PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCM LTD issued PCM even though parked in own space, Any advice greatly appreciated.
Peapoduk
post Thu, 26 Apr 2018 - 07:16
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 49
Joined: 26 Apr 2018
Member No.: 97,695



Hello all, a newbie here. Any help and advice would be greatly appreciated.

I know this has probably been covered before but after a bit of reading I am little confused on what my course of action should be whether to ignore or communicate again with them.

I received a PCM last week. The background is that our management housing agency engaged PCM Ltd to manage our parking garage. This was because there was a lot of parking issues with non residents parking in spaces not allocated to them. Access to the parking garage is via key fob but the gate doesn't always close due to some residents messing with it.

We didn't receive a letter from the managing agent only a letter from PCM saying that they had been engaged by the managing agent and permits were given. I've lived here for 5 years and there was no parking permit system until last November.

To be honest I didn't question it as last year my brain was not fully with it, had a really prem baby so I was always coming and going to the hospital.

Anyways sorry I'm dithering I had my permit on my dashboard and when I closed the door it fell off. I didn't notice as I was distracted by my bubba crying. So when I came back to the car I saw the PCM and panicked so immediately like a fool I know appealed and revealed I was the driver. Naively thinking it was an honest mistake as I have rights to my space e.g. it's in my lease and it clearly states my parking space number and no where does it say about a parking permit.

So obviously my appeal was denied and they have said I could appeal to IAS.

Now I know now I should have done my homework and not engaged with them because they would have needed to send me a notice to driver (I think?)

I've been looking on MSE and parking prankster and a lot of what people have said is to ignore now after reading here there is advice I should engage with IAS? On the signs it says the managing agent has no sway on PCM being cancelled.

I'm not sure what to do and with a small bubba my anxiety levels have reached through the roof.

Any advice or help would be so gratefully appreciated.

Best wishes,

Peapoduk

This post has been edited by Peapoduk: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 - 07:26
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
8 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
Advertisement
post Thu, 26 Apr 2018 - 07:16
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Mon, 14 May 2018 - 23:03
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,349
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



If there was a windscreen PCN, then the parking firm can get the registered keeper's data from day 29, and will send a Notice to Keeper.

Same as on all the other threads.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eljayjay
post Tue, 15 May 2018 - 10:28
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 884
Joined: 1 Apr 2017
Member No.: 91,235



Whatever you do, do not put your life on hold waiting for the next piece of junk mail from the parking company.

When it arrives, post it here.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Peapoduk
post Fri, 18 May 2018 - 14:09
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 49
Joined: 26 Apr 2018
Member No.: 97,695



Thank you will do!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Sat, 19 May 2018 - 09:19
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,071
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (Peapoduk @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 06:32) *
QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 01:28) *
QUOTE (Eljayjay @ Wed, 9 May 2018 - 22:02) *
The second issue concerns "For the purpose of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 no one other than the parties to this lease and their permitted assigns has the right to enforce the terms of this lease." in the section on Third Party Rights. There are almost certainly two or three parties to the lease: the Landlord or Lessee, i.e. the freeholder; the Tenant or Lessee, i.e. you and any co-owner of your lease; and, possibly, the Management Company. Anyone who is not a party to the lease is, of course, a third party. The parking company is a third party and, as this clause states, "no one other than the parties to this lease and their permitted assigns has the right to enforce the terms of this lease". Consequently, even if the parking scheme had been introduced in accordance with the terms of the lease (which is very probably not true), the parking company cannot enforce any claim which it makes against you.

The PPC would almost certainly not attempt to enforce any provision of the lease, so the TPA clause (in the lease) is irrelevant. Instead, they would seek to enforce their own parking contract. That contract may be related in some way to the lease, but it is not a term or provision of the lease.

--Churchmouse


Hi Churchmouse if this clause is irrelevant does the right to use my parking space their supposed contract? From what I gather they don't have a parking contract with me as I didn't sign anything. Sorry I'm a newbie and trying to wrap my head around my defence should they come after me.

The PPC would argue that their contract with the driver had been offered via the parking signs and accepted by the driver, by the act of parking; there is no need for anything to have been signed by either party. It is well accepted in law that a valid contract can be offered and accepted via such means (provided various formalities are observed).

The Third-Party Rights act is a red herring in relation to the alleged parking contract. The TPA is not a red herring in relation to your lease, but the PPC is not seeking to enforce the lease, so the TPA in your lease is simply irrelevant here.

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eljayjay
post Sat, 19 May 2018 - 10:08
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 884
Joined: 1 Apr 2017
Member No.: 91,235



As already mentioned, "I entirely accept Churchmouse's point that the parking company would seek to enforce the parking charge under their own parking contract, but there can be no parking scheme or parking contract if they do not accord with the leases and, in the remotest of circumstances that they do accord with the leases, the third party right clause bites".

Under the lease, Peapoduk has "The right to use parking space numbered 38". Having been granted that right, without Peapoduk's consent, the other party/parties to the lease cannot grant that right (or even a share of that right) to the parking company as that would be contrary to the principle of non-derogation of grant implied in every lease.

That being so, the parking scheme is invalid because it does not accord with the contents of the lease. In this event, the lease has primacy of contract over the parking contract and third-party rights (or the lack of them) do not matter.

But what about an alternative scenario, where a judge decides that the parking contract and the parking scheme have been made in accordance with, say, a power contained in the lease to augment it with rules and/or regulations? In this event, the third-party rights clause would come into play because the parking company would be relying on the lease.

So, put simply: either the parking scheme does not comply with the lease in which case, it is invalid and the parking charges are not enforceable; or the parking scheme does comply with the lease in which case the parking charges are still unenforceable.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pearlofwisdom
post Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 11:28
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 119
Joined: 2 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,224



Good morning Peapoduk

I am following your thread with interest as I am in the exact same postition.
I have been issued with CC claim from Simon Renshaw-Smith of VCS.
It is my intention to robustly defend this claim.
My case will be in court within the next few weeks.
I sincerely hope to be able to offer you support as Im one step ahead of you in what can only be described as a fiasco.

My case:
125 yr Lease Purchased April 2015
Residential Parking Spaces x 2 demised through lease
35 PCN's to date - all ignored, apart from this one.
Landowner's Agent EM Estates instruct FirstPort to maintain apartment block and common /demised land within boundary - carpark.
FirstPort engages VCS to manage car park.
VCS claim breach of Contract by conduct
ie I ignored signage.
Contract law is clear on this - A Contract cannot be lawfully upheld by Performance, nor can it assumed nor implied.
No contract exisit between me & VCS
VCS Signage cannot overide my Lease.
This claim is therefore without merit.
I would make a request to have it 'Struck Out' but I intend to Countersue


No contract exists bewteen Lessor (me) and Landowner (Lessor) to allow a third party to unilaterally change the t&c’s of my lease.
No Deed of variation of said lease exists to allow same.


Therefore VCS have no legal authority to operate on land which I own by virtue of lease.
FirstPort have no legal authority to instruct VCS to act on behalf of Lessor
This is a complete breakdown in instruction
The PCN’s are unlawful and therefore unenforceable
In essence VCS has no legal authority or proprietary interest to operate on my demised land

This mean that VCS has ‘no right to an Audience’ and herein lies the rub!
A Judge will take a dim view of having his / her time and court resources wasted by people (VCS) who use the courts in this way whom have NO legal right to do so.
The courts do not exist as an additional debt collection agency for VCS nor do they exist to Wet Nurse the likes of Simon Renshaw Smith with their scurrilous activities.

I am Countersueing using Davey V UKPC as my guide - a good read.
(DVLA information being illegally gained - £750 claim met etc)


I am and quietly confident of my success.

With best regards
Pearl



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Peapoduk
post Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 11:52
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 49
Joined: 26 Apr 2018
Member No.: 97,695



Hi Pearl, thank you so much for responding. It's great to know that you are going to defend your case and it's very much appreciated that I will be able to learn from your case.

I haven't had any other communication from them as of yet. Just the original PCN and letter rejecting my appeal through them. Through the advice of others I will await for their communication as advised by other very helpful posters. Will keep an eye out over the next couple of weeks on what happens with your case and wish you the very best of luck (hopefully you won't need the luck). Look forward to hearing about your winning case soon.

Best wishes,

Peapoduk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 12:14
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,898
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



Pearl, I would suggest you start your own thread on the forum as there are are couple of errors in the statements you have made. I do not want to cover in this thread as it can only cause confusion.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pearlofwisdom
post Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 12:15
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 119
Joined: 2 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,224



Ok, many thanks
I'll do just that
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Peapoduk
post Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 13:54
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 49
Joined: 26 Apr 2018
Member No.: 97,695



Hi all,

So today we received this letter attached. It's a debt letter so I'm guessing ignore until I get an LBA?

I don't understand how they have increased it to £160 and it's gone straight to debt collectors.

They have stated that their client PCM are within their rights to interrupt any time frames given by Trace and initiate legal proceedings at any point is this correct?

Many thanks in advance for any advice given and is greatly appreciated.



This post has been edited by Peapoduk: Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 13:55
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 14:18
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,898
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



They can't, or aren't supposed to, go straight to court without issuing a Letter Before Claim that conforms to the Pre Action Protocol.

The extra demand is the debt collectors share.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Peapoduk
post Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 14:34
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 49
Joined: 26 Apr 2018
Member No.: 97,695



QUOTE (ostell @ Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 15:18) *
They can't, or aren't supposed to, go straight to court without issuing a Letter Before Claim that conforms to the Pre Action Protocol.

The extra demand is the debt collectors share.


Thanks Ostell so basically this is a debt collecting letter. I was expecting a NTK but I think they skipped that because I outed myself like and idiot!

Will ignore this letter until I get a LBC will also read throughly the Premises Action Protocol. In my LBC and from what I've gathered I've got to ask for some information and then firmly and politely tell them to F*** off in my defence.

Best wishes,

Peapoduk


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pearlofwisdom
post Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 15:57
Post #53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 119
Joined: 2 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,224



Hi PeaPoduk

Keep this letter as proof of mis-use of Data. (To form part of your Counterclaim)

The parking company have wrongfully obtained your data from the DVLA and sold/passed it to a third party.

This is a severe breach of GDPR (Data Protection Act 2018) which carrys a hefty fine for non-compliance.

If your going to tell them to F**K off don't do it as part of your defence; write another missive and headline it "Without Prejudice"
This way you can say what you like and they can't use it in Court

Stick with it!
Pearl






Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Peapoduk
post Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 16:31
Post #54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 49
Joined: 26 Apr 2018
Member No.: 97,695



Thanks Pearl! I'm not sure if I shot myself in the foot as when I appealed to them to begin with I identified the driver. Does GDPR still apply?

Do you think I should reply to this debt letter or just ignore.

Best wishes,

Peapoduk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 16:53
Post #55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,898
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



They can still give the personal data to subcontractors acting for them without breaching any data protection.

Obtaining keeper data is not wrongful, they are trying to identify who was parking. Using that data after they discovered that it was the landowner who had a right to be there is wrongful.

It would have been easier if the identity of the driver had not been made known but no matter it is still your land and therefore they are trespassing on your land.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pearlofwisdom
post Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 18:58
Post #56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 119
Joined: 2 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,224



Hi Peapod

As suggested I have started my own thread.

I will be checking in to yours on a regular basis and will contribute accordingly.

"More as it comes in Dear Reader.... biggrin.gif "


Best regards
Pearl
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pearlofwisdom
post Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 19:19
Post #57


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 119
Joined: 2 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,224





b

This post has been edited by Pearlofwisdom: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 19:07
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pearlofwisdom
post Sun, 3 Jun 2018 - 09:31
Post #58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 119
Joined: 2 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,224



QUOTE (Peapoduk @ Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 17:31) *
Thanks Pearl! I'm not sure if I shot myself in the foot as when I appealed to them to begin with I identified the driver. Does GDPR still apply?

Do you think I should reply to this debt letter or just ignore.

Best wishes,

Peapoduk


Good morning

In terms of response to the letter.

You can choose to ignore as there is no legal requirement on your part to engage with this company.

Alternatively, you could write back. I responded on the last occasion to DBCL as follows:

"This debt is denied and renounced. Please refer this back to your client ***.
The vehicle in question, was parked on private land which I own. *** have no right to issue PCN on my property. They did not have my prior consent to operate on my land. They are guilty of trespass.
This is the one and only time I will engage with *** Debt recovery."

It may be prudent to mention 'GDPR' and how your details have been mis used.

Furthermore you now require assurance from *** Debt Collection that all of your data will be destroyed .






Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Peapoduk
post Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 11:44
Post #59


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 49
Joined: 26 Apr 2018
Member No.: 97,695



QUOTE (Pearlofwisdom @ Sun, 3 Jun 2018 - 10:31) *
QUOTE (Peapoduk @ Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 17:31) *
Thanks Pearl! I'm not sure if I shot myself in the foot as when I appealed to them to begin with I identified the driver. Does GDPR still apply?

Do you think I should reply to this debt letter or just ignore.

Best wishes,

Peapoduk


Good morning

In terms of response to the letter.

You can choose to ignore as there is no legal requirement on your part to engage with this company.

Alternatively, you could write back. I responded on the last occasion to DBCL as follows:

"This debt is denied and renounced. Please refer this back to your client ***.
The vehicle in question, was parked on private land which I own. *** have no right to issue PCN on my property. They did not have my prior consent to operate on my land. They are guilty of trespass.
This is the one and only time I will engage with *** Debt recovery."

It may be prudent to mention 'GDPR' and how your details have been mis used.

Furthermore you now require assurance from *** Debt Collection that all of your data will be destroyed .


Thank you Pearl. I'm going to ignore these debt collectors for now, but will keep this letter in draft to send to these people!


Hi all,

So today I called the Managing agent who are also the freeholders just to see what their reply was. Basically I was told my lease means nothing that as the freeholder they can amend the parking rights and they said that there would have been a consultation period which there wasn't. They said it doesn't matter if I objected but if the majority wanted it then I had to lump it. She then said the freeholder could override my lease even if I didn't sign anything.

I asked for her to confirm this in writing and she said no and has referred me to my housing officer as I'm in shared ownership.

What this customer agent said us rubbish right?

Many thanks and best wishes,

Peapoduk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 13:11
Post #60


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 40,174
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Yup, rubbish, how or why would you agree to a scheme that would allow PCM to sell your space to a third party or charge you for using the space you have an absolute right to use anyway. Also you are the landholder, they require a contract with the landholder which of course they can’t have.

I suspect the MA realises they have dropped one, are tied into a contract and have produced a standardised blurb to try and keep people at arms length.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

8 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Wednesday, 12th December 2018 - 01:56
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.