I called PCM after receiving debt collectors letter in panic. Have I messed up?

HI all

I've finally had a written response sent recorded delivery by PCM today. I have been advised the charge was issued fairly and they have gone on to clarify my points raised.

1. "There was insufficient signage": they respond: "This is entirely refuted. In the small stretch concerned, there are approximately 15 signs (including the large entrnce signs). Further, road markings exist at the entrance clearly advising "no drop/collection/private rd". It is maintained you were made reasonably aware of the terms and conditions for the use of the land. As a driver, it is your respnsibility to heck for relevant signage and park accordingly. In the unlikely event that you did not see any signs,, it is submitted that you ought to have done so. In the case Vine v Waltham Forest LBC (2000) the precedent was set that once is it established that sufficient and adequate warning signs are in place, a driver cannot be heard to say they did not see the notice. Any motorist is of course entitled to read the signage. However, you have made clear you were not doing so and photographic evidence confirms as such. If one chooses not to read the terms, they are deemed to have accepted them. Otherwise, drivers could simply refuse to read the signs and be exempt from the entailed terms. Given that you have asserted not to have seen any signs, an argument that you were not given time to read signage is irrelevant to the case."

Funny they did not mention anything about stopping in a no drop/collection when my fine is for not parking within the bay! (remember the back tyre was ON the marked line instead of IN it). I had stated that the time taken to seek out any sign (which you would do if parking) would have been much longer than the drop off i was doing! I havent had a chance go back but there were two of us looking for signs before stopping and did not see anything! cant have been that clear.

2. "My vehicle was not parked" they responded: "you claim to be 'stopped' opposed to 'parked'. I would submit that these concepts are one and the same, for if they were difference it would allow for indefinite 'stopping' in restricted areas. In any case, the signage defines what is meant by 'parking' in the context of the terms where it clarifies - "this includes stopping, waiting and drop and collection"

I am confused. How on earth can I read a small print sign if i dont stop my vehicle? we are banned from reading text messages but expected to read a sign in the distance and risk running a pedestrian over? Unless the paparazzi photographing me in the distance was testing me and as i failed to go and waste more time reading a sign before removing luggage, i am fined?

3. "The charge is disproportionate and not commercially justifiable" they responded: " The operator does not have to justify the loss incurred. The amount being sought by the operator was clearly communicated to you by way of the signage on the site. If you considered the charge to be excessive, you had the choice to reject it either not parking or parking in accordance with the terms. Second, the amount being claimed is justified given the operator's running costs. It is also in line with the industry standards. For further guidance on this point the Appellant may wish to consider the judgement in ParkingEye Limited v BArry Beavis [2015] EWCA Civ 402 "

Again confused. why on earth in the 30-60 seconds would anyone need to make an agreement with a small print sign posted. And what are they upset about at this point, my parking out of bay or drop off?

4. "false nformation in you rejection letter" they responded: " I can confirm that the photographic evidence was captured by a Parking ATtendant (operative PM009) at the time of the parking. In any event, this is not a particularly pertinent point. Without concession, whether or not the images were collected by an individual or a camera the facts remain that you parked in a manner that contravened the terms and conditions for the use of the land. A contract is entered into for the use of the land. the terms of this contract are clearly advertised by the signage and by parking, you indicate onsent to these terms. This includes the term that should one park in contravention to the stated conditions, you agree to pay a charge as outined. "

I think an attendant shouldnt be called an attendant if they are paparazzi.

5. "mitigation circumstances" I had said my friend was desperately in need of a toilet after a long journey before even getting into the station, the paprazzi would have observed this, had we seen him we probably would have asked where the nearest toilet is! Anyway they go on to say "regardless of the situation, the supreme court (found at paragraph 111 of the parking eye v beavis (2015) have taken the following view in respect of unforseen circumstances (albeit in relation to an overstay) is irrelavant. "

And they tell me to engage with Trace debt collectors. That reply is from "legal and compliance" at PCM. First sent them a letter on 22nd November.

Please advise whats best to do. If anyone thinks this is reasonable and I should pay? or acknowldge and continue my dispute? or ignore?

Thanks again