Private Parking Ticket Letter Before Claim Options

[speedfighter23]

Hi everyone, got a parking ticket in 2019 in Regus Bracknell. The issue was parking there was free for users and not enforced, but all of a sudden they changed this where you need to walk into Regus and get a paper permit and then stick it on the car free of charge. I was caught out by this change as I did not notice the changes and kept on parking there until I got a ticket. (the one here).

When I got a ticket, I walked into Regus and then they gave me a sticker and told me to put it in my car from now on.

I told them this but they ignored me, I appealed it failed, and now I get this letter followed by these 2 emails:

Good morning,

Thank you for your correspondence, the contents of which have been noted and our response below.

Whilst you state that you were not aware of the requirement to display a valid permit when parking on the site, referring you to the evidence attached, Signs clearly state that a valid permit must be displayed at all times. Referring you specifically to images attached, it can clearly be seen that a sign displaying these terms is affixed to a lamp post directly behind the vehicle, alerting you to these terms. Therefore, it cannot be said that you were unaware of the requirement to display a valid permit at the time of the charge. As you failed to comply with these terms, a charge was incurred.

In view of the above, our Client’s position that the charge was issued correctly remains the same and the amount of £160 remains outstanding.

Should no payment be forthcoming within 30 days from the date of this email, we may be instructed to commence legal proceedings against you without further notice.



We write further to our previous letter (attached) and note we have not received a response or payment of the full Amount Due/ Debt.

Our client wishes to resolve this matter amicably and without the need for costly Court proceedings. However, owing to your lack of payment, considers it has no other choice than to issue Court proceedings in the event the Amount Due/ Debt remains outstanding.

The Pre-Action Protocol (‘PAP’) period has nearly expired and our Client is not prepared to extend the same further without good reason/ contact from you, owing to your lack of engagement with the PAP thus far.

We invite you to make payment within the next 7 days. Our team is ready to try to work with you to resolve this matter without the need for Court proceedings and it is important you contact us upon receipt of this email.

Please do not reply to this message. This email was sent from an unmonitored mailbox.

Yours sincerely

Gladstones Solicitors Limited


I am fully prepared to fight this all the way and go to court if I need to. Thanks for any tips or advice.

This post has been edited by speedfighter23: Thu, 5 Nov 2020 - 17:54

[Advertisement]

[ostell]

The signage in the car park is of a “forbidding” nature. It is limited to cars displaying a valid permit only and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without a permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship. I refer you to the following case law: PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] – In all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and thus only a trespass had occurred and would be a matter for the landowner.


Presumably you have identified the driver as the NTK is insufficient to hold the keeper liable on several points

There is also a condition in the BPA Code of Practise that when conditions in a car park change then there must be clear notices identifying the changes

This post has been edited by ostell: Thu, 5 Nov 2020 - 10:04

[speedfighter23]

The signage in the car park is of a “forbidding” nature. It is limited to cars displaying a valid permit only and therefore the terms cannot apply to cars without a permit because the signage does not offer an invitation to park on certain terms. The terms are forbidding. This means that there was never a contractual relationship. I refer you to the following case law: PCM-UK v Bull et all B4GF26K6 [2016], UKPC v Masterson B4GF26K6[2016], Horizon Parking v Mr J C5GF17X2 [2016] – In all three of these cases the signage was found to be forbidding and thus only a trespass had occurred and would be a matter for the landowner.

Thanks for that! What should I do? Should I reply to their email? Ignore them until they take me to court?

[ostell]

Has the driver been identified, simple yes or no?

[speedfighter23]

Has the driver been identified, simple yes or no?

Yes

[ostell]

OK with the driver identified you can't make use of the POFA fails.

So write to them pointing out the failure to abide with the CoP and the fact that there is no contract to park offered to non permit holders etc.

[Jlc]

Can Regus intervene still?

I would note the £60 added is definitely challengeable - it hasn't been incurred for starters the signs are uncertain on it.

The £80 solicitors costs is above the maximum fixed cost they can request (£50) - this is misleading and threatening IMHO.


You've not redacted your personal information.

This post has been edited by Jlc: Thu, 5 Nov 2020 - 11:43

[Sheffield Dave]

I think the "forbidding" argument will fail here. The OP wasn't forbidden from parking - in fact they were fully entitled to park - but just needed to comply with the T&Cs, which they were able to (i.e. ask Regus for a sticker) but "chose" not to.

I think a stronger argument would be a lack of prominent signs warning that the T&Cs of parking had changed - assuming of course that it's true. Doesn't at least one of the BPA/IPC have that in their code of practice? The important thing about such signs is they have to be able to alert you such that you then choose to actively go and read the smaller signs to see exactly what has changed.

The other point is whether the driver has any contractual right to park granted by Regus, and if so does that contract require them to display permits/whatever and ay a 3rd party on failure?

[The Rookie]

I agree, I don't think forbidding applies here. Ostell's quote is wrong IMO in that it isn't constrained by any means to permit holders only.

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Thu, 5 Nov 2020 - 14:08

[ostell]

The second sign says "Permit Holders Only"

On the first sign how can you display a valid permit when an actual permit doesn't exist

[The Rookie]

The second sign says "Permit Holders Only"

On the first sign how can you display a valid permit when an actual permit doesn't exist

An actual permit does exist as detailed.

The second sign lists the contractual points and one of those permit holders only and that the permit must be displayed, so by not being a permit holder you breach that term, but the core terms are still applicable. I really don't think you would get anywhere in court with that.

[speedfighter23]

Can Regus intervene still?

I would note the £60 added is definitely challengeable - it hasn't been incurred for starters the signs are uncertain on it.

The £80 solicitors costs is above the maximum fixed cost they can request (£50) - this is misleading and threatening IMHO.


You've not redacted your personal information.

Thanks for that, edited my attachment and reuploaded it as i forgot to remove one page of details.
So basically even if i go to court and lose I have to pay 150 GBP?


My whole argument from the start was that the signs were not very clear, and I had parked there multiple times in the past before they introduced this policy so was not aware of the changes until I actually got a ticket. They refused this argument. I even took picutres of the 'permit' which is a written piece of paper that they give to you at reception and you put it over your windscreen without having to pay anything.

I called regus but they never replied.

I think the "forbidding" argument will fail here. The OP wasn't forbidden from parking - in fact they were fully entitled to park - but just needed to comply with the T&Cs, which they were able to (i.e. ask Regus for a sticker) but "chose" not to.

I think a stronger argument would be a lack of prominent signs warning that the T&Cs of parking had changed - assuming of course that it's true. Doesn't at least one of the BPA/IPC have that in their code of practice? The important thing about such signs is they have to be able to alert you such that you then choose to actively go and read the smaller signs to see exactly what has changed.

The other point is whether the driver has any contractual right to park granted by Regus, and if so does that contract require them to display permits/whatever and ay a 3rd party on failure?

The changed rules from the beginning (you could park anywhere and access Regus in the bays), was that you now have to go to Reception and get a permit and put it in your car, but I was not aware of this change until I got a parking ticket, that is my argument.

This post has been edited by speedfighter23: Thu, 5 Nov 2020 - 17:59

[Jlc]

So basically even if i go to court and lose I have to pay 150 GBP?

Not quite that simple. But should be around £180-250 maximum.

[speedfighter23]

So basically even if i go to court and lose I have to pay 150 GBP?

Not quite that simple. But should be around £180-250 maximum.

Ok I replied to them saying I did not find it reasonable I should be aware of changes to parking terms and conditions. If they reply or take me to court, will update.

[speedfighter23]

Just a question, do I write an SAR to the parking company and/or Gladstones Solicitors, or both to see what they have on me?

[speedfighter23]

Gladstones got back to me:


Dear Mr XXXXX,

Thank you for your correspondence.

Permits at this site can be obtained in reception as well as a note advertising that all visitors need to obtain a permit.

Our Client rejects any arguments that you did not see the signs. The site has sufficient signs and without concession if they werent seen they ought to have been. We refer you to the appeal of Vehicle Control Services Ltd and Nick Idle and Vehicle Control Services and Damen Ward, Judge Saffman found at paragraph 53 the following; "if the driver chooses not to stop to read the sign (and it must be his choice not to do so) it is difficult to see how that, in itself, can provide a defence based on the absence of contract." It is our view that as our Client's signs were both prevalent and apparent throughout the land, in conjunction with the observation above (albeit in relation to a stopping charge), the judgment applies to this matter and the charge was correctly issued and a contract was formed. It is the drivers responsibility to ensure that parking is permitted before leaving the vehicle unattended.

The charge sought is industry standard and is set at a rate so as to suitably satisfy our Clients legitimate interest. In the case of Parking Eye v Bevis 2015 it was held that an £85 charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable. We refer you to the BPA Code of Practice Part B 19.5 which confirms 'we would not expect this amount to be more than £100' and in Part B 23.1 it confirms 'a reasonable sum may be added for the debt recovery fees. This sum must not exceed £70.'

Motorists can park on the site in accordance with the terms and conditions on the sign, without incurring a charge but to park without incurring a charge they may need to display a permit; purchase a pay and display ticket; become an authorised user, it is whatever the sign states. If a motorists wishes to park ‘as they please’ within reason, they can do so but pay a charge for this ‘privilege’, the charge is set out on the signs and by a motorist parking otherwise than in accordance with the signs they accept the charge at the point of parking and a valid contract is formed. The charge is due within 28 days of being incurred, if the charge remains unpaid after this date the contract the motorist entered into is breached and a debt is owed to our Client, they are then entitled to damages that have occurred as a result of breach. The costs are a pre-determined and nominal contribution to the actual losses. They relate to the time our Clients staff have spent and material facilitating the recovery of this debt. This time could have been better spent on other elements of their business.

In view of the above, it remains our Clients position that the sum of £160 is outstanding and is to be paid within 30 days from the date of this correspondence. In the event neither payment nor a substantive response is received within this time frame it may be our Clients intention to issue legal proceedings against you without further notice. Payment can be made by calling our offices on 03330230049 or on our website www.gladstonessolicitors.co.uk. Alternatively, payment can be made by BACS using the following details:

Bank - Barclays
Name - Gladstones Solicitors Ltd
Reference - 104031.579
Account Number - 33028712
Sort Code - 20-24-09

Kind Regards,


Samantha
Litigation Assistant



Gladstones Solicitors Limited
The Terrace
High Legh Park Golf Club
Warrington Road
High Legh
Knutsford
Cheshire
WA16 6AA

This post has been edited by speedfighter23: Wed, 27 Jan 2021 - 12:19

[speedfighter23]

Is this reply any good?




do not find it reasonable that a parking place for an office suddenly changes rules without any notice that they were going to do so and starts asking for parking permits due to a contract they signed with a parking provider and suddenly expect users of the Regus that “they should have read the signs now that things have now changed”. People cannot keep up with changes all the time. As shown in the photos, there is no sign asking for permit parking behind my car, so it is not reasonable for me to be aware of the permanent change, unless you expect people parking to look all around the carpark for signs that may have changed since they parked previously there without any requirement for permit parking. It clearly says on the ground from my photo “visitor parking”, with no sign behind saying that I would need a permit. I suggest your client informs users of carparks through better signage, even more so when they sign new contracts and are changing the terms and conditions of parking.

With the above said, I conclude that it was not reasonable of the parking provider to suddenly introduce new terms and conditions without adequately informing users of the change and as a result and my explanation of the facts, added to the fact I went and got a legitimate permit after I questioned the reception why I got a ticket and she said to put this on the car, but naturally it was too late by then to avoid the ticket.

This charge should be removed, and I have no intention of paying such a charge. The claimant should spend less time chasing unfairly issued tickets and more time making their signage better, in that situation I suggest a sign behind every visitor parking bay saying that you need a permit. I fully expect this charge to be removed; failing that the only way payment will be made is if you take me to court in person (not on the phone) and we both present our evidence in front of a judge and I am found guilty. If I am not found guilty, I fully intend to claim costs for wasting my time over the course of nearly 2 years now without successful resolution, just threatening letters telling me to pay a debt that I do not even acknowledge.

Let’s stop wasting each other’s time and move on, I would hope we both have better things to do than dispute such matters where clearly the evidence is not overwhelming on your side and I am presenting strong arguments in defending myself together with evidence of misleading signage and changes of terms and conditions that your client carelessly did, solely for the purpose of writing parking tickets in an area where legitimate visitors do not even need to pay to park there to get a permit.



This post has been edited by speedfighter23: Wed, 27 Jan 2021 - 13:11

[Jlc]

...and in Part B 23.1 it confirms 'a reasonable sum may be added for the debt recovery fees. This sum must not exceed £70.'

But the CoP does not purport to offer any advice that the suggested charge is conscionable. Many Judges do reject the double recovery, even if they do accept the core charge is due.

[ostell]

If there is a change in conditions then their CoP required them to display changes for a reasonable time.

The signs make no mention of being able to obtain a permit and how. How did the OP find out about this? Looks like a hidden term.

I still say it is a forbidding sign. Why would you have to chase around looking at all the signs?

[speedfighter23]

If there is a change in conditions then their CoP required them to display changes for a reasonable time.

The signs make no mention of being able to obtain a permit and how. How did the OP find out about this? Looks like a hidden term.

I still say it is a forbidding sign. Why would you have to chase around looking at all the signs?

So I found out about this from the Reception when I got the ticket. They started putting signs saying you need permit parking, but they only told you this if you went to the reception before walking in and asked did you park in front. That day I did not go to reception, I went straight to the office. I then got the ticket, and I showed the reception the ticket, and they wrote me a 'parking permit - handwritten', which is basically a piece of paper with my numberplate and the time on PPS stationary.

That's my argument. The signage doesn't make sense, and it should be made clear that the terms and conditions of the car park have changed, not relying on passing by the reception to ask is it ok to park there when it clearly says visitor parking.

This post has been edited by speedfighter23: Wed, 27 Jan 2021 - 16:56