LBC from SCS Law on behalf of UK Parking Control Ltd, Letter Before Claim from SCS Law on behalf of UK Parking Control Ltd Options

[langworth]

Hello

I've received a Letter Before Claim from SCS Law on behalf of UK Parking Control Ltd.

Situation: staying temporarily at a private residence (private residents parking with allocated bays) with a tenant who has a parking permit but no vehicle, and I used his allocated parking bay and with their permission
I displayed a permit "to the best of my recollection" all the time (but realistically maybe not always )
Received PCNs for alleged parking violations in a “Designated permit holder’s space without displaying a permit”, and” Not parking correctly within a marked bay”.
On one of the occasions when I was ticketed I was actually in a visitors slot and not in a residents slot at all
But - I did not respond to PCN's because the first time they issued one to me, I complained and they cancelled the charge on presentation of evidence that I had a parking permit.


The Tenant's agreement does not specify any specific parking rights, but the space in question is shown allocated to the flat and I have a residents parking permit.

I've prepared a letter in reply to the LBC based on samples I've seen but thought it wise to get get your opinions first.
The part Im not sure about is that I don't have access to the original Lease therefore can't be sure of Primacy of Contract.
Is it better not to muddy the waters with guesses about Primacy of Contract, and instead rely on the fact that I was parked in an allocated bay with the property holders permission and that I (probably) displayed a permit?

SCS Law
Level 34
25 Canada Square
Canary Wharf
London E14 5LQ


24th September 2018

Dear Sirs

UK Parking Control Ltd – Response to Letter before Claim

I refer to your letter before claim dated 11th September. This is my formal response for the purposes of the Civil Procedure Rules Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims

1. Proposed Claim

1.1 Parking of my vehicle in parking bay “BS” in the car park at <location>, in alleged breach of contract leading to a claim of £1120.00 against me by your Client, UK Parking Control Ltd

2. Preliminary Issues

2.1 The Letter Before Claim appears to be largely generic in format, and does not conform to the Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims sub-paragraphs 2.1(a),(b),©, 3.1a(iv), 5.1 and 5.2. As solicitors (particularly those engaged, like yourselves, in issuing large numbers of generic claims such as this) you ought to know that you have failed to meet the requirements. Please consider 2.2.1 to 2.2.4 below my formal request for information under the Pre Action Protocol.

2.2 In accordance with the Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims sub-paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2, please forward details of the following within 30 days of this request:

2.2.1 Copies of un-redacted contracts in place on the relevant dates, showing the chain of authority from the landowner to your Client and establishing their standing to bring this Claim.

2.2.2 Details of the specific signage, with location, wording and font size(s) on which your Client is intending to rely (your mention of “signage throughout the site” is not sufficiently clear).

2.2.3 Photographs of my vehicle in relation to the signage on which your Client is intending to rely.

2.2.4 Any other documents that your Client intends to rely on in court



3. Response to the proposed Claim

3.1 The proposed Claim is disputed in its entirety.

3.1.1 Your letter does not identify the location of the alleged breach of contract, merely listing alleged parking violations in a “Designated permit holder’s space without displaying a permit.”, and” Not parking correctly within a marked bay”.

3.1.2 On all occasions the vehicle was parked in the designated Resident Permit Holder Parking Space “BS” that is allocated to the property, with one exception, where the vehicle was parked in a slot clearly marked “Visitors” and for which no ticket should have been issued at all.

3.1.3 Your Client (UK Parking Control Ltd.) has previously cancelled an alleged parking violation, for this very same vehicle in the very same slot for the same alleged transgression, upon presentation of evidence of possession of the correct parking permit. Your Client should consider this precedent, and their willingness to abandon proceedings on presentation of evidence of right of parking, very carefully.

3.1.4 On all occasions, to the best of the driver’s recollection, a valid permit was visibly displayed.

3.1.5 Judgement as to what does or does not constitute “parking correctly within a marked bay” and the degree to which such alleged trivial and vexatious accusations hold merit, is highly subjective and will be robustly defended.

Property Rights

3.2 The property Lease provides an allocated parking space (bay “BS)”.

3.3 The Lease cannot be varied without the leaseholder’s consent.

3.4 The Lease has not been varied (since parking bay “BS” was allocated to the property) with regard to parking in bay “BS”, neither has it been varied in any other respect related to parking.

3.5 The following actions conflict with my rights to peaceful enjoyment of my property by removing my unfettered right to park in the bay allocated to the property; requiring payment if the driver does not display a permit while parked on the property; binding the driver of the vehicle to a contract with a third party over something already allocated to the property.

3.5.1 Notwithstanding the explanation at 3.5, the remedy for any breach by me of Lessee covenants would lie with the Lessor and not with your Client.

Primacy of Contract

3.6 Notwithstanding my unfettered right to park in Bay “BS”, as detailed in 3.2 – 3.8 above It is alleged by your Client that by parking on bay “BS” the driver entered into a contract with your Client, which is specifically denied, for the reasons below.

3.6.1 A prior contract exists which cannot be over-ridden by your Client.

3.6.2 Signage at the site would only be capable of forming a contract in certain circumstances, including but not limited to, the absence of an existing contract. However, since you are relying on it, you must provide full details to me. I have requested the details at 2.2.2.



4. 4.1 In compliance with the Pre-Action Protocol, I have enclosed evidence of the Tenancy agreement establishing property rights, and invite your Client to reconsider this Claim, and further, to cease and desist from entering the property (bay “BS”) or affixing any notice to any vehicle parked therein.

4.2 In compliance with the Pre-Action Protocol, I have enclosed evidence of the right to park in an allocated space (the parking permit allocated to the property for parking bay “BS”)

4.3 To continue with this action, which is bound to fail, would be vexatious and unreasonable, and could have detrimental consequences for your Client in terms of costs.

4.4 If you fail to provide the requested documents within 30 days, and proceed to litigation, I will immediately apply for a stay, at your Client’s expense, until you comply. I will also notify the Solicitors Regulation Authority of your inability to follow this most basic requirement.



5. Counter Claim

5.1 You will know that as this is a residential location the residents will have a lease or agreement for the property they own or rent. It would be incumbent upon you to consider the leaseholder rights in respect of the use of allocated parking spaces

5.2 If your Client continues to litigation I shall be submitting a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office about your misuse of personal data, and issuing a counter-claim against your Client for 7 breaches of the Data Protection Act at £200 for each wrongful application for, and misuse of, my personal details from the DVLA, and 7 counts of trespass on the property as evidenced by affixing notices to the windscreen of my vehicle at £160.00 per occasion. Total amount of the claim £2,520.00.



Documents Enclosed: (i) evidence of issued parking permit for allocated parking for the property at <location> (ii) evidence of property rights for the property at <location>

This post has been edited by langworth: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 - 20:41

[Advertisement]

[Eljayjay]

Below is a draft reply to a letter of claim. Check it thoroughly for typos and for factual correctness.

If you have not read the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims from beginning to end, do so. You can google it and click on the justice.gov.uk entry to access it. Section 3 INITIAL INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED BY THE CREDITOR lists what the letter of claim should contain. You need to identify the information and documents missing from the letter of claim so that you can add something into <list here everything which you have found to be missing>.

In your reply to the letter of claim, you should take the opportunity to demand information and documents which you require. Do that and only that. It is not where you argue your case. Do not, therefore, volunteer information for which you have not been asked. It is not where you make (or even announce the details of) any counterclaim and, in any event, counterclaims based on DPA issues are a lottery – I have personal experience of a case in which the judge found the entire parking scheme to be invalid, but still did not award the DPA-based counterclaim.

The best person to make a counterclaim would by your host on the grounds of tortious interference with the lease and trespass. For that to happen, however, your host would have to be willing to be joined as a party to the case.

Do remember that, when sending letters to parking companies and their solicitors, you should use first-class mail, hand over the envelope at a Post Office counter, and request a free certificate of posting.



Dear <salutation>,

Thank you for your letter of claim reference <their ref> dated <date of letter of claim>.

This letter serves two purposes: it is a formal response to the letter of claim; and it is a complaint about your behaviour by failing to provide a letter of claim which complies with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.

Information and documents that should have been provided (but which you have failed to provide) in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims are as follows:-

<list here everything which you have found to be missing>

I shall be grateful if you will explain why you have failed to provide the documents and information mentioned above and, of course, provide them now.

I shall also be grateful if you will explain why you failed to “enclose a copy of the Information Sheet and the Reply Form at Annex 1 to this Protocol” as required in paragraph 3.1©. <editing will be required if they have provided either of those.>

If you had supplied the requisite reply form, I would have ticked Box D and I would have stated that I still dispute the debt because, despite my previous representations, I have not received an adequate explanation as to why your client believes it has a right to any parking charge from me. In addition, I would have ticked Box I and would have stated that I need more documents or information in order to assess the validity or otherwise of your client’s claim.

The Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims does, of course, provide this further opportunity to narrow the issues between your client and myself following the issue of the letter of claim. Accordingly, I take that opportunity by requesting now the documents and information described below:-

I shall also be grateful if you will explain why you failed to send me “a copy of the Information Sheet and the Reply Form at Annex 1 to this Protocol” as required in paragraph 3.1©.

If you had supplied the requisite reply form, I would have ticked Box D and I would have stated that I still dispute the debt because, despite my previous representations, I have not received an adequate explanation as to why your client believes it has a right to any parking charge from me. In addition, I would have ticked Box I and would have stated that I need more documents or information in order to assess the validity or otherwise of your client’s claim.

The Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims does, of course, provide this further opportunity to narrow the issues between your client and myself following the issue of the letter of claim. Accordingly, I take that opportunity by requesting now the documents and information described below:-

1. evidence of ownership of the land;

2. the parking contract between your client and the owner or occupier of the land purporting to grant the right to your client to charge for parking on the land;

3. if the land is owned and/or occupied by a company and the parking contract has not been signed by a director of the company (readily identifiable as such by reference to the company’s records at Companies House), corroborative evidence from a director of the company (who is readily identifiable as such by reference to the company’s records at Companies House) that the signatory has been authorised to enter into the parking contract on behalf of the owner or occupier of the land;

4. if the land is owned and/or occupied by a company, corroborative evidence from a director of the company (who is readily identifiable as such by reference to the company’s records at Companies House) that the site plan is a true and accurate representation of the land which your client purports is the subject of the parking contract;

5. the accredited trade association’s code of practice to which your client claims to adhere;

6. a copy of the site plan provided by your client to its accredited trade association;

7. a copy of the written contract for the alleged debt;

8. notes giving details of the due diligence process undertaken by your client to ensure that not only the contract between your client and its principal but also the purported contract between your client and the driver met the “Implied term about care and skill” requirement contained in the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 and the “Service to be performed with reasonable care and skill” requirement contained in the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

9. if you have applied due diligence, you will know that my parking on the land is governed by a lease which is of paramount importance and has primacy over any contract made by any of its parties with a stranger (such as your client) to the lease;

10. if your client believes that the lease contains express provision to allow your client to operate a parking scheme on the land, a note of the specific clauses in the lease applicable to this situation;

11. if your client believes that any rules or regulations have been made in accordance with the lease’s provisions to allow your client to operate a parking scheme on the allocated parking space:-

a. a copy of those rules or regulations duly signed, etc. by the person(s) who made them; and

b. a note of the specific clause(s) in the lease in accordance with which those rules or regulations were made;

12. as the lease granted a right to park on the land to the lessee, a copy of the instrument which either transferred those rights to the your client or transferred a share of those rights to the your client;

13. if your client believes that the lease’s terms permit third parties, e.g. your client, to enforce the lease’s terms in accordance with the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, a note of the specific clause(s) in the lease applicable to this situation;

14. if your client does not believe that the lease’s terms permit third parties, e.g. your client, to enforce the lease’s terms in accordance with the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, a note explaining how your client has concluded that the it has acquired such a right;

15. if your client’s parking scheme has not been introduced in accordance with the lease’s provisions, a note explaining how your client has concluded that its parking contract with the owner or occupier of the land and your client’s alleged parking contract(s) with driver(s) parking on the land have acquired primacy of contract over the lease;

16. a note giving the Company’s explanation as to how the current ticketing and charging regime accords with the legal principle of non-derogation from grant implied in all leases;

17. a note giving the Company’s explanation as to how the current parking regime with its exorbitant parking charges and threats of court action against lessees and their visitors using their own allocated parking spaces accords with the legal principle of quiet enjoyment implied in all leases;

18. a transcript of any previous judgement or judgments in any case or cases involving the same land and your client;

19. any other information and documents on which the Company would rely in court in support of its belief that the current parking regime is valid.

As you are no doubt aware, paragraph 5 of the Protocol reads as follows:-

5 DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS

5.1 Early disclosure of documents and relevant information can help to clarify or resolve any issues in dispute. Where any aspect of the debt is disputed (including the amount, interest, charges, time for payment, or the creditor’s compliance with relevant statutes and regulations), the parties should exchange information and disclose documents sufficient to enable them to understand each other’s position.

5.2 If the debtor requests a document or information, the creditor must –

(a) provide the document or information; or

(b) explain why the document or information is unavailable,

within 30 days of receipt of the request.

Naturally, I fully expect your client (or your firm on its behalf) to meet the requirements mentioned paragraph 5.2 above.

I do, therefore. look forward to receiving either the documents and information which I have requested or your explanation why they are unavailable within the deadline set by the Protocol.

Yours…

[langworth]

Thanks for the prompt response!

My intention was to get them to drop the case on evidence of my right to park.

I'm happy to follow the advice, but wonder what is the next step after they (maybe) obligingly send me all the evidence that I'll request?

[Eljayjay]

langworth

You are a reasonable individual and, as such, you expect others to be reasonable too. The problem is that the world of parking is full of folk who are not reasonable.

Parking operators and their solicitors are not concerned with legal niceties. They are simply concerned with getting their victims to crack and pay them money. In your case, I suspect that a formal claim will be made against you and that, if they have any sense, they will discontinue it as near to the hearing as possible. As they would have deferred payment of the court fee, abusing the court system in this way would have cost them nothing.

What you have to do is hope for the best but prepare for the worst. My draft of your reply to the letter of claim helps that preparation.

Unless your case is truly exceptional, they will not be able to provide all the information and documents requested in your reply to the letter of claim. So, I suspect they will do one of two things: either they will make a half-baked attempt at trying to provide the information and documents (in which case you will go back to them and, with my help, ask where is this information and where is that document?); or they will send you no response and simply proceed with a formal claim against you.

In the event of receiving a formal claim, you will, with my help, turn the reply to the letter of claim into your defence and, later, into your witness statement. Your witness statement will note that, in accordance with the Protocol, you asked for information and documents, but that, in defiance of the Protocol, they failed to provide what was required.

When you submit your defence, you will need to make a counterclaim. By doing so, the case will have to be heard even if they discontinue their claim. Believe it or not, you need case to be heard because it is the only way for you to achieve closure. You need to have your day in court and beat them by successfully defending the claim to prevent them having another go at you in the future - google res judicata. Residential parking claims are usually very easily defended.

Have no fears about going to court. It is not a criminal case where you stand the chance of going down for life (provided, of course, you do not seek closure by anything too extreme). It is merely the pretty informal small claims track of the civil county court system where a judge will settle the argument in, I firmly believe, your favour. It is worth the experience because you will never fear having to go through it again in the future.

This post has been edited by Eljayjay: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 19:50

[Rifty]

That is an excellent post. Should be a *Sticky*

[langworth]

Many thanks for the explanation, it sounds like it might be an interesting (and possibly entertaining) exercise to go through.

I'll come back and share when I get a response.

[langworth]

Here's my letter based upon yours - there were some duplicated paragraphs, and edited to reflect that they provided the information sheet and reply form (but nothing else):

This letter serves two purposes: it is a formal response to the letter of claim; and it is a complaint about your behaviour by failing to provide a letter of claim which complies with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.
The Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims does, of course, provide this further opportunity to narrow the issues between your client and myself following the issue of the letter of claim. Accordingly, I take that opportunity by requesting now the documents and information described below:

1. evidence of ownership of the land;

2. the parking contract between your client and the owner or occupier of the land purporting to grant the right to your client to charge for parking on the land;

3. if the land is owned and/or occupied by a company and the parking contract has not been signed by a director of the company (readily identifiable as such by reference to the company’s records at Companies House), corroborative evidence from a director of the company (who is readily identifiable as such by reference to the company’s records at Companies House) that the signatory has been authorised to enter into the parking contract on behalf of the owner or occupier of the land;

4. if the land is owned and/or occupied by a company, corroborative evidence from a director of the company (who is readily identifiable as such by reference to the company’s records at Companies House) that the site plan is a true and accurate representation of the land which your client purports is the subject of the parking contract;

5. the accredited trade association’s code of practice to which your client claims to adhere;

6. a copy of the site plan provided by your client to its accredited trade association;

7. a copy of the written contract for the alleged debt;

8. notes giving details of the due diligence process undertaken by your client to ensure that not only the contract between your client and its principal but also the purported contract between your client and the driver met the “Implied term about care and skill” requirement contained in the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 and the “Service to be performed with reasonable care and skill” requirement contained in the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

9. if you have applied due diligence, you will know that my parking on the land is governed by a lease which is of paramount importance and has primacy over any contract made by any of its parties with a stranger (such as your client) to the lease;

10. if your client believes that the lease contains express provision to allow your client to operate a parking scheme on the land, a note of the specific clauses in the lease applicable to this situation;

11. if your client believes that any rules or regulations have been made in accordance with the lease’s provisions to allow your client to operate a parking scheme on the allocated parking space:-

a. a copy of those rules or regulations duly signed, etc. by the person(s) who made them; and

b. a note of the specific clause(s) in the lease in accordance with which those rules or regulations were made;

12. as the lease granted a right to park on the land to the lessee, a copy of the instrument which either transferred those rights to your client or transferred a share of those rights to your client;

13. if your client believes that the lease’s terms permit third parties, e.g. your client, to enforce the lease’s terms in accordance with the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, a note of the specific clause(s) in the lease applicable to this situation;

14. if your client does not believe that the lease’s terms permit third parties, e.g. your client, to enforce the lease’s terms in accordance with the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, a note explaining how your client has concluded that the it has acquired such a right;

15. if your client’s parking scheme has not been introduced in accordance with the lease’s provisions, a note explaining how your client has concluded that its parking contract with the owner or occupier of the land and your client’s alleged parking contract(s) with driver(s) parking on the land have acquired primacy of contract over the lease;

16. a note giving the Company’s explanation as to how the current ticketing and charging regime accords with the legal principle of non-derogation from grant implied in all leases;

17. a note giving the Company’s explanation as to how the current parking regime with its exorbitant parking charges and threats of court action against lessees and their visitors using their own allocated parking spaces accords with the legal principle of quiet enjoyment implied in all leases;

18. a transcript of any previous judgement or judgments in any case or cases involving the same land and your client;

19. any other information and documents on which the Company would rely in court in support of its belief that the current parking regime is valid.

As you are no doubt aware, paragraph 5 of the Protocol reads as follows:
5 DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS
5.1 Early disclosure of documents and relevant information can help to clarify or resolve any issues in dispute. Where any aspect of the debt is disputed (including the amount, interest, charges, time for payment, or the creditor’s compliance with relevant statutes and regulations), the parties should exchange information and disclose documents sufficient to enable them to understand each other’s position.
5.2 If the debtor requests a document or information, the creditor must –
(a) provide the document or information; or
(b) explain why the document or information is unavailable,
within 30 days of receipt of the request.
Naturally, I fully expect your client (or your firm on its behalf) to meet the requirements mentioned in paragraph 5.2 above.

I do, therefore. look forward to receiving either the documents and information which I have requested or your explanation why they are unavailable within the deadline set by the Protocol.

Yours faithfully

This post has been edited by langworth: Fri, 28 Sep 2018 - 11:44

[Eljayjay]

If you have sent that, well done.

If you are seeking approval before sending it, you certainly have mine.

[langworth]

Thanks Eljayjay - approval gratefully received

[langworth]

Acknowledgement received from SCS Law - "we are currently taking instructions on this matter from our client and will respond to you substantively in due course"...

[Eljayjay]

It would, of course, be pure conjecture to try to read anything into that response apart from, perhaps, SCS not being prepared for your letter.

It will be interesting to see what comes next.

[nosferatu1001]

You could bear in mind that the dealdine of 30 days doesnt stop, just because theyre taking instruction
So at 31 days and nothing received you would inform them they are in breavch of the PAP and you will apply for any claim to be truck out, at their full cost.

[langworth]

I received the pack from SCS Law yesterday, 30th October (dated 29th October) so that would be the 30th day after the date of my reply to them.

The original LBC was dated 11th September.

The reply from SCS Law reads:
------------------------
We write further to your letter dated 30th September2018.

Please find the requested documentation enclosed, less the leaseholder agreement. Namely the following
1. Copies of all parking charge notices,
2. Photographic evidence of the signage at the site,
3. Annotated site map showing signage locations and a
4. Redacted contract between UK Parking Control Ltd (UKPC) and Trinity Estates Ltd.

It is our clients position that they have been granted the full authority to issue parking charge notices (PCN's) as per the redacted contract enclosed, and can validly serve PCN's oon motorists who breach the terms and conditions of parking. As such it is our client's position that these terms abd conditions were breached and the PCN's were validly served.

If you allege that your leasehold agreement does provide you with a right to park in the spaces provided within the enclosed photographic evidence, our client requests a copy of this from you, to enable them to assess the relevant clauses.
------------------------

In fact, I don't have a leasehold agreement as I was staying temporarily as a guest of the owner.

Thanks
Simon

This post has been edited by langworth: Wed, 31 Oct 2018 - 23:12

[Redivi]

UKPC are hardly strangers to residential parking contracts

It's their responsibility to check that their employer can legally employ them including not only the content of the lease but the agreement of the tenants that the conditions of parking can be altered

[nosferatu1001]

Have you asked the owner then? That would help.

[Eljayjay]

You can and should get a copy of the lease from the Land Registry by completing a form OC2 and paying the associated modest fee. Please note that the lease is not one of the documents available from the Land Registry online.

Strictly speaking, they are now out of time to provide the information and documents which you have requested but, being what they are, you may still find yourself on the receiving end of a formal claim.

In the meantime, you could send the following reply to the letter of 29 October...


Dear <salutation>,

Thank you for your letter of 29 October 2018.

I would, however, point out that, in my letter of 30 September 2018, I requested nineteen pieces of information or documents from you. You have provided me with just four documents in response.

The Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims states very clearly that:-

<tab>“If the debtor requests a document or information, the creditor must –

<tab><tab>(a) provide the document or information; or

<tab><tab>(b) explain why the document or information is unavailable,

<tab>within 30 days of receipt of the request.”

By failing to provide any explanation for the missing information and documents, your client has failed to comply with the Protocol.

In addition, it is apparent that your client has entered into a contract with its principal relating to land where parking is governed by leases but, in doing so, your client has not bothered to examine the contents of those leases (which are, of course, documents of public record available from the Land Registry). That being so, it is obvious that your client failed to conduct due diligence prior to entering into not only its contract with its principal but also its purported contract between your client and the driver. In short, your client has not met either the “Implied term about care and skill” requirement contained in the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 or the “Service to be performed with reasonable care and skill” requirement contained in the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Naturally, given that your client has not made a serious attempt to narrow the issues between us in accordance with the Protocol, I consider this correspondence to be at an end.

Yours…

[langworth]

I like that - so dismissive

I'll let you know what transpires.......

Many thanks (again)
Simon

[langworth]

Hi

I've received a further response from SCS/UKPC dated 12th November

======================

Dear.....

We write further to your letter dated 30th October in response to our letter dated 29th October.

For the avoidance of doubt we consider that our letter before claim is compliant with the pre-action protocol for debt claims.

Please note we have adopted the same numbering to the points raised in your letter of 30th September 2018 and provide our clients response below:
1-4 please refer to the contract attached. Our client manages parking at the site in question pursuant to a contract with Trinity Estates Ltd.. the managing agent of the site on behalf of the landowner. Our client manages the site in question pursuant to a contract with the managing agent, which confers the authority to our client to operate parking controls at the site. The evidence of the ownership of the land can be obtained from the land registry.

5. Our client follows the BPA Code of Practice under which written authorisation is required from the landowner or their agent to manage parking at the site.

6 An annotated site map showing signage is attached.

7 An offer was made by the signage present at the site in question and upon entering the site the driver agreed to abide by the terms and conditions for parking as per the signage. Therefore by parking at the site in question the driver entered into a contractual relationship with our client by conduct. As the driver has failed to abide by the terms and conditions by not displaying a valid permit and not parking correctly within the marked bay, the vehicle was issued with the parking charge notices.

8 our clients position is that there has been no breach of the supply of goods and services act 1982 (notwithstanding it is no longer in force) as the service provided to you by our client was the provision of a parking space to be used in compliance with the terms and conditions, as per the signage, which was erected at the site in questions., As you have failed to comply with these terms and conditions a breach of contract occurred and therefore our client was at liberty to issue you with the parking charge notices.

9-17 Please confirm if you seek to rely on any leasehold agreement in relation to this site, if you allege that any such agreement gave the driver of the vehicle a right to park in brach of the terms and conditions and provide us with a copy of the same.

18. Our client is not obliged to provide this information.

19. Our client will be relying on all the documentation that is relevant to this case.

Given the above it is our clients position that the parking charge notices for a total sum of £1120.00 were validly issued and remain due and owing.

Please be advised that unless a formal response or payment is received from you within 30 days from the date of this letter we will consider that no agreement has been reached between the parties and we anticipate instructions from our client to proceed further with the matter.

we look forward to hearing from you within 30 days

etc.

[Eljayjay]

Frankly, I would ignore it.

They had 30 days in which to provide the information and documents requested by you and they failed to meet the deadline and to provide the alternative explanation. Obviously, keep everything in case anything further comes of it.

If you have not yet taken steps to get hold of a copy of the lease, I would suggest that you do so without further delay. A copy of the lease can be obtained from the Land Registry by completing a form OC2 and paying the associated modest fee - someone mentioned very recently that it costs just £7. The lease is not one of the documents available from the Land Registry online.

[langworth]

OK, thanks for the advice again. I'll see what happens, it will be interesting to see if they are prepared to take it further...

In the event that it does proceed I still have up my sleeve that they previously cancelled a ticket when I showed evidence of having a permit in an email. Does that set some sort of useful precedent?

The owner's vehicle (actually a motorbike) in the same bay has never been ticketed in 4 years despite never showing a permit.

However, not all of the tickets were on the owner's allocated bay. On one of the occasions I thought to avoid a further ticket and deliberately parked in the slot marked for visitors, but hadn't realised there was a 4 hour limit and got ticketed again. I frankly don't understand where they expect visitors to park if they can't park in the owners slot (with their permission) and can't use a visitors slot overnight either.