DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 64881--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCM - Parked Outside of the Confines of a Marked Bay - High
Point Village UB3
DIR By: Starworshipper
Date: March 30, 2025, 11:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Perfect - thank you!
#Post#: 64908--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCM - Parked Outside of the Confines of a Marked Bay - High
Point Village UB3
DIR By: b789
Date: March 30, 2025, 7:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You’re confusing “grace period” with “consideration period”. If
there’s contractual terms and conditions, there must be a
minimum “consideration” period for the driver to be able to
“consider” those terms and conditions before deciding to accept
them or not.
A “grace period” only applies where parking is permitted.
#Post#: 64922--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCM - Parked Outside of the Confines of a Marked Bay - High
Point Village UB3
DIR By: Starworshipper
Date: March 31, 2025, 3:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: b789 link ---
>
> You’re confusing “grace period” with “consideration period”.
If there’s contractual terms and conditions, there must be a
minimum “consideration” period for the driver to be able to
“consider” those terms and conditions before deciding to accept
them or not.
>
> A “grace period” only applies where parking is permitted.
>
--- End Quote ---
The sign (image provided by PCM) featured in post #8 does
apparently allow 20 minutes parking in marked bays, but still
there should be some kind of period, even if one is unable to
stop in a bay (as was the case here)?
I see there are a number of similar (somewhat older) threads on
MSE regarding this location, which no doubt FTLA/PePiPoo (RIP)
members had advised on, and they have also mentioned complaining
to the client landowner (something mentioned in the - now lodged
- template appeal provided here). Should the driver follow
through with this?
#Post#: 64928--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCM - Parked Outside of the Confines of a Marked Bay - High
Point Village UB3
DIR By: G6PRK
Date: March 31, 2025, 4:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes, always complain if you can!
Not sure how useful it will be in these specific circumstances
(since the driver wasn't a customer etc.) but it's always worth
a try.
#Post#: 67732--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCM - Parked Outside of the Confines of a Marked Bay - High
Point Village UB3
DIR By: Starworshipper
Date: April 19, 2025, 9:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE!!
This arrived in the post today and, as expected, the 'appeal'
was rejected. So what is the next step now? Ignore all but a
letter before claim, then come back here for guidance once that
arrives?
As a side note/question: if a person (going through this
process) is employed in a position where they need to make an
annual declaration, to confirm they are not involved in court
matters or prosecutions - would this matter be, at any point (or
outcome) a concern for them?
Many thanks again, for your time.
HTML https://i.imgur.com/KOCccxD.jpeg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/3iCw9mz.jpeg
#Post#: 67735--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCM - Parked Outside of the Confines of a Marked Bay - High
Point Village UB3
DIR By: b789
Date: April 19, 2025, 10:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ignore all further correspondence except a Letter of Claim (LoC)
or N1SDT Claim Form from the Civil National Business Centre
(CNBC). These can come months later, if at all.
Once a Letter of Claim arrives (usually titled as such and
giving 30 days to respond), come back here and we’ll assist with
the pre-action response and defence. Debt collector letters
(e.g. from DRP, Trace, or CST Law) are toothless and do not
require any response.
In relation to your question:
[indent]“If a person is employed in a position where they must
annually declare they are not involved in court matters or
prosecutions…”[/indent]
Here is the position in relation to a private parking claim:
[indent]• Civil Claims Only: A parking claim from PCM is a civil
matter, not a criminal prosecution.
• County Court Small Claim: If a claim is issued, it’s a
low-value money claim in the County Court, under the small
claims track – it does not create a criminal record.
• No Admission of Wrongdoing: Even if judgment were entered
against the defendant, it is simply a civil debt – not an
admission of illegal conduct or wrongdoing.
• No Impact if Defended: If the claim is defended, and
especially if it is discontinued or struck out, there is nothing
adverse to declare.
• CCJ Risk Only If Ignored: The only time it might be reportable
is if the defendant ignores a claim and a County Court Judgment
(CCJ) is entered by default and left unpaid for more than a
calendar month.[/indent]
Conclusion: So long as you do not ignore a real court claim,
this would not trigger any disclosure requirement in most
employment declarations – which are typically concerned with
criminal matters or actual civil judgments, not pending or
threatened civil claims.
If you're dealing with a particularly sensitive or high-security
employment contract, it's always best to check the precise
wording of the declaration clause, but in most cases, this kind
of parking dispute does not meet the threshold of ‘involvement
in court proceedings’ unless and until a formal hearing or
judgment occurs.
#Post#: 67737--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCM - Parked Outside of the Confines of a Marked Bay - High
Point Village UB3
DIR By: Starworshipper
Date: April 19, 2025, 10:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you b789, for the swift, but very detailed and informative
response. I shall update as necessary!
#Post#: 91282--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCM - Parked Outside of the Confines of a Marked Bay - High
Point Village UB3
DIR By: Starworshipper
Date: September 24, 2025, 8:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi again, I'm back!
So, this just arrived today, from Moorside Legal. It's titled
'Letter Before Claim', and states 30 days etc, so I thought I'd
check in on what the next steps should be.
Thanks again.
HTML https://i.imgur.com/J5KXDX4.jpeg
#Post#: 91297--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCM - Parked Outside of the Confines of a Marked Bay - High
Point Village UB3
DIR By: b789
Date: September 24, 2025, 9:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Respond by email to help@moorsidelegal.co.uk and CC yourself as
follows:
--- Quote ---
> Subject: Response to your Letter of Claim Ref: [reference
number]
>
> Dear Sirs,
>
> Your Letter Before Claim contains insufficient detail of the
claim and fails to provide copies of evidence your client places
reliance upon and thus is in complete contravention of the
Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.
>
> As a firm of supposed solicitors, one would expect you to be
capable of crafting a letter that aligns with paragraphs
3.1(a)–(d), 5.1 and 5.2 of the Protocol, and paragraphs 6(a) and
6(c) of the Practice Direction. These provisions do not exist
for decoration—they exist to facilitate informed discussion and
proportionate resolution. You might wish to reacquaint
yourselves with them.
>
> For the avoidance of doubt, I will not accept being required
to use your web portal; all communication must be conducted
exclusively by email or post, at your election.
>
> The Civil Procedure Rules 1998, Pre-Action Conduct and
Protocols (Part 3), stipulate that prior to proceedings, parties
should have exchanged sufficient information to understand each
other’s position. Part 6 helpfully clarifies that this includes
disclosure of key documents relevant to the issues in dispute.
>
> Your template letter mentions a “contract”, yet fails to
provide one. This would appear to undermine the only foundation
upon which your client’s claim allegedly rests. It’s difficult
to engage in meaningful pre-litigation dialogue when your side
declines to furnish the very document it purports to enforce.
>
> I confirm that, once I am in receipt of a Letter Before Claim
that complies with the requirements of para 3.1 (a) of the
Pre-Action Protocol, I shall then seek advice and submit a
formal response within 30 days, as required by the Protocol.
Thus, I require your client to comply with its obligations by
sending me the following information/documents:
>
> [indent]1. A copy of the original Notice to Keeper (NtK) that
confirms any PoFA 2012 liability
> 2. A copy of the contract (or contracts) you allege exists
between your client and the driver, in the form of an actual
photograph of the sign you contend was at the location on the
material date, not a generic stock image
> 3. The exact wording of the clause (or clauses) of the terms
and conditions of the contract(s) which is (are) relied upon
that you allege to have been breached
> 4. The written agreement between your client and the
landowner, establishing authority to enforce
> 5. A breakdown of the charges claimed, identifying whether the
principal sum is claimed as consideration or damages, and
whether the £70 “debt recovery” fee includes VAT
> 6. The full name and role of the person with conduct of this
matter and their regulatory status/authorisation to conduct
litigation[/indent]
>
> I am clearly entitled to this information under paragraphs
6(a) and 6(c) of the Practice Direction. I also need it in order
to comply with my own obligations under paragraph 6(b).
>
> If your client does not provide me with this information then
I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb
Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch),
Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part
20) Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church
Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann
Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions
on your client and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant
to paragraphs 13, 15(b) and (c) and 16 of the Practice
Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.
>
> Until your client has complied with its obligations and
provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to
the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it,
and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court
time) for your client to issue proceedings. Should your client
do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph
15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this
information is provided.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> [Your name]
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 91305--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCM - Parked Outside of the Confines of a Marked Bay - High
Point Village UB3
DIR By: Starworshipper
Date: September 24, 2025, 9:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This is fantastic - thank you b789.
Quick question though: the car is registered in my partner’s
name, but I handle all household admin (including this) - should
I use their name, or it doesn’t matter at this point?
Thanks again, as always
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page