Resident's Permit Fell Down, Received PCN - Advice on NTK Appeal

Johnersh

OK, so the score is something like this, is it? ... 
1. The tenancy includes parking
2. The parking company cannot sell licenses to park since it doesn't own the land and likely doesn't have that authority
3. The signs purport to limit parking to specific bays/permit numbers, but in fact there are none. Therefore the element of the permit displayed was probably sufficient to show a permit was held. 
4. The terms have been complied with or substantially complied with
5. The claimant will concede that no financial loss has arisen (a permit was purchased) 
6. The charge imposed, in all the circumstances is a penalty (notwithstanding beavis) since the sums are punitive in nature, the restrictions apply to no other parties (the site is gated) and it is not open to a resident to park elsewhere such that there is an inbalance of contractual position. 

Coupon-mad

So the link I gave you shows the assertive tone to take when responding to a parking scam LBC.

The replies by @Friitcake and @Johnersh (a solicitor) show you what to actually put.  Don't ignore a LBC.  Robust response needed!

Qaribbean

Fruitcake said:

If you want extra time, tell Gladstones that whilst you deny the debt, you are seeking debt advice so require the case to be put on hold for 30 days as per court pre-action protocol. Do this around day 25 from the date of the LBC/LOC.

Complain again to the landowner/MA and warn them that since they are responsible for the actions of their agents who are in the process of instigating court proceedings against you, you require the contact details of their legal department, names of the people who will be appearing in court, and dates they will not be available for court in the next twelve months.

Appreciate all the responses regarding the LBC.

Complained again to the landowners - I actually located the email for the General Counsel at the developer who owns the estate and CCed them in but still no response yet.

@Fruitcake On the first point regarding request for the case to be put on hold, is it acceptable to include that in the general response back to them?

@Coupon-mad thanks for the example responses to LBC, I'll write something up using the points from @Johnersh and attempt as much of the dramatic legal flair in your responses!

Coupon-mad

You need to know that July is an important time for a private parking announcement from the DLUHC that you can use in your court defence, hence why you need to reply NOW.

You must respond to the LBC to kick the can down the road into August, by saying you are seeking debt advice and have been advised to look at the imminent DLUHC Impact Assessment (due July) which will affect the sums claimed.

Let them know you know the score!

Loads of LBCs at the moment; the roboclaim greedy gits are no doubt hoping to get claims and inflated default CCJs secured before the DLUHC hopefully put the nail in the coffin of the false added £60/£70 'fee' add-on.

Fruitcake

Qaribbean said:

Fruitcake said:

If you want extra time, tell Gladstones that whilst you deny the debt, you are seeking debt advice so require the case to be put on hold for 30 days as per court pre-action protocol. Do this around day 25 from the date of the LBC/LOC.

Complain again to the landowner/MA and warn them that since they are responsible for the actions of their agents who are in the process of instigating court proceedings against you, you require the contact details of their legal department, names of the people who will be appearing in court, and dates they will not be available for court in the next twelve months.

Appreciate all the responses regarding the LBC.

Complained again to the landowners - I actually located the email for the General Counsel at the developer who owns the estate and CCed them in but still no response yet.

@Fruitcake On the first point regarding request for the case to be put on hold, is it acceptable to include that in the general response back to them?

@Coupon-mad thanks for the example responses to LBC, I'll write something up using the points from @Johnersh and attempt as much of the dramatic legal flair in your responses!

Requesting a 30 day hold is in the court pre-action protocol for debt claims. It is your right to a 30 day hold. I suggest you exercise that right.

Do not miss the deadline on your LBC to exercise your right, but don't jump too soon. I suggest you send the 30 day hold instruction about five days before that deadline.
Remember to use the magic words, "Whilst I deny the debt, I am seeking debt advice".

Qaribbean

Put this together for them, thanks again to @Johnersh for the summary.  Sending today as it puts me in the right window for the response around day 25 as suggested.

Happy to take onboard any feedback before I hit send.

------

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing in response to your Letter Before Claim dated 12th June 2023, in which you threaten unwarranted legal action regarding an alleged parking violation.  As stated previously to your Client, their position is entirely unethical and borderline extortionate given my full rights as a resident of the estate where I live, however I will outline my position on this.

First and foremost, I would like to clarify that the tenancy agreement for the property in question includes parking as part of the arrangement. Therefore, any restrictions or charges imposed by your Client must be assessed within the context of the existing tenancy agreement.

Furthermore, it is important to note that your Client does not possess the legal authority to sell licenses to park on the premises, as they do not own the land in question. Without such ownership or explicit authorisation from the landowner, any purported licenses or charges would lack a valid legal basis.

Regarding the signage displayed at the parking area, it is claimed that parking is limited to specific bays or permit numbers. However, it is evident that no such markings or designations exist on the premises. Consequently, the mere display of a valid permit was sufficient to demonstrate compliance with any parking requirements that may be in place.

Moreover, I would like to emphasise that the terms and conditions pertaining to parking have been diligently adhered to or substantially complied with. Therefore, any allegations of non-compliance or violation are unfounded.

In addition, I kindly request that you convey to your Client that no financial loss has been incurred in this matter, as a permit was indeed purchased and displayed as required. Consequently, the claimant should recognise that no actual damages or financial harm have arisen from the alleged parking infraction.

It is my belief that the charge imposed by your Client is, in fact, a penalty, despite the Parkingeye Ltd. Vs Beavis [2015] EWCA Civ 402 precedent. The excessive amount claimed clearly demonstrates a punitive nature. Furthermore, the imposed restrictions solely apply to residents of the property, as the site is gated, thus creating an imbalance of contractual position. Residents have no viable alternative parking options available to them.

While I firmly deny any debt owed in this matter, I am currently seeking professional debt advice to fully understand the situation. As per the court's pre-action protocol, I kindly request that you place the case on hold for a period of 30 days to allow me sufficient time to consult with a debt advisor and properly assess the merits of your Client's claim.

I trust that you will give due consideration to the points raised in this letter and act accordingly in advising your Client to cease and desist on any further actions in this matter. I expect a prompt response from you, confirming the temporary suspension of any legal proceedings, as well as providing reassurance that my concerns have been duly noted and will be appropriately addressed.

Yours sincerely,
Q

Coupon-mad

Remove all this (below) and change the sign-off to 'yours faithfully':

 and properly assess the merits of your Client's claim.

I trust that you will give due consideration to the points raised in this letter and act accordingly in advising your Client to cease and desist on any further actions in this matter. I expect a prompt response from you, confirming the temporary suspension of any legal proceedings, as well as providing reassurance that my concerns have been duly noted and will be appropriately addressed.

Qaribbean

Afternoon all.

No response yet on my reply to the LBC, however an interesting bit of news from the developers/landowners.  They've announced that the parking permit system for residents will be moving from paper to digital! Can't guarantee that my complaint to the developers that they should take that action is the cause; there is a neighbouring development that is managed by the same Park PCM but their system is digital so they may have decided it was time to change our development also, but it's a pleasing bit of news.

Also curious as to whether this change could be useful in my court defence (if it gets to that stage)?

Coupon-mad

Pleasing news (maybe) until you have a courtesy car one day (not on the permit list unless you bust a gut to add it within 5 seconds flat) or maybe a relative comes to visit and gets a PCN the minute they walk towards your flat.

Or an elderly or pregnant neighbour needs a Community Nurse to visit.  Or you have a delivery and in the time taken to bring it to your door, the courier gets ticketed.

More pleasing would be the complete scrapping of the idea that you need a 'permit scheme' and the sacking of the PPC immediately.  Your estate does not need any of this.

See you for the Public Consultation this month.   We need to get the new statutory Code of Practice over the line and the DLUHC's update is due in July.

Qaribbean

Coupon-mad said:

See you for the Public Consultation this month.   We need to get the new statutory Code of Practice over the line and the DLUHC's update is due in July.

Would you mind sharing the details - how can I attend?