PCN for parking on own property, from parking company contracted by building management company.

FUDbyDesign

Coupon-mad said:

I wonder if this is something that the Leasehold Advisory Service might be able to look at?

Good point.  I actually tried calling them earlier this year but was never able to get through and then I got sidetracked.  I'll give them another go.  Thank you!

FUDbyDesign

Fruitcake said:

FUDbyDesign said:

Fruitcake said:

Debt collectors are powerless and can safely be ignored.

Remind the MA that they are jointly responsible for the actions of their agents, the PPC, and they will be joined in any legal action should the PPC take you and any other residents to court.
Have you read up on the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 for the requirements that must be made for an application to vary a lease to be made? Part IV Section 37 applies. Note that application must be put to all landlords and tenants.

Apathy amongst other residents is your worst enemy. They need cajoling and having things spelled out to them about the likelihood of them being taken to court as well, and that the values of their properties will be devalued by the infestation of this or any parking company.

Have you and any other of the like minded residents thought about forming a fightback group? Some residents have used leaflet drops and Facebook groups to do this with some success.

Thanks.  Yes, good point about the MA's joint responsibility. I guess that means if it goes to court, they'd in effect be taking legal action against a customer... on behalf of said customer?  

Regarding the variation of the lease, they are thus far refusing to consider it as such. Their !!!!!!-backwards thinking is that because it's not written in the lease agreement, it is not a variation of the lease.  I've pointed out that their action represents a material and unauthorised variation of the lease.  Will update the thread when I get a response from them, but they are always so s-l---------------------o-w.  

The opposite is true. If it's not in the lease, then adding it is a variation.

I was under the impression that before they impose a new parking policy, the MA is obligated to a) obtain consent from residents/leaseholders and b) have a variation be written into the lease agreement itself. Have I misunderstood this?

You could try sending the MA a LBC to concentrate their minds. Suggest that they should seek legal advice, and warn them that if the court finds in your favour, and they fail to pay, a CCJ could affect their ability to obtain credit. Copy and paste the exact words used by the PPC and/or their debt collectors.
You would then have six years to make a claim if you so wished.

That could be a good idea given their utter laxity. I'll be speaking with someone from the Leasholder Advisory Service in a couple of weeks' time so I'll ask them about sending the MA an LBC. 

Fruitcake

FUDbyDesign said:

Fruitcake said:

FUDbyDesign said:

Fruitcake said:

Debt collectors are powerless and can safely be ignored.

Remind the MA that they are jointly responsible for the actions of their agents, the PPC, and they will be joined in any legal action should the PPC take you and any other residents to court.
Have you read up on the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 for the requirements that must be made for an application to vary a lease to be made? Part IV Section 37 applies. Note that application must be put to all landlords and tenants.

Apathy amongst other residents is your worst enemy. They need cajoling and having things spelled out to them about the likelihood of them being taken to court as well, and that the values of their properties will be devalued by the infestation of this or any parking company.

Have you and any other of the like minded residents thought about forming a fightback group? Some residents have used leaflet drops and Facebook groups to do this with some success.

Thanks.  Yes, good point about the MA's joint responsibility. I guess that means if it goes to court, they'd in effect be taking legal action against a customer... on behalf of said customer?  

Regarding the variation of the lease, they are thus far refusing to consider it as such. Their !!!!!!-backwards thinking is that because it's not written in the lease agreement, it is not a variation of the lease.  I've pointed out that their action represents a material and unauthorised variation of the lease.  Will update the thread when I get a response from them, but they are always so s-l---------------------o-w.  

The opposite is true. If it's not in the lease, then adding it is a variation.

I was under the impression that before they impose a new parking policy, the MA is obligated to a) obtain consent from residents/leaseholders and b) have a variation be written into the lease agreement itself. Have I misunderstood this?

You could try sending the MA a LBC to concentrate their minds. Suggest that they should seek legal advice, and warn them that if the court finds in your favour, and they fail to pay, a CCJ could affect their ability to obtain credit. Copy and paste the exact words used by the PPC and/or their debt collectors.
You would then have six years to make a claim if you so wished.

That could be a good idea given their utter laxity. I'll be speaking with someone from the Leasholder Advisory Service in a couple of weeks' time so I'll ask them about sending the MA an LBC. 

For a lease to be varied, an application should be made in accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, Part IV. This application must include all landlords and tenants, and requires a majority in favour as defined by the Act.

You should ask the MA when (not if) this application was made, and what was the result of the ballot. Tell them varying the lease without complying with the Act is unlawful, and if the charge isn't cancel you reserve the right to issue a court claim against them for DPA/GDPR breaches, since they employed the PPC who unlawfully obtained and processed the keeper's personal data.

FUDbyDesign

Well (sigh) I had hoped this saga had finally died a death and I could get on with life without having to waste  everyone's time here helping me deal with these absolute jerks.  Alas, it seems life ain't that simple.  I've now received a Letter Of Claim from DCB Legal Ltd. 

I've read the sticky and slightly modified the suggested message as below, which I will need to email to their solicitor - once I find their email address.  Please let me know your thoughts.

Thanks as always, good people!

---------------------------------------------------

Dear Sirs,

PCN Ref(s): xxxxxx, xxxxxx
Proposed Legal Proceedings
Claimant: Capital Car Park Control Ltd

I refer to your Letter Of Claim.

I confirm that my address for service at time of writing is as follows, and any older address must be erased from your records:

xxxxxx

The alleged debt is disputed and any court proceedings will be vigorously defended.

I am sourcing and seeking independent debt advice and as such, I formally request that this matter be put on hold for an additional 30 days, in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims 2017 ('the PAP').

In addition, I note that the amount being claimed has been massively increased, although I take no interest in your excuses for doing so. In any case, I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and thus there is no basis for your client to hold me liable.

Under the PAP I am entitled to specific answers to the following questions:
1. Does the additional £280 constitute your so-called 'Debt Recovery' fee? 

2. If the amount is inclusive of VAT, why would I be asked to pay the operator’s VAT?
2. With regard to the principal alleged PCN sum: Is this damages, or will it be pleaded as consideration for parking?

Yours faithfully,

xxxxxx

---------------------------------------------------

EDIT: In case this thread is of interest to others, the email addresses for DCB Legal Ltd are paul@dcblegal.co.uk / danielle@dcblegal.co.uk / info@dcblegal.co.uk

Coupon-mad

"Additional £280" - so they are after 4 PCNs?

FUDbyDesign

Coupon-mad said:

"Additional £280" - so they are after 4 PCNs?

Two. There is another one in the pipeline which is still at the DCBL Ltd stage, but it’s not covered in this particular letter.

Coupon-mad

OK so your reply is wrong to talk about an added £280. It's presumably an added £70 x2

FUDbyDesign

The exact wording they use is “The amount of the debt is £340, which includes the PCN(s) and debt recovery costs. If a claim is issued, further costs will be sought, together with accruing interest at 8% above base rate per annum pursuant to s69 of The County Courts Act 1984.”

The initial “fine” for the two PCNs was £60 apiece so I should have said £220 markup, not £280.

Coupon-mad

No you shouldn't.  That is wrong.

FUDbyDesign

Alright, so looking through the paperwork I see the following:

Parking Charge (CCPC): £60 then £100 after a fortnight.
Notice to Keeper (CCPC): £100
Letter Before Action (CCPC): £100
Notice of Debt Recovery (DCBL): £170
Final Reminder (DCBL): £170
Final Notice of Debt Recovery (DCBL): £170
Notice of Intended Legal Action (DCB Legal): £170

Multiply by 2 to get the £340 they are demanding for the two PCNs.  In my email, I should be querying only the £70 (x2) that DCBL have added - is that right?

Thanks!