – I made SAR request to PCM in relation to a separate letter before claim from Gladstones in relation to previous 2 x PCNs

0X/09/21 – SAR request response from PCM, which shows evidence for the two PCNs mentioned above and the one this trail is all about

2X/09/21 – demand for outstanding payment (Trace Debt Recovery)

2X/10/21 – final demand (Trace Debt Recovery)

X4/11/21 – initial “legal” letter (Trace Legal Department)

2X/11/21 – “pre-action protocol” letter (Trace Debt Recovery)

X9/09/22 (nearly a year letter) – letter before claim (Gladstones Solicitors)

1X/01/23 – Claim form date (County Court Business Centre)

The evidence obtained through SAR shows vehicle parked in the loading bays and the PCM signage being right next to the vehicle and one picture shows the sign itself. Another picture shows the residents permit I have for the off site car park, which could actually be construed to show that I have had the permit to park in the bays (even if I know that this is not the case).

Anyway, given all the facts above – am I still to defend the claim and if so how do I tweak the standard letter to take account or brush over the fact that signage has actually been quite prominent and that this is well documented in their photographic evidence? I drafted something below, but appreciate your views. In particular:

1. I'm worried about evidence etc for later in the process – as mentioned above signage in my case is quite clear and right next to the loading bay so not quite sure which bits (points a-I) from standard guidance I adopt and which ones do I drop?
2. The points raised in this link - https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5555458/irrelevant-defences-and-how-to-avoid-them#post71597350 – seem to go contra to the standard letter being suggested (e.g. the point around arrangements between landowner and PPC – the template letter suggests this is relevant, but in the link this is mentioned as one of the pointless defences…) am I missing something?

Either way, proposed paras 2 and 3 of the standard defence letter. Everything else remains unchanged, but please guide me if I should be tweaking anything else.

2. It is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question. It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle.

3. Due to lack of direct involvement and passage of time the Defendant cannot factually state the course of events on the day however it is Defendant’s strong belief that the driver parked in the loading bay due to lack of available street parking whilst in need of parking close to home in order to bring the multiple shopping bags up to the 5th floor flat without carrying it from the off site car park located several hundred meters away. Both the Defendant and the driver are residents (evidenced by the residents parking permit) at the development where the parking fine was issued and neither use the loading bay aside from the circumstances described or the need to load/unload the vehicle before/after long haul car journeys. Typically stay in the loading bays in question does not last longer than 10 minutes taken to bring the shopping home and unload frozen/refrigerated goods before returning to the car to take it to the offsite car park.

It is worth noting that loading bays in question have been originally intended for the commercial units on the ground floors of the development’s buildings however, due to the fact that these units remain unoccupied 15 years from completion of the development, the loading bays are virtually always empty and unused.

KeithP

Hello and welcome.

What is the Issue Date on the County Court Claim Form?

DrAculaGonzo

Hi Keith, Issue date is 12 Jan 2023

KeithP

DrAculaGonzo said:

Hi Keith, Issue date is 12 Jan 2023

With a Claim Issue Date of 12th January, you have until Tuesday 31st January to file an Acknowledgment of Service. Do not file an Acknowledgment of Service before 17th January, but otherwise there is nothing to be gained by delaying it. 

To file an Acknowledgment of Service, follow the guidance in the Dropbox file linked from the second post in the NEWBIES thread.

Having filed an Acknowledgment of Service in a timely manner, you have until 4pm on Tuesday 14th February 2023 to file your Defence.

That's over four weeks away. Plenty of time to produce a Defence, but please don't leave it to the last minute.

To create a Defence, and then file a Defence by email, look again at the second post on the NEWBIES thread - immediately following where you found the Acknowledgment of Service guidance.

Don't miss the deadline for filing an Acknowledgment of Service, nor that for filing a Defence.

Do not try and file a Defence via the MoneyClaimOnline website. Once an Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, the MCOL website should be treated as 'read only'.

DrAculaGonzo

Thanks Keith, will do and have it already lined up. I have read through all the guidance etc and will be filing acknowledgment by end of this week latest.

All that said I am a bit concerned you have not addressed the worries I expressed in my email or the draft defence I prepped (I am thinking a step or two ahead). I.e. I wonder if you still believe, despite my circumstances, that this is something I can win in court?

Coupon-mad

Yes. Winnable.  Case law supports you.

Add in wording about the persuasive Jopson v Homeguard appeal case. Search the forum.  You will need that case law at WS stage so mention it now.

You could also state that residents always - for years before PCN was inflicted on them without any consultation - used the loading area quite rightly, for unloading heavy items up to or from the flats and any other arrangement would make life impossible.

You could also add this was predatory ticketing in minutes, with no fair grace period allowed.

You've been there over a decade. Do you own the flat?  When were PCM inflicted on you all?  Was there full consultation with the leaseholders first?

DrAculaGonzo

HI Coupon-mad, thanks for prompt response.

Will add the wording you suggested when I get to finalising it this next weekend and post proposed draft.

Yes, I own the flat (leasehold) and PCM took over looking after the parking here at the end of 2014. Informally I was told loading bays were temporarily not enforced but after a while they started issuing tickets for these too. Rather than consulted I would say that we were informed by the landlord/managing agent through a letter they issued to residents back then.

Coupon-mad

You should put all that in (add extra numbered paragraphs) and use the standard wording found in other defences about:

primacy of contract and

derogation from grant and

the breach of the Landlord & Tenant Act.

patient_dream

PCM are well known residential scammers and one must question does the landlord actually know what is going on with their MA ?
MY FIRST QUESTION WOULD BE... how much is the MA earming from the scam ?

Even worse, this is a Gladstones claim.  Are you aware that Gladstones (Hurley and Davies) set up the IPC/IAS scam.
The IPC being the ATA to whom PCM are members and the IAS, the so called appeals service who allow 4% of appeals.
Who gave the IPC ATA status ?    our stupid government

Once the PCM appeal fails, the IAS will also fail and no guesses who Pops in then ,,,, right ... it's the inventor of the scam .. GLADSTONES

Get your MP involved because these scammers must be culled, that's PCM and the IPC

DrAculaGonzo

Coupon-mad said:

You should put all that in (add extra numbered paragraphs) and use the standard wording found in other defences about:

primacy of contract and

derogation from grant and

the breach of the Landlord & Tenant Act.

thanks, but one Q - my lease is a peculiar one. As my development was meant to be one of the car free developments I have explicit clause in the lease about applying for council parking. Does this affect in any way what you said? Thanks

DrAculaGonzo

patient_dream said:

PCM are well known residential scammers and one must question does the landlord actually know what is going on with their MA ?
MY FIRST QUESTION WOULD BE... how much is the MA earming from the scam ?

Even worse, this is a Gladstones claim.  Are you aware that Gladstones (Hurley and Davies) set up the IPC/IAS scam.
The IPC being the ATA to whom PCM are members and the IAS, the so called appeals service who allow 4% of appeals.
Who gave the IPC ATA status ?    our stupid government

Once the PCM appeal fails, the IAS will also fail and no guesses who Pops in then ,,,, right ... it's the inventor of the scam .. GLADSTONES

Get your MP involved because these scammers must be culled, that's PCM and the IPC

Maybe I'm a bit sheepish here, but ultimately my wife parked there knowing she shouldn't and that she may get a ticket... (just as she did several times before that, but luckily they did not pursue other tickets)
What I'm saying is that with this particular ticket, I am not in the position like some people where it was issued in completely unreasonable circumstances etc...

But given your bullish responses I am starting to feel like the main premise of my challenge is that the whole industry is set up unfairly and there is no real legal basis to it etc, rather than my specific circumstances. Would this be a fair, high level summary? I'm not that great with legals and want to make sure I understand the general premise of my challenge before I actually decide how to proceed. With your support I feel emboldened to challenge, but really need to understand in my head what my defence is (and please don't refer me to all the 50 points in the proposed defence which I have mostly read, because they are legalspeak and I just want a 2 sentence summary for a layman...Thanks