Own space parking charge notice, relevant TA details included.

Aether

Hi Coupon-mad,

Thanks, I have done just that.

Aether

Hi everyone,

Over 6 months later and I've had another email from gladstones asking for a copy of my old tenancy agreement to "review the matter further" with the requisite "our client is satisfied payment is due, pay us with the following bank details, you have until x blah blah blah".

Should I sent them the TA or an excerpt from it? To be honest I don't want to on principle but could not doing so be judged unfavourably if this did finally go to small claims? I'd rather just tell them they can see the TA when it goes to small claims or get it via PCM who can get it from the TA, otherwise they are wasting my time.

Honestly at this point I expect this is on some low priority list at gladstones since they probably see getting payment out of it as unlikely, but I can foresee them trying to slip a court claim through in the hope that I somehow miss it in another 6 months/next year. I take it dragging the process out for this long also wouldn't win them any favours in small claims?

Thanks for any advice you can give

Coupon-mad

Yes you should respond. Looks better in court.

Adapt the example of a robust LBC response that's in the NEWBIES thread second post and attach some excerpts and tell them their client can liaise with the landowner and look at the Head Lease, if they reckon they still have a cause of action, which they don't.

Please ask the question about VAT that's in the example. It's there for a reason.

Aether

Amazing thanks again Coupon-mad, I will write that up and send it

Aether

They are still trying it on after the LBC response unsurprisingly, latest email:

"

Good Afternoon,

 

We acknowledge receipt of your recent correspondence, and apologise for the delay. The contents of which have been noted and our response below.  

   

We write regarding the outstanding parking charge you hold on our files.

   

By way of background, this matter relates to an unpaid Parking Charge Notice ("PCN") issued by our Client to the vehicle with registration ******. The PCN was issued at our Clients site ****** as the vehicle was parked without a permit.

 

On this occasion, the vehicle was parked in a manner that contravenes the terms and conditions for the use of the private land on which it was photographed. These terms and conditions are clearly stipulated throughout the areas and upon review, we are confident that the Parking Charge Notice was correctly issued, in line with these signs.

   

The vehicle was parked without fully displaying a valid permit within the windscreen. The advertised contractual terms require a valid permit be displayed at all times. This is clearly outlined by signage and the onus is on the driver to ensure compliance with the terms. If a driver is unsure, they should seek further advice or refrain from parking.  

   

There are sufficient Signs on the Sites warning motorists that should they park their vehicle in contravention of the terms and conditions it will result in a parking charge being issued to the vehicle.  

   

If you choose to park outside of the terms set out on the Sign, you accept the charge set out on the Sign. The Signs form the contract between yourself and our Client. By parking in such a manner the driver accepted the charge.  

 

Further, you were offered to pay a reduced rate of £60.00 if the payment was made within 14 days. Thereafter, you were then given 28 days to pay £100.00.

   

Payment of the charge was not forthcoming within the relevant time frame and as such the contract between yourself and our Client was breached. Further costs have since been incurred as a direct result of the breach in facilitating recovery of the outstanding debt.  

   

As the charge remained unpaid our Firm were instructed to seek recovery and £70 has been added as mentioned in the Formal Demand.  

   

The charge sought is industry standard and is set at a rate so as to suitably satisfy our client's legitimate interest.  

   

In the case of Parking Eye v Beavis 2015 it was held that an £85.00 charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable. The Accredited Trade Associations of which parking operators must be a member in order to apply for DVLA data prescribe a maximum charge of £100 and our client's charges are within this level.  

 

The decision of the Supreme Court also made it clear that the charges are not penal nor do they have to be reflective of the parking operator's loss.    

   

We refer you to the IPC code of practice Part E Schedule 5. This confirms the following:  

   

‘Parking charges must not exceed £100 unless agreed in advance with the IPC. Where there is a prospect of additional charges, reference should be made to this where appropriate on the signage and/or other documentation. Where a Parking Charge becomes overdue a reasonable sum may be added. This sum must not exceed £70 (inclusive of VAT where applicable) unless Court Proceedings have been initiated.’  

   

With that being said, our Client remains satisfied that the charge was issued correctly and £170.00 remains outstanding. 

"

I plan to just reply saying that again their client needs to contact the landowner and view the head lease, otherwise I'm not interested in paying for using my own parking space. Until they do their client is in no position to claim their signs take precedence over a tenancy agreement. 

Is there anything you would like me to add?

Coupon-mad

Yes; the VAT questions in the LBC response example were there for a reason.

Tell them that you are about to report them to HMRC because they have skirted around like politicians not answering questions; instead lecturing you about template 'background' that you did not ask any questions about.  They've failed to narrow the issue over VAT on the added £70.  This smacks of a refusal to answer valid questions about whether the consumer victim is being charged with footing the bill for the VAT within the added £70, or if not, is the VAT being paid to HMRC and by whom?  Or thirdly, are they saying they think admin/DRA fees are exempt?

Aether

Thanks I have replied and included the part about VAT and HMRC.

At the bottom it claims that "

In the absence of payment by 24/04/2024 our Client may elect to issue proceedings without further notice. 

"

So whether I will be waiting another 3 months for anything further or if I actually get something court related we will see.

Aether

Hi there,

It looks like they've got fed up and the script from Gladstone is stuck now:

"Good Afternoon,

 

Thank you for your correspondence.

 

We write regarding the outstanding parking charge you hold on our files issued to the vehicle registration ****

 

The parking charge notice in which was issued to you on ******* is a contractual charge in which you agreed to upon parking your vehicle at the site otherwise than in accordance with the terms as set out on the sign, our Client has not provided a vatable service.

 

Our Client's position in this matter has been made clear in previous correspondence and this position remains the same therefore we will no longer be entering into further correspondence.

 

Our Client remains satisfied this charge was issued correctly and full payment is due."

Uh I'm no expert but the line "our Client has not provided a vatable service." is an outright lie isn't it? I'm pretty sure PCM UK would be VAT registered if I did supposedly sign a contract with them for this service. It is off-street parking and from what I've read that is generally subject to VAT no? Let me know if you think I should press GS on that or contact HMRC.

Since this is PCM UK I can expect this will go to small claims court at some point now that GS seem to have given up?

They've not given any indication or evidence of balloting or even approval from the Housing Association or Property developer etc. Their main argument still seems to be screaming "SIGNS!!!" rather than actually engaging with what I've replied with. I think therefore I'm in a pretty strong position if it does go to small claims court since it seems that is all they have?

I can give their email another reply reiterating everything I've said but let me know if you think I should add anything else.

I've contacted my MP's office again after a long period of quiet from them but I suspect in all likelihood this will go to court one way or the other.

I could also try contacting the HA again but since I am no longer their tenant I imagine their interest is low in this unless there is a way they could end up involved legally as well?

Thanks

Coupon-mad

Uh I'm no expert but the line "our Client has not provided a vatable service." is an outright lie isn't it? I'm pretty sure PCM UK would be VAT registered if I did supposedly sign a contract with them for this service. It is off-street parking and from what I've read that is generally subject to VAT no? Let me know if you think I should press GS on that or contact HMRC.

Yes!  Go straight to an online report to HMRC.  I've done one myself.  It was easy.

Quote that line and say you now believe that Gladstones are not treating the debt recovery element (their own fee) as VATable.  Your question wasn't about whether the PPC had provided a VAT-able service.  It was about Gladstones debt recovery 'service' fee, which is undoubtably VAT-able and cannot be charged to the consumer because it's PCM who benefit.

Half_way

I could also try contacting the HA again but since I am no longer their tenant I imagine their interest is low in this unless there is a way they could end up involved legally as well?

As principal, they will be jointly and severally liable for the actions of their agents - ie the parking company.

 remind them of this put on the pressure and make them squirm