PCNs from CPM for parking in my own space & Letter from BW Legal

Coupon-mad

WillowsPuppy01 said:

Latest update to PCN #1, letter received from BW Legal (image below) offering me *yet another* payment 'deal'. Obviously ignored. The more letters like this they send, the more confident I am of a positive outcome - for me that is! Also, they sent it on my birthday. Asshats.

What total bow-locks in that letter.

Especially the misleading (omission of facts) crap that a CCJ "can remain on your credit file for six years" which makes it sound like people risk losing at a hearing and seeing their credit rating automatically stuffed for 6 years.

That isn't true. You actually risk nothing. People who go to hearings and ultimately (very rarely in parking cases) lose just pay in full and no CCJ 'remains' ...but they haven't told you that bit.

They also say 'additional 'fees' (plural, but deliberately vague - scaremongering?) would be added to the balance, but that's untrue too.

A small 'hearing fee' (singular, not plural) would be added but no judge worth their salt would allow multiples (or any) of the added extortion of £70 DR fees 'per PCN'.

A hundred and forty quid for ONE template letter of claim, LOL!

(As an aside, it's only the Government that's currently giving signals that they've fallen for that extortion...sigh...we are trying to wrestle off their ATA-clouded spectacles this month).

Anyway, at least most Judges see right through disproportionate imaginary 'costs' that attempt to bloat a claim.

I'd say that letter is wholly unreasonable and a misleading omission: IMHO it's in breach of the DMCC Act 2024. You should raise this in your WS because they haven't marked that 'Without Prejudice' so it can be exhibited.

Definitely push for all your costs & time on an indemnity basis, especially given you own the bay which is on your title deeds.

By the way, what is happening re the third PCN that was farmed out separately to Gladstones?

And the fourth one you got early Summer?

WillowsPuppy01

Hi! Thanks for that - good to know that it IS INDEED the b*llocks i thought it was!

Also thanks for the shout about including this letter in my WS - i'd not considered using their own letters against them... ok to post my WS here, for comments and tweaking?

Definiately going to push for costs - but how would i show the time spent on this, in order to claim for that at the same time? Forgive any noob daftness, but this is my first go-around at this - and i'm eager to do everything correctly, and really make CPM regret issuing me with bobbins PCNs

RE: said PCNs: It's only 3 i'm dealing with at the moment; these 2, and the other that's with Gladstones (haven't received a LOC for that one yet), that i received around March this year. I've responded to their LBC with a tweaked version of the template from Post 2 of the NEWBIES thread. They emailed back Aug 29th to acknowledge this email, and with a PDF letter attached saying they'd erased all my previous addresses (I've been at my current address for 17 years - so my request was an an annoying time-waste for them) from their records, and that's where we're at with that PCN.

I confess - i'm a little nervous to be going into the hearing stage of this process. I'm fully prepared to fight, but worried my witness statement won't hold up, or that i'll come across badly - stupid concerns i'm sure, but valid.

Sure these concerns are what make other people pay. Luckily i'm more stubborn than scared.

As always, the forum is MASSIVELY appreciated.

Sidenote: Another residident of my apartment complex contacted me to say he's received an LBC for a PCN for parking in his own space - similar situation to mine. Have linked him in to MSE, specifically this forum and thread. Have also told him to complain to our Estates manager and ask to opt out of the CPM scheme. Not that did me any good, but it all leaves a paper chain.

Coupon-mad

Search the forum for

costs assessment £19 fixed

WillowsPuppy01

UPDATE BW LEGAL PCN: N180 Sent CNBC & BW Legal. Mediation next.

GLADSTONES: Email received in as a response to MY response to their LBC (i used the old template, i notice it's been changed since), which i actually think is super rude:


I did respond, AGAIN asking for them to answer my questions, but that's like yelling into the void....

Coupon-mad

Yep search the forum for that Gladstones patronising reply. They always say that!

Don't like us much, do they?!

jd576

Curious as to the exact wording in your lease, if any, about your parking?

Since you used the term "lease", despite you mentioning that you own it and it's in the deed, I'm guessing it's leasehold and not freehold?

If you're the freehold owner, seems pretty cut and dried to me. They're trespassing. 

If you're a leasehold owner, you're right: they cannot impose conditions on you that limit the property rights in the lease without a specific variation to the lease.

There is ample case law that says that property rights conferred in a lease agreement cannot be limited without an explicit variation to the lease. 

Relevant authorities

• K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011 (this one is binding)
• Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0
• Link Parking v Ms P [2016] C7GF50J7
• Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E

Pretty outrageous stuff.

Personally, I'd be telling the management company that I'll be issuing a N20 summons for them to appear in court for cross-examination as well: cross examine them as to whether they're getting any kickback from CPM on the fines issued, any form of revenue sharing. And if that's the case, counterclaim against the management agent too. 

Coupon-mad

Don't forget the Duchess of Bedford House case which is recent, binding authority.

DUCHESS OF BEDFORD HOUSE RTM COMPANY LIMITED & ORS V CAMPDEN HILL GATE LTD [2023] EWCA Civ 1470

It reaffirms residential parking rights using not only a fair interpretation of the lease but also section 62 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

It's a Court of Appeal authority (the Supreme Court refused an application to appeal it):

https://www.edwincoe.com/blogs/main/the-supreme-court-has-effectively-confirmed-the-approach-of-the-court-of-appeal-in-applying-the-rule-in-newman-v-jones-and-on-how-to-interpret-lease-clauses/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/6576d76952aae60ac079d0bd?utm_source=amp&target=amp_jtext

That case reaffirmed leaseholders' rights under section 62 to use 'first come first served' bays in a car parking area at their estate:

"The residents of Duchess of Bedford House are relieved and delighted at this decision. After having had their right to park restricted by parking tickets and even clamping for periods over the last 30 years, they can park in the road outside their flats with full confidence in their right to do so."

Even Shakespeare Martineau blogged about it:

https://www.shma.co.uk/our-thoughts/duchess-of-bedford-house-case-have-we-gone-parking-mad/

WillowsPuppy01

Coupon-mad said:

Yep search the forum for that Gladstones patronising reply. They always say that!

Don't like us much, do they?!

I think that these forums have (rightfully) irritated TF out of them. GOOD. Long may that continue.

WillowsPuppy01

jd576 said:

Curious as to the exact wording in your lease, if any, about your parking?

Since you used the term "lease", despite you mentioning that you own it and it's in the deed, I'm guessing it's leasehold and not freehold?

If you're the freehold owner, seems pretty cut and dried to me. They're trespassing. 

If you're a leasehold owner, you're right: they cannot impose conditions on you that limit the property rights in the lease without a specific variation to the lease.

There is ample case law that says that property rights conferred in a lease agreement cannot be limited without an explicit variation to the lease. 

Relevant authorities

• K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011 (this one is binding)
• Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0
• Link Parking v Ms P [2016] C7GF50J7
• Jopson v Homeguard [2016] B9GF0A9E

Pretty outrageous stuff.

Personally, I'd be telling the management company that I'll be issuing a N20 summons for them to appear in court for cross-examination as well: cross examine them as to whether they're getting any kickback from CPM on the fines issued, any form of revenue sharing. And if that's the case, counterclaim against the management agent too. 

Hi, yes, my proprty is leasehold. I've got to dig out the lease later today as part of my witness statement prep, so i'll look at the exact wording. But no lease updates or variations have ever been issued/suggested. My landlords (as i'm shared ownership) don't manage the apartment complex grounds, that's Premier Estates, they're the ones who employ CPM.

Thanks for those references; i'm not a legal person in any way, shape or form, so anything helps.

I've only stated one witness on my N180 - probably too late for thr N20?

I'd rather keep the whole thing as simple as possibbe though - i'm worried that adding the MC into the mix, and me corss-examining, will highlight my lack of legal knowledge. Stupid i know, but I think self-doubt is one of the things that CPM and their ilk, rely on.

WillowsPuppy01

Email received from Gladstones this morning with regards to my email insisting they answer my questions that they had previously ignored:

"Good Afternoon, 

We write further to your email dated 19th September 2025. 

1. The Amount Due/ Debt includes £70.00 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; display a blue badge when parked in a disabled bay; 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. 

As a gesture of goodwill, we have extended the time in which to make payment by a further 7 days. Our Client is therefore satisfied the case against you should proceed unless the debt owing of £160.00 is discharged in full. To ensure no further action is taken, you should make payment on or before 15th October 2025. 

If you do not make payment, we are instructed to issue legal proceedings to recover the outstanding balance in full. Should it become necessary to issue legal proceedings, we suggest you follow the steps on the claim form upon receipt of the same."

They keep mentioning a 'contract' - funny as i've never agreed to any such contract.... nice that they emailed back though, it's all going in the evidence file should they decided to proceed to court with this one....