Show Posts - ogrilla

Quote from: ogrilla on 07 May, 2025 23:09Quote from: jfollows on 07 May, 2025 10:28As long as you didn’t identify the driver then you have a defence.You are the hirer of the car, there’s no reason to obfuscate this because UKCPM went to the registered keeper of the car and the hire company named you as hirer, as they should.For now, ignore everything from debt collectors, they are powerless, do not respond to them in any way.In due course, when you get a formal Letter of Claim, come back and you’ll get advice. You will need to file a defence, along the lines of the one I mentioned above, that you - the hirer - can’t be held liable for the actions of the driver, whom you will not be identifying.Thanks for the response.not sure if it was clear in my first post, but I have received the letter of claim as of last week (hidden under the long list of letters I scanned). attached it here.@b789the letter of claim was issued here in the quote. The appeal/questions I raised was after this letter was received - and now they have come back with their response. to me it seems a dead end in terms of how I can respond, but wanted to get clarification if there is any more I can do here? or do I concede?

@cp8759 @b789 @jfollows

I received the following response after my query to the law firm (they reattached the original "PCN" that was sent to the rental company and an image of the parking notice). Any advice on how to proceed would be appreciated:Good Afternoon,  We write in reference to your recent correspondence. Thank you for the information provided.The Parking Charge issued is for the sum of £100.00 and our additional costs amount to £70.00. The relevant Code of Practice laid out by the International Parking Community (IPC) states that £100.00 is a reasonable amount to charge for the breach of contract within our Client's car parks. The additional cost of £70.00 represents the nature and type of work undertaken by debt recovery agents in the collection of the balance of the unpaid Parking Charge. Debt recovery costs are contractually agreed by the motorist when visiting the car park.  They only apply when the opportunity to pay the parking charge has expired and the parking company has been forced to commence debt recovery activities.  Such contractual costs are recognised by the courts as covering debt recovery activity between the expiry of the parking charge notice and the commencement of litigation, including pre-litigation correspondence.  The fees we charge our clients for our services are subject to VAT.  However, these are separate and distinct from contractual debt recovery costs recoverable by our client from the motorist.This matter is regarding no valid permit being displayed. Please be advised no permit could be found by our Clients whitelist and as a result, your vehicle had no authority to park on the land in question. It is entirely your responsibility to ensure there is a valid permit for your vehicle registration. As no permit was found from your vehicle, this breached the terms and conditions of parking a Parking Notice Charge (PCN) was issued.Please find attached the relevant evidence regarding this matter. Please note that we will not be providing a copy of the agreement between our Client and the landowner. The document is commercially sensitive and shall only be produced if the matter progresses to formal hearing at Court. However we can confirm that our Client holds the necessary right with the landowner to issue PCN's and take legal action to recover outstanding balances where needed. We wish to settle this matter amicably and not use up courts time. This balance remains due and owing. Should you have any further queries, please contact our office on 0113 487 0430, or alternatively sign in or register on our Customer Portal at www.bwlegal.co.uk.

Quote from: jfollows on 08 May, 2025 06:12There is a proposed response to a BW Legal LoC at https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/help-needed/msg70159/#msg70159 which notes how £100 has magically become £170 and you might want to adapt to your specifics because many of the points won’t be applicable.BW LegalEnterprise HouseApex ViewLeedsWest YorkshireLS11 9BHBy email to: enquiries@bwlegal.co.ukDear Sirs,Re: Letter of Claim dated 25 April 2025Client: UK Car Park Management LtdPCN Ref: [Insert Reference]I refer to your Letter of Claim.Please note that the alleged debt is disputed, and any court proceedings will be robustly defended.I note that the sum claimed has been increased by an excessive and unjustifiable amount, which appears contrary to the principles established by the Government, who described such practices as “extorting money from motorists.” Please refrain from sending boilerplate responses or justifications regarding this issue.Under the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims, I require specific answers to the following questions:1. Does the additional £100 represent what you describe as a “Debt Recovery” fee? If so, is this figure net of or inclusive of VAT? If inclusive, I trust you will explain why I, as the alleged debtor, am being asked to cover your client’s VAT liability.2. Regarding the principal sum of the alleged Parking Charge Notice (PCN): Is this being claimed as damages for breach of contract, or will it be pleaded as consideration for a purported parking contract?Furthermore, in order to understand the legal basis for your client's claim and to allow for a considered response, I require the following documentation and evidence:a. A full, unredacted copy of the contract or agreement between your client and the landowner or lawful occupier, demonstrating the authority to issue and enforce parking charges at the site;b. Evidence that the lease or freehold interest in the relevant bay permits the imposition and enforcement of third-party parking terms by your client.I would caution you against simply dismissing these questions with vague or generic responses. I am fully aware of the implications of your client’s model. By claiming that PCNs are not subject to VAT while inflating a supposed “debt recovery” element, your client – with your assistance – appears to be evading tax obligations that may be due to HMRC. That raises serious questions about the legality and ethics of your practices.I strongly advise your client to cease and desist. Should this matter proceed to court, these issues will be brought to the court’s attention, alongside a robust defence and potential counterclaim for unreasonable conduct.Yours faithfully,[Your Name]---I've removed what probably isn't necessary, and tweaked the figure to my situation but not sure if I should be adding anything more (or have the knowledge to add anything in). Would this be sufficient?

Quote from: jfollows on 07 May, 2025 10:28As long as you didn’t identify the driver then you have a defence.You are the hirer of the car, there’s no reason to obfuscate this because UKCPM went to the registered keeper of the car and the hire company named you as hirer, as they should.For now, ignore everything from debt collectors, they are powerless, do not respond to them in any way.In due course, when you get a formal Letter of Claim, come back and you’ll get advice. You will need to file a defence, along the lines of the one I mentioned above, that you - the hirer - can’t be held liable for the actions of the driver, whom you will not be identifying.Thanks for the response.not sure if it was clear in my first post, but I have received the letter of claim as of last week (hidden under the long list of letters I scanned). attached it here. [ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Quote from: jfollows on 06 May, 2025 07:32What exactly did you say in your appeal? Did you identify the driver of the car at the time of the alleged infringement?Unfortunately if you’d come here first you’d have received advice on how to appeal, but we need to know what you actually said.The address error is irrelevant, the letters got to you, didn’t they?The “no evidence as to hirer” was along the right lines, but should have been that by failing to comply with the requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 they are unable to hold you - the hirer - responsible in place of the driver, whom you hopefully did not identify. Your being the hirer is an established fact because your hire company will have told them your details.Essentially you will wait for them to start court proceedings and file a defence that you - as hirer - can’t be liable for the actions of the driver because UKCPM did not comply with the legal requirements to transfer the liability from the driver to the hirer, your evidence being the Notice to Hirer which clearly does not do this.If at any stage you identified the driver’s identity to them, this won’t work.A shame I wasn't aware of this forum earlier. the link below has the first appeal to CPM, and then the appeals to Gladstone. The CPM form forced me to select an option for "Your Association" in order to submit. I went with "hirer" as that's what they referred to in the letter. (Yes I used AI to get my point across)https://imgur.com/a/L7pm8vfI think this is all of the appeals I made, but not 100% sure given how long it's been.RE the address error - I don't know how the legal arena operates, so maybe it is irrelevant. My thought process was, if someone is providing my details as evidence to some authority but the details are incorrect, I'd question the legitimacy of the source.

HelloI received a “Parking Charge Notice” from UKCPM back in March 2023. The driver of the vehicle had parked the vehicle in the estate without displaying a valid permit overnight. The vehicle itself belongs to a car rental company whom the driver had rented the vehicle off.UKCPM initially sent the “PCN” to the rental company, and later sent another “PCN” addressed to me.I sent an appeal in April 2023 on the website portal provided in the letter (Written with the help of ChatGPT). There were two points in my appeal: 1. That they had not provided any evidence to show that I was the “hirer” of this vehicle during this period.2. The address associated with me was spelt incorrectly (on more than one letter) so wasn’t just a typo, but a questionable origin.The appeal was rejected a month later with a generic response, without addressing either of the points in my appeal.They then forwarded the case to “Debt Recovery Plus” who sent me further 4 notices; twice in July, once in August, and once in October (all 2023). All of which had the same error in the address. There was no appeal process for this company that I could find, only a payment portal.After that, the case was sent to “Gladstones Solicitors” in Feb 2024, entitled “LETTER BEFORE CLAIM”. I appealed on their portal with the same two points as above. They responded a month later in March, with a link to the original “PCN” letter - again a generic response and not acknowledging the points in my appeal.Now, over a year later, I have received the “Letter of Claim” from bwlegal (see attached).Any advice on how I should proceed will be appreciated.link below for all letters:https://imgur.com/a/bzzd1Kh [ Guests cannot view attachments ]