Tweet
Hi there
I am looking for help regarding defending a Court Claim issued by Gladstone Solicitors on behalf of PCM. I haven't filled out any forms or acknowledged the claim yet, as i figured i would be better taking some advice first as this is new to me. Hope someone can help as time is ticking.
Background:
Back on the 19th June 2017, I pulled in to a Shell petrol station to top up the front passenger tyre. As I parked in front of the air machine, my wife noticed a Tesco extra next door and asked me to get her a few big bottles of water and she would top up the tyre. I left my wife the key and went into Tesco.
As I walked back onto the Shell forecourt, i noticed a man a few meters away to my left who looked as though was taking a picture in my direction. As he noticed me looking his way he immediately switched directions, pulled up his phone to his ear as if on a call. (no prizes for his acting skills). I thought it was odd but as i got to the car, my wife immediately told me that she had noticed two men taking pictures of our car. There was another man in a silver car who had a device on his windshield. It definitely wasn't a satnav as you could make out the camera hole. She explained that she had noticed both of them taking pictures as soon as i had left. Both men had no identifying uniform. These were two complete random strangers taking pictures of our car/us. Seeing that my wife was visibly worried about the situation, we contemplated approaching the two guys, but with our five year old in the car with us, we decided that would not be a good action in case a confrontation to kicks off. We decided that we're better leaving and if they follow us, we'd call the police.
They didn't follow us, but a few days later we received a postal notification of parking charge from PCM, claiming with a £100 fine (discounted to £60 if paid within 14 days). The notice sites that the "vehicle was parked in a manner whereby the driver agreed to pay a charge: Parking in a parking area reserved for patrons whilst on the premises only".
I appealed the notice to PCM, which surprise surprise they rejected. Although they wrote they had considered my case fully, the letter only sited that i had agreed to contractual terms. That the signage clearly states that parking in the area is only permitted for staff and patrons of the garage only whilst on the premises/ vehicles left unattended with the driver leaving the garage at any time will be subject to immediate enforcement action.
My first objection to this, is that no one in the right mind would agree to terms that they could not fairly negotiate. But more so, the signage actually states "Drivers who leave their vehicles unattended at any time either before or after using the garage will be subject to immediate enforcement". my car was never left unattended, my wife had the key and is fully insured on the car. She was with the car and our daughter the whole time. The bit about "vehicles left unattended with the driver leaving the garage" is not on the signage.
Secondly, after my wife had initially noticed the two men taking pictures, she decided to get on with using the air machine to top up the tyre. There are pictures of her outside the car on the passenger side next to the air machine at the machine. She had in fact placed a 50p coin in the machine ready to use it. It's only when she looked back again and noticed one of the guys out of his car still taking pictures that she stopped what she was doing to keep an eye on him in case he got closer.
The appeal rejection letter also stated "Unattended vehicles and unauthorised parking pose significant risks to Health and Safety regulations." and that "Unauthorised parking can also prevent fuel tankers from making scheduled deliveries." To this, the car was in a space allocated for use of the air machine. We were there to use the space just for what it was intended for. I'd assume the land owner would have designated the space so it doesn't impede other users from entering or leaving. Why would it pose any health and safety issues or why would i place my family in hazardous place? Also, the car which the two PCM agents were in, was parked near the manholes where fuel tankers make there deliveries.
I wrote back to PCM, with my follow up points to their rejection letter, to which i got an automated letter back saying that they could not review/ reasses the case again.
I looked around the internet and found on similar forums, that there was no point appealing to the recommended IPC org as the person(s) on this board in fact runs a legal practice that works with PCM. So from there ignored the letter, and final demand letter from TRACE debt recovery.
I then received what looked like a template Letter Before Claim from Gladstone Solicitors. The charges had now gone up from £100 to £160. I wrote to them explaining the situation and asking for a number of further information. They wrote back stating that the information i requested would be available at the direction of the courts should legal proceedings be issued. Importantly (i think), in this response it states "You may note that your passenger is clearly visible in your wing mirror and is at no time observed outside of your vehicle" - is this an admission that they recognise that the car was tended to? i wrote back with pictures (that PCM took) of my wife clearly seen outside the vehicle, on the passenger side, nearest to the air machine in two separate pictures. I didn't hear back from them again until, the 9th April 2018 when I was issued with a court claim.
My questions are:
Do i have enough grounds to defend this?
Are there any other laws/ regulations i can look at to defend myself?
I am looking for help regarding defending a Court Claim issued by Gladstone Solicitors on behalf of PCM. I haven't filled out any forms or acknowledged the claim yet, as i figured i would be better taking some advice first as this is new to me. Hope someone can help as time is ticking.
Background:
Back on the 19th June 2017, I pulled in to a Shell petrol station to top up the front passenger tyre. As I parked in front of the air machine, my wife noticed a Tesco extra next door and asked me to get her a few big bottles of water and she would top up the tyre. I left my wife the key and went into Tesco.
As I walked back onto the Shell forecourt, i noticed a man a few meters away to my left who looked as though was taking a picture in my direction. As he noticed me looking his way he immediately switched directions, pulled up his phone to his ear as if on a call. (no prizes for his acting skills). I thought it was odd but as i got to the car, my wife immediately told me that she had noticed two men taking pictures of our car. There was another man in a silver car who had a device on his windshield. It definitely wasn't a satnav as you could make out the camera hole. She explained that she had noticed both of them taking pictures as soon as i had left. Both men had no identifying uniform. These were two complete random strangers taking pictures of our car/us. Seeing that my wife was visibly worried about the situation, we contemplated approaching the two guys, but with our five year old in the car with us, we decided that would not be a good action in case a confrontation to kicks off. We decided that we're better leaving and if they follow us, we'd call the police.
They didn't follow us, but a few days later we received a postal notification of parking charge from PCM, claiming with a £100 fine (discounted to £60 if paid within 14 days). The notice sites that the "vehicle was parked in a manner whereby the driver agreed to pay a charge: Parking in a parking area reserved for patrons whilst on the premises only".
I appealed the notice to PCM, which surprise surprise they rejected. Although they wrote they had considered my case fully, the letter only sited that i had agreed to contractual terms. That the signage clearly states that parking in the area is only permitted for staff and patrons of the garage only whilst on the premises/ vehicles left unattended with the driver leaving the garage at any time will be subject to immediate enforcement action.
My first objection to this, is that no one in the right mind would agree to terms that they could not fairly negotiate. But more so, the signage actually states "Drivers who leave their vehicles unattended at any time either before or after using the garage will be subject to immediate enforcement". my car was never left unattended, my wife had the key and is fully insured on the car. She was with the car and our daughter the whole time. The bit about "vehicles left unattended with the driver leaving the garage" is not on the signage.
Secondly, after my wife had initially noticed the two men taking pictures, she decided to get on with using the air machine to top up the tyre. There are pictures of her outside the car on the passenger side next to the air machine at the machine. She had in fact placed a 50p coin in the machine ready to use it. It's only when she looked back again and noticed one of the guys out of his car still taking pictures that she stopped what she was doing to keep an eye on him in case he got closer.
The appeal rejection letter also stated "Unattended vehicles and unauthorised parking pose significant risks to Health and Safety regulations." and that "Unauthorised parking can also prevent fuel tankers from making scheduled deliveries." To this, the car was in a space allocated for use of the air machine. We were there to use the space just for what it was intended for. I'd assume the land owner would have designated the space so it doesn't impede other users from entering or leaving. Why would it pose any health and safety issues or why would i place my family in hazardous place? Also, the car which the two PCM agents were in, was parked near the manholes where fuel tankers make there deliveries.
I wrote back to PCM, with my follow up points to their rejection letter, to which i got an automated letter back saying that they could not review/ reasses the case again.
I looked around the internet and found on similar forums, that there was no point appealing to the recommended IPC org as the person(s) on this board in fact runs a legal practice that works with PCM. So from there ignored the letter, and final demand letter from TRACE debt recovery.
I then received what looked like a template Letter Before Claim from Gladstone Solicitors. The charges had now gone up from £100 to £160. I wrote to them explaining the situation and asking for a number of further information. They wrote back stating that the information i requested would be available at the direction of the courts should legal proceedings be issued. Importantly (i think), in this response it states "You may note that your passenger is clearly visible in your wing mirror and is at no time observed outside of your vehicle" - is this an admission that they recognise that the car was tended to? i wrote back with pictures (that PCM took) of my wife clearly seen outside the vehicle, on the passenger side, nearest to the air machine in two separate pictures. I didn't hear back from them again until, the 9th April 2018 when I was issued with a court claim.
My questions are:
Do i have enough grounds to defend this?
Are there any other laws/ regulations i can look at to defend myself?
Comment