Letter from Gladstone Solicitors RE: Parking Fines from UKCPM - Resident Car Park [Educational Only]

Trainerman

I think @Mouse007 is bang on the money (again). Lots of good stuff there. One of the best case law examples of forbidding signage is UKPC v Masterson

ms966

Umkomaas said:

Wasn’t aware of the pending DLUHC stuff, that’s good news, hope it comes to fruition…it would surely frustrate these scammers. 

Please contribute to it. Your posts above show you have a great way with words and I'm sure you can make a very thoughtful and telling contribution to this absolutely final opportunity to bring the private parking sector under sensible control. If we fail in doing so, the sector will have a licence to print money, with British motorists being ravaged even more than they are currently (over 11 million private parking tickets issued in the past 12 months - now a £1billion easy-pickings sector!).  Last chance saloon time.

I will look into this further and do my best to play my part by contributing where possible. Shamefully admit that I was part of that £1bn contribution and only recently decided to fight back as I have the means to do so now and not afraid to lose if it comes to that. Also, encouraged by a small win with local council based on a “muscle memory” argument, maybe luck, but hey I’m taking some credit haha. 

Coupon-mad

You don't need means to defend parking claims.  There's no risk and no huge costs; everyone here defends (regardless of facts because it's just a numbers game to the bulk litigators).

Glad to hear you will not pay one again all the time that the parking industry remains unregulated and out of control.

Kick the LBC can down the road by engaging with and dangling  Gladstones on the end of a dog-lead, to avoid a claim in July and get past the date when the DLUHC publish their detailed draft Impact Assessment and Consultation .

ms966

Mouse007 said:

ms966 said:

Mouse007 said:

@ms996 if you reply to the above I will be encouraged to help (too many ask and disappear without trace)

Thank you, much appreciated!

You're a night owl!

8.1 of your AST Agreement - the right to quiet enjoyment without interruption

Absolutely no mention of parking or permit

The "Dwelling known as" is not further defined but you have the advert and correspondance confirming the dwelling includes a parking space. A space that can only be accessed with a fob to open the gate.

Have a look at the sign - take a good picture. What do they actually say? I bet it is something like Permit Holders Only. That is forbidding, it it not making an offer to park. The signs can not therefore create a contract in contrast to the Parking Eye v Beavis case. When the County Court claim comes in I further bet they will claim on the basis of contractual obligation. Your response, what contract?

Meanwhile you already have a contract, an AST Agreement, and from the contract negotiations the right to park, evidenced by both possession of the key fob to a gated compound and the narrative in the property particulars.

No signs, even if they were correctly worded, can displace your pre existing rights. While you might have displayed a permit out of courtesy you were under no obligation to actually do so.

Defence: Lack of contract, forbidding signs.

My son's Defence and later Witness Statement are in my thread mentioned above.

Edit to add:

The interuption to your quiet enjoyment is a breach of your AST Agreement. You should complain again to the Landlord and their agents pointing out that this breach of contract, known as a derogation of grant (google that) is actionable in law.

Haha indeed, struggle with self-diagnosed insomnia post-uni 😅. 

As you rightly pointed out, the signs align with the points you mention (see attachments). 

Also, attaching the email confirmation from my landlord confirming my parking bay number without mentioning any permit requirement and the property advert on Rightmove which again does not mention permit requirements anywhere. 

I tried multiple times with landlord and estate management, they are awful and simply refer me to UKCPM appeal process (attaching a snippet of my email to them for ref.). 

Thanks for the inputs so far 🙏🏼

ms966

Coupon-mad said:

You don't need means to defend parking claims.  There's no risk and no huge costs; everyone here defends (regardless of facts because it's just a numbers game to the bulk litigators).

Glad to hear you will not pay one again all the time that the parking industry remains unregulated and out of control.

Kick the LBC can down the road by engaging with and dangling  Gladstones on the end of a dog-lead, to avoid a claim in July and get past the date when the DLUHC publish their detailed draft Impact Assessment and Consultation .

Agreed, now that I’m bit more in the know. Previously I saw it as £60 vs £250 (potential amount I would’ve paid had it gone to court, rough amount based on some online research) and so took the easy route and paid up. Few years back, £250 was a lot to me coming from an extremely deprived background and did not want to place myself in a position where I could potentially lose that much…not so much these days thankfully and I say this with no disrespect. Was in my youth with little life experiences, that too played a part. 

ms966

Coupon-mad said:

You don't need means to defend parking claims.  There's no risk and no huge costs; everyone here defends (regardless of facts because it's just a numbers game to the bulk litigators).

Glad to hear you will not pay one again all the time that the parking industry remains unregulated and out of control.

Kick the LBC can down the road by engaging with and dangling  Gladstones on the end of a dog-lead, to avoid a claim in July and get past the date when the DLUHC publish their detailed draft Impact Assessment and Consultation .

P.S love the jibes at Gladstone 😅

Coupon-mad

ms966 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Anyone at LBC stage with 'potentially upcoming court proceedings' should be delaying the claim for a month by saying they are "seeking debt advice and as defined in the Pre-Action protocol, the potential Claim must be placed 'on hold' for a month at least. Further, the fake £70 admin/DRA fee (greedily slapped on top in multiples, per PCN) must be removed because the DLUHC is surely about to ban that attempt to "extort money from motorists" (again, as they did in 2022)."

Tell them this and that their ex-clamper clients can damn well get lost.  Rude as you like, within reason!

I say this now because the the third week in July is when we hope the DLUHC will have published their draft Impact Assessment and Public Consultation. 

Anticipated 'before Summer recess' in Parliament.

I'm hoping for useful words and clear analysis about the fake £70 'fee' slapped on top of private PCNs, which will (fingers crossed) help to blow a lot of ongoing exaggerated court and pre-court cases out of the water and hopefully expose a systematic attempt to "extort money from motorists" (Minister's words).

At the very least it will inform your defence!  So kick the can down the road a bit.

On my email, I attached the “reply form” Gladstone Solicitors requested in which I made that request for 30 days for debt advice in line with PAP guidelines (read somewhere on another thread). They apparently automatically allow 30 days upon sending a replying before their initial 30 day deadline (which I did). 

Will that get you to the end of July?

If not then keep them dangling, reply again and ask a question - maybe ask for a copy of the Head lease that their clients are relying on to ride roughshod over the residents' primacy of contract.  And ask when their clients are actually planning on complying with the DLUHC CoP?!

ms966

Coupon-mad said:

ms966 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Anyone at LBC stage with 'potentially upcoming court proceedings' should be delaying the claim for a month by saying they are "seeking debt advice and as defined in the Pre-Action protocol, the potential Claim must be placed 'on hold' for a month at least. Further, the fake £70 admin/DRA fee (greedily slapped on top in multiples, per PCN) must be removed because the DLUHC is surely about to ban that attempt to "extort money from motorists" (again, as they did in 2022)."

Tell them this and that their ex-clamper clients can damn well get lost.  Rude as you like, within reason!

I say this now because the the third week in July is when we hope the DLUHC will have published their draft Impact Assessment and Public Consultation. 

Anticipated 'before Summer recess' in Parliament.

I'm hoping for useful words and clear analysis about the fake £70 'fee' slapped on top of private PCNs, which will (fingers crossed) help to blow a lot of ongoing exaggerated court and pre-court cases out of the water and hopefully expose a systematic attempt to "extort money from motorists" (Minister's words).

At the very least it will inform your defence!  So kick the can down the road a bit.

On my email, I attached the “reply form” Gladstone Solicitors requested in which I made that request for 30 days for debt advice in line with PAP guidelines (read somewhere on another thread). They apparently automatically allow 30 days upon sending a replying before their initial 30 day deadline (which I did). 

Will that get you to the end of July?

If not then keep them dangling, reply again and ask a question - maybe ask for a copy of the Head lease that their clients are relying on to ride roughshod over the residents' primacy of contract.  And ask when their clients are actually planning on complying with the DLUHC CoP?!

Correct, I should not be receiving any court proceedings before 29 July from Gladstone. 

And sure, definitely worth trying - will draft something tonight and continue chasing throughout this month. Will keep you guys posted if I make any progress with estate management.

Mouse007

Trainerman said:

I think @Mouse007 is bang on the money (again). Lots of good stuff there. One of the best case law examples of forbidding signage is UKPC v Masterson

UKPC v S Masterton fobidding signs

ms966

Morning guys,

As suggested on this thread, I reached out to my landlord (agent) once again, see my email and their response in attachment. 

Their response seems positive, at least much better than my previous conversations with them few years ago. 

Is there anything further I can add to convince my landlord that may sway them to reach out to UKCPM with request to cancel both tickets?