Thanks Andy, totally agree. I'm going to write back and offer to pay the original £150 plus the late payment "admin" fee of £34, simply because I value the time it will take me in carrying on with this nonsense at more than £34. If they don't accept it, I'll contact RMG direct and try the same tack. If that doesn't work, I'll await their LBA. Thanks Chris

Received an email response today: "Good morning, I believe you have called our office since sending this email and have been advised by one of my colleagues that we are unable to accept part payment of the outstanding arrears and that the amount is due to be paid in full. With regards to the fees, you are liable to pay these for non-payment of charges due as per the terms of your lease. I have attached a copy of the lease and would like to refer you to Schedule 5, Part 1 – Covenants enforceable by the landlord, Point 1 & 3. Our client has fulfilled their obligation by sending you an invoice for payment. It is your responsibility to ensure payment is made and on time, due to non-payment further fees have been incurred and subsequently referral to Property Debt Collection and further incurring fees. Please call our office within 7 days to make payment of the outstanding balance of £414.00" As far as I can tell, this doesn't change anything for a number of reasons: 1. Clauses 1 and 3 (see attached pic) make no reference to admin fees (although I suppose it could be implied?) 2. Even if they did, there was no accompanying summary of rights 3. They are explicitly choosing not to mitigate their losses. Can anyone confirm my thinking is correct? Cheers Chris

Thanks Andy. So would you suggest I wait it out?

A brief update. I wrote to PDC today as follows: "Dear XXX, I will call shortly to make payment of the outstanding service charge of £150 - this amount has never been in dispute. I have written to your client on two separate occasions since the demand for an increased payment amount was made, requesting both details of the specific clause in the lease that allows for admin charges, and a breakdown of said admin charge as I believe it to be disproportionate to the actual costs incurred. Furthermore, your client (and latterly your company) has failed to provide an accompanying summary of rights, required under the provisions of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. As such I am exercising my right under said act to withhold payment of the initial admin charge of £34. Given these circumstances, and considering that I have acted within my rights under the aforementioned Act, I believe your client has acted unreasonably and inappropriately in instructing a debt collection agency. As such I do not accept liability for any additional costs incurred, over and above the original service charge. Please acknowledge receipt of this email. Yours sincerely" I followed up with a call (recorded) and attempted to make payment of the original £150 in settlement of the original overdue amount, and was advised that they would not accept "part payment". I asked for this in writing and received the following: "Good Afternoon, In regards to our telephone call, The amount of charges due = £150.00 (Service Charge and Reserve Fund) The amount due of fees passed on by RMG = £114.00 (Due to Non Payment) The amount due of our PDC fee = £150.00 Due to Non/Late payment you are laible as per the terms in your lease to pay these. Unfortunately we will not take payment minus these fees. Kind Regards," RMG (and PDC) have failed to provide the summary of rights required by the 2002 Act and PDC have now refused payment, thereby failing to mitigate their losses. Is this a fair summary? If this is correct, should I just wait it out or would it be advisable to attempt to pay the £150 direct to RMG?? As always, any advice gratefully received. C

Thank you Bankfodder and Andyorch for the quick and informative responses! I'll craft a suitable response to PDC, offering to pay the original amount and drawing their attention to theirs and their client's failure to comply with the requirement to provide a summary of rights. I may be back....

Hi All, I'm hoping someone can give me a steer on the correct course of action here. I "own" a leasehold property with an annual service charge of £150 payable annually in advance. I foolishly missed the payment in April this year and received an invoice for the payment due plus a "reminder fee" of £34, which i duly challenged in writing, accepting the original £150 was payable but asking where in my lease it states that the reminder fee is payable. I also requested a breakdown of the £34 fee as I believe it to be disproportionate. I received a response stating that this fee will not be waived but no breakdown and no reference to the clause in my lease that allows a reminder fee to be charged (I'm unable to find such a clause). I challenged again, stating I was happy to pay the outstanding balance, less the reminder fee unless they responded to my request for further information. I received no response but have today received a letter from Property Debt Collection Ltd, in respect of the outstanding amount of £150, plus the reminder fee of £34, plus another £80 admin fee, plus an additional £150 for PDC's instruction: a total of £414. My questions are: 1. Are any of these fees lawful 2. Should I contact PDC or the original management company and pay the outstanding balance of £150 whilst I challenge the remainder? 3. Is there a valid challenge or should I just suck it up and pay? 3. Is there some other action I should take? Any advice would be gratefully received... Many thanks

Quick update folks - had a call from the developers today confirming they will foot the bill for the damage and I should receive a cheque within 14 working days. I'll wait to see if it materialises but I am confident that it will. Thanks for all your help!!

Surprisingly no - a Ford Focus I believe. The mechanic who repaired my car suggested that longer wheelbase cars would be more susceptible. Makes sense if you think about it I suppose - the longer the wheelbase, the more of the car remains on the incline, thereby reducing the clearance as you approach the bollard. In any case, I shall sit tight and see how they respond next week. Will post an update as soon as I have one. Thanks for all your posts so far! Chris

Not clearly - there are two signs in a car park that measures not more than 25m2 but due to the placement of the signs you can't really seem them as you enter - not until you are actually in the car park. However, I have been parking there for months, long before the bollards were installed so I don't think I could plead ignorance. In fact, the bollards were installed whilst my car was in the car park - not a problem going out though, it was coming back in that caused the damage and I can only assume this is due to the placement at the top of an incline.

Good call!

Yes, I took photos, but not with a ruler. Sorry, I was paraphrasing. The actual verbiage is "Vehicles are parked here entirely at owner's risk. {Developer} can not be held responsible for any damage". Looks like they are taking the complaint seriously though - I have just gone round to take more photos, ruler in hand only to find that they have now removed the bollards and filled the holes.

Thanks guys - I wrote to them the day it happened and hand-delivered the letter to the sales office. I followed it up today by a visit and dropped off a copy of the invoice from the garage showing the cost of the repairs. I had a brief discussion with the sales guy today where he indicated that I would have a hard job claiming as "the car park is for sales use only and there is a disclaimer sign posted stating that parking is at vehicle owner's risk". He said I should expect to hear back from them by the end of next week. His "defence" was that he has parked his car there without damaging it. I did say that the bollards need to be repaired/replaced ASAP before further damage is caused - can't imagine them having much luck with sales if they are damaging customers' cars! Frankly, we are talking about £90 here so it's not the end of the world, but at the same time it's not pocket change. It's also a matter of principle.....

Hi, First of all, I apologise if this is being posted in the wrong forum but I am hoping that someone can give me a little advice or point me in the right direction.... Last week, the underside of my car was damaged by a collapsible bollard (the tubular steel folding variety) in a car park owned by a housing developer. The car park is adjacent to the sales office, fits around 4 vehicles and is primarily used for staff and customers, although there is no signage restricting access to members of the general public (I happen to own a house less than 50 ft from the car park and use it regularly). The bollards were fitted last week and are placed at the top of an inclined approach to the car park, and they fold away from the entrance. There is signage placed inside the car park stating that the developer is not liable for any damage caused to vehicles whilst parked in the car park. I entered the car park at normal parking speed , i.e. crawling. As my car moved over the folded bollards I heard a scraping sound. Upon parking up I noticed that the plastic engine tray was hanging down at the front off-side. On closer inspection I noticed that a long strip of the engine tray had disappeared inside the bollard! I have obviously removed this to use as evidence.... My car is an Audi A5, is not modified in any way, is not particularly low to the ground and not a particularly long wheel base, although not the shortest car either. I have not involved the insurance company as the damage has cost less than £100 to fix but I do feel that the land owner should be liable for the damage caused - my theory being that the reason for the damage is the placing of the bollards at the top of an inclined approach. Has anyone been in a similar situation or can offer any advice as to whether this is worth pursuing? Grateful for any response. Chris

Well done Shield, that's fantastic news

Phew!