Show Posts - thecheeseman123

No one can help me? 

Dear all,I have lived in my shared-ownership property for around 4 years now. For the first 2-3 years, there was no parking management, as it was a new estate. However, it is now under PCM's control. I have received two tickets, both initially £60, later increased to £100 for failing to display the permit, the first one was becouse I was demolding my car and could not have any paper within the car, the second time was due to the sun the permit curled up, apparently making it unreadable (it has been incredibly hot in the UK, this was unavoidable). I have made responses to both PCM and Peabody, with my local councillor in the loop, who is in support of us residents against the relevant clauses of my contract. They escalated to debt recovery with this company, Trace, which I ignored; now they sent a letter by Moorside Legal. Here is their letter and my response to them (apologies, this is quite long):Your account has been transferred to Moorside LegalDear ,We are writing to you regarding an outstanding balance of £340.00 relating to multiple unpaid parking charges, reference .Your account has been transferred to Moorside Legal Services, a law firm authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA No. 800­6077). We have been instructed by Parking Control Management UK Limited to recover this balance.Total amount outstanding£340.00Reference: A formal letter is on its way to you. It will set out full details of the debt and the steps we are required to take if it remains unpaid. We strongly encourage you to act before that letter arrives — doing so is the quickest and easiest way to resolve this matter.If this balance is not settled following our letter, we are instructed to consider issuing a claim in the County Court. Following court proceedings, if a County Court Judgment (CCJ) is entered against you, it can remain on your credit record for up to six years and may affect your ability to obtain credit, a mortgage, or other financial products.Pay now at portal.moorsidelegal.co.ukWays to resolve this matter●  Pay onlineAvailable 24­/7 atportal.moorsidelegal.co.uk/pay●  Pay by phone24­/7 payment line:0330 822 8519●  Payment planSet up affordable instalments atportal.moorsidelegal.co.uk●  Speak to usM­on–F­ri 9a­m–5­pm:0330 822 9950If you have already made payment, please disregard this notice and accept our thanks.Moorside Legal ServicesHelpline: 0330 822 9950  ·  M­on–F­ri 9a­m–5­pmAlways quote your reference: Need free and independent debt advice?If you are experiencing financial difficulty, free, impartial advice is available from Citizens Advice, StepChange, National Debtline and MoneyHelper.Pay online Customer portal Complaints Privacy noticeMoorside Legal Services LimitedRegistered in England & Wales No. 150­69347Authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation AuthoritySRA ID: 800­6077PO Box 82112, London N17 1LG  ·  portal.moorsidelegal.co.ukThis email has been sent to you because your contact details were provided to Moorside Legal Services Limited by our client, on whose behalf we are acting. Moorside Legal is committed to protecting your personal data and processes information in accordance with UK data protection law. If you believe you have received this in error, please contact us on 0330 822 9950. Moorside Legal is a trading style of Moorside Legal Services Limited.--------------------------------------------------------------------Dear Moorside Legal Services,I refer to your email dated 14 August 2026 concerning your reference 40828927 and the alleged balance of £340 said to be owed to your client, Parking Control Management (UK) Limited ("PCM").I formally dispute the alleged debt in its entirety.I have previously made PCM, and the landowner/estate manager Peabody, fully aware of the legal basis upon which I dispute liability for the relevant Parking Charge Notices. This is not a case in which I have simply refused to pay an undisputed debt. There is an ongoing substantive contractual and leasehold dispute which has not been determined by a court.I am the leaseholder and resident of 68 Atwater House, Armstrong Road, Littlemore, Oxford. My lease expressly grants me a right to park within the Parking Area. The lease also contains detailed provisions governing the use of that Parking Area.The relevant lease provisions contain no express requirement to display a parking permit and no express provision authorising PCM to impose contractual parking charges or penalties upon a leaseholder exercising the parking right granted by the lease.Peabody has sought to rely upon a general provision of the lease concerning regulations relating to the Common Parts. I have challenged the proposition that such a general regulatory provision can reasonably or lawfully be interpreted as authorising the imposition of punitive third-party contractual charges upon leaseholders exercising an express leasehold parking right.In particular, PCM and Peabody have been provided with the relevant lease provisions and have been expressly asked to identify the contractual provision which they say authorises:a mandatory permit-display requirement applicable to my leasehold parking right;PCM to impose contractual parking charges upon me;the use of third-party signage to alter or supplement my existing leasehold rights; andthe recovery of additional debt-recovery or legal costs arising from such alleged liability.No such specific contractual provision has been identified to me.The legal position therefore remains disputed and is not capable of being resolved merely by PCM asserting that its signage creates a contractual obligation.I have also raised this matter with Peabody's legal/compliance representatives and with my local councillor, Cllr Tiago Corais, and the matter has also been raised with the local authority. The existence of this correspondence and dispute is therefore well documented.The alleged £340 balanceI note that your email refers to "multiple unpaid parking charges", whereas your reference appears to have previously been used in debt-recovery correspondence concerning the parking charges issued by PCM.Please provide, before any further enforcement action is contemplated:a complete itemised breakdown of the £340 claimed;the PCN number, date, time and alleged contravention for each individual charge;the original amount of each alleged parking charge;the date and method by which each PCN was served;details of every additional sum subsequently added to the original charges;the contractual or statutory basis relied upon for each additional sum;and confirmation of whether your client contends that any debt-recovery fee, solicitor's fee or other additional cost is presently contractually recoverable from me.I do not accept that the mere referral of a disputed parking charge to a debt-recovery agent or solicitor automatically creates a further liability on my part for the costs incurred by PCM.Indeed, the Government's current work on the Private Parking Code of Practice specifically recognises concerns surrounding private parking debt-recovery practices. The Government's 2025 consultation records that the current industry cap for debt-recovery fees is £70 and notes that the evidence gathered to date provides limited support for the proposition that such fees are an effective deterrent. The Government has also expressly recognised concerns about motorists being intimidated or misled during the debt-recovery process.I appreciate that the current Government Code is subject to the ongoing regulatory process and I do not rely upon it as though it were presently binding legislation. I rely upon it as relevant evidence of the Government's consideration of fairness, proportionality and debt-recovery practices within the private parking sector.Notice of the existing disputePCM has already been placed on clear notice of my position, and Peabody has likewise been informed of the underlying leasehold dispute.Accordingly, I do not accept that PCM can reasonably treat the alleged charges as undisputed debts or incur additional costs on the assumption that payment will simply follow.My position is that the underlying Parking Charge Notices are disputed on substantive legal grounds. Consequently, I also dispute liability for any consequential debt-recovery or legal costs which PCM may seek to add to those alleged charges.If PCM considers that it has a legal basis for pursuing the matter, it should provide the contractual and legal basis upon which it relies rather than continuing to demand payment of an alleged debt whose underlying liability is expressly disputed.For the avoidance of doubt, I am not refusing to engage with a lawful court process. If PCM considers that it has a sufficiently arguable case, it remains free to place the dispute before the appropriate court, where the lease, the alleged contractual terms, PCM's authority, and the recoverability of any additional costs can be properly determined.Until such determination, I do not admit liability for the alleged £340 balance and I will not make payment.Please place a formal note on your client's account that the alleged debt is disputed in its entirety and that PCM has been on notice of the substantive legal dispute since well before the matter was referred for debt recovery.I reserve all rights.Yours faithfully,Here is the relevant clause from my contract which grants parking rights:The right (on a first come first served basis) in common with all other persons entitled to the like right to park one domestic motorcar not exceeding 15 cwt or 2.1 metres in height or motorcycle in a taxed sound and roadworthy condition only in the Parking Area subject to the proviso that the Landlord or its agent reserves the right to alter or agree to the alteration of the location of and number of parking spaces in the Parking Area and the location parking spaces at any time and provided that the Landlord or its agent may temporarily close the parking spaces for repairs, maintenance or other works.The clause which Peabody is relying on to legitimise their new signage scheme through PCM:Comply with RegulationsTo comply with such reasonable regulations as the Landlord may make from time to time relating to the orderly and proper use of the Common Parts the Communal Facilities the Estate and security of the Building the management of the Estate and the welfare of its occupants and the use of any Service Media, structures or other items outside the Estate that are used or capable of being used by the Estate in common with other land.I do not believe introducing a permit scheme with £100 fines for not displaying the permit- mind you, they ask £35 for a replacement permit, which is just paper- is at all reasonable. Any help and legal advice on this, if it's taken to court, would be much appreciated!