Multiple tickets from PCM over several months for my own leasehold space and car.

Half_way

Zbubuman said:

Are you able to take a photo of their signs and put it on here ? Wanna see what their terms state on displaying permits.  Does it specifically state permit needs to be displayed on the windscreen, or just that you need to display a permit ( in which case you are compliant with the terms, irrelevant where it is actually stuck - Front , back , side ).

The onus is entirely on them to prove that there was no permit displayed at all. 

Although any terms and conditions from a third  party unregulated parking company are irrelevant gibberish,  if the person has rights to use the space in their lease/freehold/rental agreement and so on

BlamfordBlue

Just for the people asking about the terms. The original lease and modifications make no mention of the parking space at all, except to include it as part of my property and the plan shows my specific space highlighted. I believe they only started using a parking company around 10 years ago so nothing I can see relates to that.

I am struggling to work out which part specifically relates to my rights on the land in terms of using it as I please, it mostly just contains exceptions for gas and water lines but I'm probably missing something.

@Zbubuman The exact words on the sign are 'Vehicles must display a valid PCM permit clearly in the windscreen' along with a clip art picture of a permit on a windscreen.

-  Does windscreen legally mean front windscreen? 'The windscreen' is an ambiguous term and surely the side windows are also a windscreen 

When I first started getting the tickets I thought that was what I'd argue if it went to court, until I realised the leaseholder route is much simpler, it does make me wonder if that's truly enforceable though.

Zbubuman

BlamfordBlue said:

Just for the people asking about the terms. The original lease and modifications make no mention of the parking space at all, except to include it as part of my property and the plan shows my specific space highlighted. I believe they only started using a parking company around 10 years ago so nothing I can see relates to that.

I am struggling to work out which part specifically relates to my rights on the land in terms of using it as I please, it mostly just contains exceptions for gas and water lines but I'm probably missing something.

@Zbubuman The exact words on the sign are 'Vehicles must display a valid PCM permit clearly in the windscreen' along with a clip art picture of a permit on a windscreen.

-  Does windscreen legally mean front windscreen? 'The windscreen' is an ambiguous term and surely the side windows are also a windscreen 

When I first started getting the tickets I thought that was what I'd argue if it went to court, until I realised the leaseholder route is much simpler, it does make me wonder if that's truly enforceable though.

Most definitions of windscreens I found all state that it is the principal forward facing glass window.

But yeah, I agree the leaseholder route and primacy of contract would be the way to go.

BlamfordBlue

Have written my response to the LBC, would appreciate any help on what to add/remove, I know I refer to my particular car/address a lot but couldn't work out how else to do it without making less clear. Should I make any contact with PCM or just allow the solicitors to do it.

I really would like them to see this and to leave me alone over a court case purely for the benefit of my own time and stress levels. I'm also going to make a last ditch attempt at my housing company to see if they'll do anything before I send it. I still have till next month before they advance the claim.

Dear Sirs,

I write to you primarily in reference to the letter before claim I received from you on behalf on your client Parking Control Management Ltd. (PCM) Your reference code: XXXXXXXXX and PCN number: XXXXXXXXX.

I have also received and replied to letters from you with the reference: XXXXXXXXX, PCN number: XXXXXXXXX. My reply was sent on XX/XX/2024 and although you confirmed receipt, I have not had a response. 

My name is XXXXXXXXX and my address is XXXXXXXXX. All correspondence can be sent there or to this email address. I am also the keeper of the vehicle:XXXXXXXXX. 

The alleged debt is disputed and I am prepared and willing to defend myself in court if you choose to pursue this claim. This pertains to any and all claims your client has for the vehicle XXXXXXXXX while it is parked in bay X of the XXXXXXXXX site.

I asked in my last correspondence for you to combine the claims and treat them as one as all particulars in these claims are the same. So now I demand you confer with your client and get them to produce all supposed debts involving the car XXXXXXXXX in Parking Space X of the XXXXXXXXX site and combine it into one coherent claim along while also ceasing to add ludicrous fees to each individual claim. I am not liable for your clients inability to manage their claims in a proper manner. If you continue to refuse this I will note this and refer to it in any future court proceedings using the long-established case law in Henderson v Henderson [1843] to show it as an abuse of the civil litigation process, a waste of court resources and a clear case of, as Neil O’brien former minister for levelling up put it: ‘aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists.’ 

Each parking invoice I’ve received from your client has been for the same vehicle, location and reason. I, XXXXXXXXX, as the leaseholder of XXXXXXXXX which includes parking bay X in the residents car park, at all times have the right to use this parking space for all purposes incidental to the occupation and enjoyment of the Premises. This is laid out clearly in the original lease and its variations; ‘premises’ refers to my flat, gardens and parking space X as is marked out in the plan and description of the property. I think its clear that keeping a car that I own in my parking space would fall under occupation and enjoyment of the premises and PCM cannot lawfully supersede the terms of my lease. I use the permit for PCM’s benefit, the permit itself holds no bearing over my rights to park on my premises. PCM is at fault for not checking with me or the housing company on whether those claims were valid. This is supported in the case law Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 and again in Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016]: in both cases it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant’s right to park by requiring a permit.

Outside of this I have two separate neighbours who said they will put forward witness statements to confirm the fact that at no point was their not a permit on my vehicle, it was and continues to be in the side window because of major water damage and condensation in the front windscreen. Every piece of ‘evidence’ your client has submitted has made sure to only include front facing pictures of the vehicle and deceitfully not show the permit on the side. It is very clear and would be impossible to miss for somebody checking each vehicle in the car park. This again indicates lack of care over the operation of the site as tickets are given with no thought or common sense used towards their validity.

I ask that you speak to your client and get all relevant tickets cancelled. They can contact me directly if they would like to add my vehicle to a list of permitted vehicles so they can stop wasting everyone’s time and a couple trees worth of paperwork.

Attached is the title register for XXXXXXXXX which shows I am the leaseholder.

Faithfully,

XXXXXXXXX

Pasting took the formatting out but the cases etc. are bold in my version

Thanks for any help

Coupon-mad

You need to attach the lease map as well.

Typo here:

"confirm the fact that at no point was their not a permit on my vehicle,"

kryten3000

I always rebut the "front windscreen" with the point that the permit is "there to be seen". For example, a driver who parks front in to a tight space could display the permit in the rear window where it can be checked more easily by the passing attendant.

 If that's good enough for their signage, it should be good enough for the motorist.  The parking attendant should be mitigating any loss in any case.  

None of this should be necessary as it should be simple and easy to maintain a list of approved vehicles, but that doesn't generate PCNs.

BlamfordBlue

@Coupon-mad Thanks, will add that. Was hesitant to include the whole original lease doc in case they comb through it for ways out.

@kryten3000 Has any case used a similar argument in court? 

 I agree completely and I think Council tickets require the warden to take pics of all sides to check for valid permits/tickets. I'd be very interested to see how a private firm would convince a judge that using a different window invalidates the permit.

Oh and the car next to mine, on the permit side parks front-in every time! Means the warden has to squeeze past mine to check theirs

Jonas_264

I was in Court last week on a near identical case - 3 parking tickets, all in my own space. 

Nothing in my lease about requirement to display a permit and the authority to operate did not include sufficient detail.

The Judge dismissed the claim in 15 minutes.

It's all BS borderline vexatious litigation run by the likes of DCB and Gladstones.  The chances of you having to pay them anything are close to nil. 

Half_way

Farmers can not keep dangerous animals in fields with public access, if they do and someone comes a cropper as a result then the farmer can expect some serious legal implications.

 Animals do what animals do, and most farmers should/will be aware of this.




Landowners/management companies and so on allow aggressive un regulated parking companies into their land, these companies harras people and cause stress leading to loss of sleep, poor performance at work, mental health issues and so on as a result of their harassment, parking companies have no interest in parking management only for as many people to break their made up rules to maximise profits.
 And yet landowners seem to get away with hiding behind the it's a third party nothing to do with us, contact them approach.
It's about time that the focus was put onto the landowners/management companies as opposed to to parking companies.

 Parking companies do what parking companies do and landowner/management companies etc should be aware of this

LDast

all supposed alleged debts 

I use show the permit for PCM’s benefit as a courtesy, not an obligation as the permit itself holds no bearing over my rights right to park on my premises.

Just a couple of suggestions.