During lockdown we were trying to complete some jobs in north London and visited the site of the BP garage on the A10 at Stamford Hill. Soon afterwards we received a speculative invoice from PCM. As expected the letters got ever redder and threatening and soon passed to Gladstones to move the threat level to max. Fortunately the vehicle is registered to the business not a named individual which I'm sure has frustrated them. Eventually at the 'last chance before court' we responded requesting proof of evidence and authority from the land owners etc. Back came a dossier of about 20 images for the < 1 minute duration and their proud claims of pending victory. however they omitted from their evidence any authority to act from the land owner. additionally they did have an outline of the boundary they claimed to enforce. Every photo of the vehicle showed that it was in fact stopped outside of this delineation! So for all of their bullying they are trying to enforce outside of the defined area. Having heard nothing for a couple of months, we are hopeful they have dropped their erroneous claims.
For information, this is the extent of their claim (to the building line only):
It sounds like you had a frustrating experience with PCM and Gladstones regarding a speculative invoice you received after visiting the site of the BP garage on the A10 at Stamford Hill. It's good to hear that you were able to respond and request proof of evidence and authority from the land owners, which ultimately resulted in PCM's lack of evidence to support their claim.
It's important for companies like PCM to have the proper authority from land owners before attempting to enforce any sort of boundaries or rules. Without this authority, their claims may not hold up in court and can be considered erroneous.
