Gladstones LBC response mistake, PCN for own parking space

McKins

I've read through the Newbies thread and searched the forums for examples and advice. However I think I have made a mistake and wondered if anyone could help?

I received a LBC from Gladstones regarding parking in my own space. The car in question is actually my parnter's car, if that matters, but all correspondence for this PCN comes to me.

The mistake I think I made is in my response to the LBC, in which I did not outline WHY I was disputing the PCN. See timeline below:

1. LBC received, dated 27th Sept
   
2. 12th Oct, I email PCM and Gladstones.
   2.1 Email to PCM is a SAR for both my and my partner's car number plates
   2.2 Email to Gladstones:
   
   <p>a) I am seeking debt advice but I deny any debt and the case must be put 'on hold' for not less than 30 days under the PAP for debt claims 2017.</p><p> (b) I have sent your client a SAR.</p><p> (c) My correct address for service is <redacted>, previously known address&nbsp;<code><redacted>.
3. 4th Nov, I receive a paper copy of the SAR sent from PCM.
   Pictures show no permit displayed, so my defense is primacy of contract (I rent the flat and parking spaces from my landlord)
   
4. 4th Nov, I email PCM to opt out of the parking scheme.

I am now a bit confused what to do next. Here is my plan:

Reply to the email I sent in 2.2 to Gladstones: (lifted posts off the forums and tweaked)

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: meritless PCN, ref PC2192363A

The above parking charge is disputed.  I dispute that there was a breach of contract, due to the fact that I have an existing an up-to-date tenancy agreement that has been signed by both myself & the landowner that indicates the use of my allocated parking space, and also has no reference at all to the need for a parking permit to be displayed. The tenancy agreement provides me with the right to freely enjoy the parking space that I pay for. No other contract that you have attempted to engage me in supercededs this. My tenancy agreement therefore has primacy of contract.

The car was not parked on a roadway, yellow line, paved, hatched or landscaped area, but was parked in none other than parking bay 64 and/or 65 - the parking bays allowed to me for free use by the landownder.

In addition to the above, I would also like to point out that UKCPM does not employ any robust system to protect residents that have the right to freely enjoy their own legitimate parking space. UKCPM in this instance has obtained a contract to manage the parking on this land supposedly assist residents by preventing/ discouraging people who do NOT have a right to freely park here. However, instead they are actively persuing residents that do indeed have a right to park in their spaces. If UKCPM had a genuine interest to protect the rights of the residents to their parking space, they would have a robust system to prevent them from accidentally penalising residents for using their own spaces. They dont have any system in place, which suggests that these in fact are the very people (residents) whom they wish to profit from. To "manage" these car parks under the guise of doing so to assist the residents that they are in fact targeting, is dishonest and a gross misrepresentation.

Do not send debt demands.  Do not string the matter out for months.   See you in court, or cancel this meritless charge immediately.

Yours faithfully,

your name

Could someone kindly advise if this above response is good enough? Or if I should be doing something else?

Thank you!

Coupon-mad

Can't see that under the 'spoiler' which isn't opening for me on my phone.

You can certainly respond again. The pre-action protocol requires parties to try to avoid court. So stare your dispute: you never contracted with their client as this is your space and the so-called permit scheme was foisted on residents and not an obligation under the lease, etc.

But DO NOT pay!

McKins

Coupon-mad said:

Can't see that under the 'spoiler' which isn't opening for me on my phone.

You can certainly respond again. The pre-action protocol requires parties to try to avoid court. So stare your dispute: you never contracted with their client as this is your space and the so-called permit scheme was foisted on residents and not an obligation under the lease, etc.

But DO NOT pay!

Thank you so much! Do they even notify you if the case is dropped? Honestly I'm at the end of my tether with these guys, it's felt like harassment ever since I moved in!

Apologies for the initial formatting, tried to make it a bit neater, but will include the spoilered text here for anyone else who may find it useful but cannot view:

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: meritless PCN, ref PC2192363A

The above parking charge is disputed.  I dispute that there was a breach of contract, due to the fact that I have an existing an up-to-date tenancy agreement that has been signed by both myself & the landowner that indicates the use of my allocated parking space, and also has no reference at all to the need for a parking permit to be displayed. The tenancy agreement provides me with the right to freely enjoy the parking space that I pay for. No other contract that you have attempted to engage me in supercededs this. My tenancy agreement therefore has primacy of contract.

The car was not parked on a roadway, yellow line, paved, hatched or landscaped area, but was parked in none other than parking bay 64 and/or 65 - the parking bays allowed to me for free use by the landownder.

In addition to the above, I would also like to point out that PCMUK does not employ any robust system to protect residents that have the right to freely enjoy their own legitimate parking space. PCMUK in this instance has obtained a contract to manage the parking on this land supposedly assist residents by preventing/ discouraging people who do NOT have a right to freely park here. However, instead they are actively persuing residents that do indeed have a right to park in their spaces. If PCMUK had a genuine interest to protect the rights of the residents to their parking space, they would have a robust system to prevent them from accidentally penalising residents for using their own spaces. They dont have any system in place, which suggests that these in fact are the very people (residents) whom they wish to profit from. To "manage" these car parks under the guise of doing so to assist the residents that they are in fact targeting, is dishonest and a gross misrepresentation.

Do not send debt demands.  Do not string the matter out for months.   See you in court, or cancel this meritless charge immediately.

Yours faithfully,

your name

Coupon-mad

They don't tell you if they drop a case. They just stop writing.

But most likely you will get the court claim you want (yes - because that's where you win!).

I'd drop your big paragraph entirely. And I'd attach a copy of your Tenancy Agreement.

McKins

Coupon-mad said:

They don't tell you if they drop a case. They just stop writing.

But most likely you will get the court claim you want (yes - because that's where you win!).

I'd drop your big paragraph entirely. And I'd attach a copy of your Tenancy Agreement.

Thanks for your encouragement, will do