**DISCONTINUED!!** Parking Control Management. Gladstones submitted Court Claim

[Hollean]

I have received a county court claim form N1, as a result of a claim submitted by Gladstones solicitors on behalf of Parking Control Management and would appreciate any guidance.

The situation can be summarised as follows:

The car in question is registered to me and at the time of the alleged offence was on loan to my son.
My son was a tenant of the flats and had permission to park in that car park

A valid parking permit was displayed on the dashboard and can be seen in the photograph taken by PCM. However, from the front, it was partially obscured by the shading of the windscreen, However the valid date is clearly visible.

I have written to PCM appealing the PCN but they are having none of it and have issued a county court claim form. I have acknowledged the form and stated that I will be submitting a defence.

My proposed defence is based on 3 items

1. The parking spaces are only 2.1m wide, vs a recommended minimum of 2.4 m, ( Government planning portal , Parking standards) so can not be considered to be true parking space within the meaning of the law.
2. A valid permit was displayed and can be seen in the photo submitted by PCM. It is possible that, had the employee been able to look in the side window then they would have been able to see the whole permit. However if another vehicle was parked in the adjacent space, it may have been difficult for them to get access, due to the narrow space. However that’s not under my control.
3. The penalty is not a genuine pre estimate of loss. The car that was parked in that space was the one which was entitled to park there, and therefore no loss was incurred by anyone.

In my defence I will also ask for disclosure of all documents held by them, including proof of right of authority to issue parking charges

How does that sound ? Do I have a leg to stand on ? Thanks in advance for any guidance.

[ostell]

Re: Parking Control Management. Gladstones submitted Court Claim

Pre estimate of loss is a no no after the Beavis case. What does your son's lease say about parking? Does it say permits are required, does it say there is acharge if you do not?

[Hollean]

Re: Parking Control Management. Gladstones submitted Court Claim

Pre estimate of loss is a no no after the Beavis case. What does your son's lease say about parking? Does it say permits are required, does it say there is acharge if you do not?

Hi Ostell
Unfortunately , although the flat was advertised as "with parking" the lease didn't specifically say anything about a right to parking.
The parking control was only introduced part way through his tenancy and at that stage he was issued with a parking permit.

Wouldn't the fact that he was issued with a parking permit demonstrate that he was permitted to park there ?

What is your thought on the partial display of the permit ?

[charitynjw]

Re: Parking Control Management. Gladstones submitted Court Claim

Have you guys acknowledged the court claim yet?

Did you receive a letter before claim & if so, when?

[Hollean]

Re: Parking Control Management. Gladstones submitted Court Claim

Hi Charityynjw
Yes, I have acknowledged the claim within the 14 days period .
I have received a series of letters prior to the claim.
11 May Parking Charge, Notice to keeper
14 June Parking charge keeper liability
18 July Trace debt recovery, demand for outstanding payment
Up until that point i had ignored their letters thinking they wer just trying to intimidate me into paying.
At this stage I responded to PCM appealing against the PCN
They responded that they were unable to process my appeal as it was with an external debt collection agency
7 Aug Trace debt recovery , final demand
5 Sept Gladstones. Pay now to avoid legal action
26 Sept Letter before claim
13 Oct. Notice of claim from County Court business centre
20 Oct I acknowledged service and gave notice I will submit defence.
This has to be done by 15 Nov

[Hollean]

Re: Parking Control Management. Gladstones submitted Court Claim

Hi Ostell
I've just spent some time going through the Beavis case.
If I understod correctly this was about motorist who overstayed their permitted time. It was ruled that the charge was not a "penalty" and was commercially justifiable as it served to deter other motorists from outstaying their time.
In my case the parked car was parked with the landholders permission .The driver had been issued with a permit confiring that permission and this was displayed on the dash. Can I argue that the charge is therefore some kind of penalty because the permit was partially obscured ? Therefore it is a penalty, and is subject to the rules regarding penalties, including GPEOL

[ostell]

Re: Parking Control Management. Gladstones submitted Court Claim

Beavis does not apply in a residential situation as there is no necessity to maintain a turnover of cars. What does you lease say about parking, have you got your own allocated space defined in your lease?

Assuming you have the space in your lease the permit, which you are not required to display, is displayed as a courtesy to aid the operatives in identifying strangers.

Can you post relevant portion of your lease and the signs in the car park.

You could be going after PCM for £500 for a breach of the DPA.

[charitynjw]

Re: Parking Control Management. Gladstones submitted Court Claim

Could you also post up the original postal Notice to Keeper, front & rear, obscure personal details but leave all times & dates visible?

& for clarity, was there a winscreen PCN?
If so, post that up as well.

[Hollean]

Re: Parking Control Management. Gladstones submitted Court Claim

That's good information that Beavis doesn't apply in a residential situation.Thank you. I can use that in my defence response. My son has since moved out and hasn't kept a copy of his lease. I've asked him to try to get one from the managing agents. He insists it doesn't say anything about parking specifically, but i'd like to see it. As a minimum I'm hoping it will say something about right to access communal areas, in which case I'll try to argue that the associated parking is part of the communal area.

What is the potential breach of DPA ?

- - - Updated - - -

Im currently away from home but I will scan and post the original notice on my return.

[ostell]

Re: Parking Control Management. Gladstones submitted Court Claim

For a brach of the DPA they are chasing him for parking when they knew they did not have the right to obtain his data from the DVLA as he was in his own space and a permit on display.

[Hollean]

Re: Parking Control Management. Gladstones submitted Court Claim

As requested, Attached is the original Notice to keeper front and rear.
I've now got a copy of the lease but have problems redacting it to post. I can confirm that it says nothing about parking. it's a long list of things the tenant must and must not do, with remarkably few obligations on the landlord. However the managing agent is being helpful and has said that they are willing to provide a letter on their headed paper confirming that the tenant had a right to park in the adjoining car park. I may take that up if this case does go to court. In which case I'd appreciate guidance on what wording I should ask for.

For clarity, the car park in question is a multi storey car park situated behind the property. Some bays are allocated for use by residents of that block of flats. However specific bays are not allocated to specific flats. My son was parked in one of the bays allocated to his block. PCM's argument seems to be that the permit was not clearly displayed. You can see from my initial post that the permit is displayed although partially obscured by the tinting of the windscreen.

[OliverJames]

Re: Parking Control Management. Gladstones submitted Court Claim

As requested, Attached is the original Notice to keeper front and rear.
I've now got a copy of the lease but have problems redacting it to post. I can confirm that it says nothing about parking. it's a long list of things the tenant must and must not do, with remarkably few obligations on the landlord. However the managing agent is being helpful and has said that they are willing to provide a letter on their headed paper confirming that the tenant had a right to park in the adjoining car park. I may take that up if this case does go to court. In which case I'd appreciate guidance on what wording I should ask for.

For clarity, the car park in question is a multi storey car park situated behind the property. Some bays are allocated for use by residents of that block of flats. However specific bays are not allocated to specific flats. My son was parked in one of the bays allocated to his block. PCM's argument seems to be that the permit was not clearly displayed. You can see from my initial post that the permit is displayed although partially obscured by the tinting of the windscreen.

FYI - your full name is still clear in the body of the letter, along with the location of the alleged offence. Worth obscuring and reposting

[Kati]

Re: Parking Control Management. Gladstones submitted Court Claim

FYI - your full name is still clear in the body of the letter, along with the location of the alleged offence. Worth obscuring and reposting

sorted xx

[Hollean]

Re: Parking Control Management. Gladstones submitted Court Claim

Thanks Kati.

[ostell]

Re: Parking Control Management. Gladstones submitted Court Claim

The NTK does not really comply with POFA .
It states that you are required to pay or name the driver. The word should be invite. 8 (2) (e) There is no required in at all.

8 (2) starts with the word "must"
Paragraph 8 (2) (f) has not been given in the form required in POFA
There is no period of parking stated 8 (2) (a)
There is no creditor identified 8 (2) (h)

I think, in the first instance, a letter to them saying that there can be no keeper liability as the have failed to meet several of the requirements of POFA 2012 that are defined in paragraph 8 (2) of the act.

Does the NTK have the same information as the NTD?

Other items, such as the permit was visible, if they could have been bothered to look properly,

What does the lease say about parking? Does it identify the parking spaces and does it state a permit must be displayed and a charge must be paid if not?