Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • hitman126
    • By hitman126 28th Oct 17, 9:40 AM
    • 24Posts
    • 5Thanks
    hitman126
    Highview Parking Ltd - SCS Law Letter Received Today
    • #1
    • 28th Oct 17, 9:40 AM
    Highview Parking Ltd - SCS Law Letter Received Today 28th Oct 17 at 9:40 AM
    Hello,


    I have today received a letter from SCS Law who claim they've been instructed by Highview Parking Limited to recover an alleged penalty charge notice incurred by myself/my vehicle.

    Incensed by the content of this letter, I sought to establish what the address of the alleged contravention was supposed to have taken place and it turns out to be my local gym where I've been a member for nearly 20 years and as such a legitimate user of their car park.

    I initially contacted Highview Parking to enquire about the reason for the letter and/or alleged contravention and was advised by a lady to write to their Appeals Team who're based in Barnet. A second call to SCS Law drew a complete blank as the gentleman on the line advised that the firm had not been given any details on the alleged offence and had only been instructed by Highview to send out to me an initial notification letter.

    Now, knowing how some of these cases can be won and lost through technicalities and not wanting to allow my heated emotions overrule any logical thinking on my part, I'd be grateful for any advice on how I should proceed with this please, e.g. how and who to contact, my line of argument, etc.

    I can also confirm that the letter from SCS Law suggests the alleged offence was captured on an ANPR camera.

    Now, there's no record of receiving any Notice To Keeper letter(s) and even if any was sent, it is definitely not currently available. The alleged incident is said to have occurred at the start of March this year and one fact is that I was also abroad for 3 months from the end of April till end of July.

    As there's currently no NTK to refer to at this point in time, I cannot also ascertain any of the following:

    1. The date on the NTK [including if received within 14 days from the 'offence' date]
    2. The date any NTK was delivered.
    3. Whether the NTK mentioned schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012?
    4. If there was any photographic evidence of the event?

    With this in mind, how can one proceed please?

    For example, should I be requesting for copies of the NTK for starters?

    Should I submit an appeal and if so to whom? To date, no appeal has been made yet to the parking company, SCS Law or the debt recovery company.


    Thank you.
Page 2
    • Johnersh
    • By Johnersh 6th Nov 17, 2:12 PM
    • 784 Posts
    • 1,478 Thanks
    Johnersh
    Depends really. I suspect a certain PPC firm of solicitors found my 4 page letter of response rather more intimidating than I found their single-sided letter of claim to be....
    • hitman126
    • By hitman126 9th Nov 17, 2:55 PM
    • 24 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    hitman126
    hitman126 .... have you complained to the gym yet ?

    Ralph
    Originally posted by Ralph-y

    Hi Ralph, yes I did and the were absolutely unhelpful.
    • Herzlos
    • By Herzlos 9th Nov 17, 3:09 PM
    • 6,331 Posts
    • 5,691 Thanks
    Herzlos
    Hi Ralph, yes I did and the were absolutely unhelpful.
    Originally posted by hitman126
    Have you found a new gym, then?
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 9th Nov 17, 3:23 PM
    • 1,558 Posts
    • 1,720 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    When you postted this up on tripadvisor / facebook / twitter etc, did that get any more help?
    Pointing out you wont return is an idea.
    • hitman126
    • By hitman126 9th Nov 17, 3:37 PM
    • 24 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    hitman126
    Have you found a new gym, then?
    Originally posted by Herzlos
    Lol, not yet.
    • hitman126
    • By hitman126 9th Nov 17, 3:39 PM
    • 24 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    hitman126
    When you postted this up on tripadvisor / facebook / twitter etc, did that get any more help?
    Pointing out you wont return is an idea.
    Originally posted by nosferatu1001
    Not posted anything yet but definitely intend to do so, including making a formal complaint to the Head Office about the behaviour and attitude of the branch representative who was so rude and even had the temerity to tell me to pay the fine.
    • Herzlos
    • By Herzlos 9th Nov 17, 3:59 PM
    • 6,331 Posts
    • 5,691 Thanks
    Herzlos
    Lol, not yet.
    Originally posted by hitman126
    You should at least make a bit of noise about doing so - quite often the gyms are able to get the charges cancelled - especially if they own the car park or contracted Highview. It sounds like you were fobbed off by the muppet on the front desk - go speak to the manager (and take some application forms for competing gyms with you).
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 9th Nov 17, 4:14 PM
    • 16,381 Posts
    • 25,478 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    If your gym is Xercise for Less, they seem to have quite a contempt for their customers when faced with parking charges - little or no help! Cases for them crop up here quite often.
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • hitman126
    • By hitman126 7th Jan 18, 8:59 AM
    • 24 Posts
    • 5 Thanks
    hitman126
    Well, well, well.......this case developed further when a few days ago I received the below email, on the back of the letter I wrote to DPR in response to their demand letter. Would be grateful for any helpful feedback on how to treat this. I have truncated and/or stripped out bits of it to ensure anonymity.


    Start of Email

    Thank you for your email regarding the above Parking Charge Notices (PCNs). The time to challenge these charges has now expired and therefore access to the Independent Appeals Service (if applicable) is no longer available.

    However, in order to resolve this matter, I will offer the following comments as to why these PCNs were correctly issued and are still payable.

    My findings
    The sites in question are subject to terms and conditions, which are stated on signs throughout the area. Those signs state that there is a time limit at the site.

    On the dates in question the vehicle was parked for longer than the time stated and a PCN was correctly and legitimately issued as a result.Please be advised, there are currently xxx outstanding Parking Charge Notices (PCNs) under the vehicle registration.

    The claim in question is based in contract law. When you parked your vehicle on the site in question, you contractually agreed to abide by the terms and conditions attached to that site. As stated, these terms and conditions are adequately displayed on signage at the site. If you did not wish to abide by
    these terms and conditions, you were under no obligation to park on the property in question.

    I draw your attention to the decision made by the Supreme Court in ParkingEye vs Beavis [2015]. The Supreme Court ruled that the charge appealed did not contravene the penalty rule or the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and was therefore enforceable.

    The charge in that case was ruled not to be a penalty as both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging motorists who contravene parking restrictions, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management
    of parking. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to the practices around the United Kingdom and taking into account the use of the
    particular car park and the clear wording of the signs.

    Please see this link for a summary of the Judgment:

    https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0280-press-summary.pdf

    The signage on site is sufficient and is in line with the guidelines laid down by the British Parking Association (BPA).

    The majority of motorists who park at the site do so without receiving a PCN. This is undoubtedly due to the fact that they are aware of the terms and conditions of the site. If, as you claim, the signage was inadequate, the terms and conditions of the site would be unknown to the majority of drivers and many more PCNs would be issued here.

    If you refer to the British Parking Association’s code of practice, you will discover that the sum in question is within what this body deems reasonable.

    I also draw your attention to the decision made by the Supreme Court in ParkingEye vs Beavis [2015]. The Supreme Court ruled that the charge appealed did not contravene the penalty rule or the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and was therefore enforceable.

    The charge in that case was ruled not to be a penalty as both ParkingEye and the landowners had a legitimate interest in charging motorists who contravene parking restrictions, which extended beyond the recovery of any loss. The interest of the landowners was the provision and efficient management
    of parking. The interest of ParkingEye was in income from the charge, which met the running costs of a legitimate scheme plus a profit margin. Further, the charge was neither extravagant nor unconscionable, having regard to the practices around the United Kingdom and taking into account the use of the particular car park and the clear wording of the signs.

    Please see this link for a summary of the Judgment:

    https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2013-0280-press-summary.pdf

    I must also stress that simply sending in standard template responses, most likely obtained from the internet, will not resolve the matter. In addition, I would recommend that professional legal advice be sought on this matter as an alternative.

    What you need to do now
    Please ensure that £xxxx.xx is paid by xx/01/2017. Payment can be made online or by phone.

    End of Email

    PS: By the way, the parking company involved in this case have now been replaced at the car park in question by a new parking company.
    Last edited by hitman126; 07-01-2018 at 9:18 AM.
    • Quentin
    • By Quentin 7th Jan 18, 9:48 AM
    • 34,167 Posts
    • 18,116 Thanks
    Quentin
    Hope you will not engage further with drp!


    See:. http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5035663
    Last edited by Quentin; 07-01-2018 at 9:51 AM.
    • Umkomaas
    • By Umkomaas 7th Jan 18, 9:53 AM
    • 16,381 Posts
    • 25,478 Thanks
    Umkomaas
    Well, well, well.......
    Really?

    A very standard DRP template. Do a Google search on ‘DRP My Findings’. Ignore it.

    PS: By the way, the parking company involved in this case have now been replaced at the car park in question by a new parking company.
    SSDD! When will these landowners learn?
    We cannot provide you with a silver bullet to get you out of this. You have to be in for the long run, and need to involve yourself in research and work for you to get rid of this. It is not simple. We will help, but can't do it for you.

    Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; show him how to catch fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 7th Jan 18, 10:19 AM
    • 6,750 Posts
    • 8,746 Thanks
    beamerguy
    hitman126

    Why are you even bothering to contact DRP
    after all the advice on here.
    DRP are reprobates

    Meaning ....
    "morally unprincipled; depraved"

    "a disreputable or roguish person"

    And the rubbish they speak about the Supreme court
    is just their stupid way to extort money from you
    DO NOT CONTACT DRP AGAIN

    So the PPC is no longer at that car park ?
    It would be in your interest to find out why
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 8th Jan 18, 12:16 AM
    • 52,913 Posts
    • 66,448 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    I never want to read another standard 'My Findings' email piece from DRP's computers, as long as I live!

    Just Google Debt Recovery Plus My Findings. Yawn...!
    PRIVATE PCN? DON'T PAY BUT DO NOT IGNORE IT TWO Clicks needed for advice:
    Top of the page: Home>>Forums>Household & Travel>Motoring>Parking Tickets, Fines & Parking - read the 'NEWBIES' FAQS thread!
    Advice to ignore is WRONG, unless in Scotland/NI.

Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

5,371Posts Today

9,559Users online

Martin's Twitter