Private Parking ticket(s) whilst parked in my own space with the pass partially visible

Coupon-mad

Why do you think a debt collector can send someone round?  That doesn't happen.

englishguy31

Thank you both for the advice. Understood completely about the "sending someone round" - too much nighttime TV I guess 

Indeed, I did receive the "Letter before Claim" today from Gladstones. As you said, I went back to the Newbies thread and read in detail from post 2. Reviewed the linked threads (and many through the search on Gladstones), and have drafted the below email (to be sent to: enquiries@gladstonessolicitors.co.uk) based on the advice.

I'm assuming at this stage there is no need to add any more information as to why I'm disputing the claim?

Any advice would be useful, I'll send it later this week.

Thanks again for all your advice

Dear Sirs,

Your Ref. xxxx

Proposed Legal Proceedings

Claimant: xxxx

I refer to your your letter before claim.

I confirm that my address for service for the time being - assuming you don't faff about and delay any claim - is as follows, and any older address must be erased from your records:

[NEW ADDRESS]

In addition, I am not content to receive demands via text messages which I note you have already been doing. Please cease sending me demands in this way. Should it continue, I will block your number.

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').

I note that the amount being claimed has increased by a hugely exaggerated amount which the Government called "extorting money from motorists".

Don't send me your usual blather about that. I have two questions, and under the PAP I am entitled to specific answers:

1. Am I to understand that the additional £xxx represents what you lot dress up as a 'Debt Recovery' fee, and if so, is this nett or inclusive of VAT? If the latter, would you kindly explain why I am being 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

Coupon-mad

If you have a dispute that you want their client to answer to, you could add a question 3.

englishguy31

Thanks makes sense. Would it be right (in terms of phrasing) to ask them what document gives them the assumption I have agreed to their terms? In the letter they quote that by entering the car park I have agreed, however from reading I understand that to not be the case (and given my lease doesn't reference anything about parking I understand that to be the case).

The newbie guide mentions including anything else that is relevant in here but with all my searching I couldn't find good references to how to frame the questions with the right terms (if that makes sense).

Thanks again for all your help (and for the newbie guide in total, excellent resource!)

Coupon-mad

No, I don't think that's worth adding because the idea has no legs.

In a car park context, the driver IS deemed to have 'agreed to terms' by the conduct of parking a vehicle, if the signage is prominent and the terms clear.

The question really is how are those terms relevant to you, as a resident?

Do you own the flat?

Or are you a Tenant?

What rights are in your lease or AST about parking, rights of way or access by vehicle?  Anything about permits or complying with 'regulations'?

Were you there before the PPC got foisted on you or was there already a permit scheme?

englishguy31

Coupon-mad said:

No, I don't think that's worth adding because the idea has no legs.

In a car park context, the driver IS deemed to have 'agreed to terms' by the conduct of parking a vehicle, if the signage is prominent and the terms clear.

The question really is how are those terms relevant to you, as a resident?

Do you own the flat?

Or are you a Tenant?

What rights are in your lease or AST about parking, rights of way or access by vehicle?  Anything about permits or complying with 'regulations'?

Were you there before the PPC got foisted on you or was there already a permit scheme?

No problem, makes sense.

I am a tenant and there is no reference at all in my lease (or any other document) that references permits or compliance. There was already a permit scheme when I arrived and the permit was given to me (by the letting agent) and shown where the allocated space is. When viewing the property originally it was described as being included, however my lease doesn't reference anything about parking (other than access to parking is included where relevant).

I'll send them email over now and see what comes back

Thanks again

englishguy31

Thanks for everyone's help so far. The eventually replied to me today with the below email, in answer to the questions I shared via email above here.

Any feedback as to the best next course of action from my side would be much appreciated. Thank you all!

Good Morning,

 

Thank you for your email and apologies for the delay in responding.

 

We write regarding the above matter.

 

1. The Amount Due/ Debt includes £70.00 (per charge) claimed by our Client for the time/resources spent facilitating the recovery of the unpaid parking charge notice(s) pursuant to its ATA’s Code of Practice and the Terms and Conditions of the Contract, which was entered into upon the driver of the vehicle entering the Relevant Land. The amount is a pre-determined and nominal contribution to our Client’s losses as a direct result of your non-payment. VAT is not applicable as the parking charge notice which was issued to you is a contractual charge.

   

2. Motorists can park on the site in accordance with the terms and conditions on the sign, without incurring a charge but to park without incurring a charge they may need to display a permit; purchase a pay and display ticket; become an authorised user, it is whatever the sign states. If a motorists wishes to park ‘as they please’ within reason, they can do so but pay a charge for this ‘privilege’, the charge is set out on the signs and by a motorist parking otherwise than in accordance with the signs they accept the charge at the point of parking and a valid contract is formed. The charge is due within 28 days of being incurred, if the charge remains unpaid after this date the contract the motorist entered into is breached and a debt is owed to our Client, they are then entitled to damages that have occurred as a result of the breach. 

Our Client remains satisfied the charges were issued correctly and we invite you to make payment of the outstanding balance, in full, within 30 days of this email.

 

Payment can be made via bank transfer to the account detailed as follows: bla bla bla bla

Coupon-mad

Well it's clearly time to report VAT concerns to HMRC. Same as all the other threads at this stage.  Search the forum & do the report.

englishguy31

Thanks again for the comments. I've submitted the report via HMRC online so all OK from this side.

Should I be alerting Gladstones that I've done that or simply ignore their last email? I assume that they're unlikely to back down now or should there be anything I should be saying to them to try to force their hand?

Thanks again

LDast

For what it's worth, and personally I wouldn't bother, but you seem determined to want to talk with the bottom-dwelling wannabe legals at Gladstones under any circumstances. You threaten to block them from sending you texts instead of simply blocking them, full stop. Why do you need to leave them the ability to text you?

So, if you are still urged to respond to Gladstones unsatisfactory reply to your response to their LoC, ask them this:

As your clients ATA is an unregulated body paid for by its self-serving members, they have not answered the question about the £70 claimed by your client as being for "time/resources" and that is "pursuant to its ATA CoP". I require a detailed breakdown of the actual time and resources used to administer this PCN.

Considering that the recent Parking Code of Practice Impact Assessment from the government, thanks to the unregulated parking industries own failures and corrupt practices, noted in section 5.19: "The industry has argued that debt recovery fees are important in enabling it to manage its debt recovery operations. Engagement with parking operators and debt recovery agencies suggests that the cost of debt recovery (at approximately £8.42) is on average roughly eight times lower than the limit currently imposed by the trade associations on debt recovery fees, but that paid fees fund the overall system, including costs of handling both cases where recovery is successful and unsuccessful. The industry also argues that the fee is necessary to provide a deterrent against non-payment of legitimately issued parking charges."

Therefore, I have reason to believe that the £70 claimed is simply a figure plucked out of thin air, a figment of someones imagination and, unless your client can prove otherwise, I expect a more detailed breakdown of this added sum to the original debt your client alleges that the driver owes. As the PAP requires your client to provide any information requested to show a detailed breakdown of the sum being claimed, I will be highlighting this failure to the court should your client be so foolhardy as to issue a claim.

Furthermore, as you have failed to explain how the added £70 is exempt from VAT, I have reported your client to HMRC for suspected VAT fraud as I suspect your client, and yourselves, as officers of the court, are well aware that debt recovery fees are not VAT exempt. The response  you have provided on behalf of your client is embarrassing and will also be highlighted to the court should you advise your client to file a claim.

You and your client are now on notice that your behaviour in this matter is considered to have been unreasonable and I expect you to comply fully with my request for further details as required by the PAP before issuing a claim.

It will be interesting to see if they respond to this, but it at least gives you the opportunity to correspond back with them and put the ball back in their court (excuse the pun).