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
    • GreatWhite
    • By GreatWhite 15th Dec 17, 8:20 PM
    • 18Posts
    • 3Thanks
    GreatWhite
    SCS Law want 600
    • #1
    • 15th Dec 17, 8:20 PM
    SCS Law want 600 15th Dec 17 at 8:20 PM
    Hi everyone, apologies in advance for starting a new thread but I've visited the newbies thread and my head is spinning.

    So to give you guys my story, the driver was running late to work a few times during 2016 and decided to park behind their work building. Now I know the driver wasn't supposed to park there but he didn't have much of a choice otherwise he'd be late to work and his workplace is pretty strict when it comes to punctuality.

    This happened 4 times in 2016, although one of the day was a bank holiday, so not sure if that makes much of a difference. The dates were 28/03/16, 14/10/16, 19/10/16 and 09/11/16.

    On each occasion the keeper got a ticket and on the advice of his friends the keeper ignored them and chucked them away and did the same thing with the follow up letters which were posted to the keepers house.

    Almost 2 years later the keeper has received a letter from SCS Law stating that they are acting on behalf of UK Parking Control Ltd and want to recover the charges for the 4 occasions the driver parked there. Each ticket is now 150 and the keeper now apparently owe them 600 because it was 4 times that the driver parked there.

    The keeper doesn't really know what to do and has no idea what his options are right now, hoping you guys can help me out.
    Last edited by GreatWhite; 15-12-2017 at 9:11 PM.
Page 2
    • GreatWhite
    • By GreatWhite 10th Feb 18, 6:15 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    GreatWhite
    Hi guys, so I sent the letter requesting for more information and I have now received a response in which they have sent me photographs of each occasion when my car was parked at the bay's along with a photocopy of the parking ticket.

    Can someone please give me an idea of what my next steps should be?

    Many thanks.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 10th Feb 18, 6:55 PM
    • 5,658 Posts
    • 4,347 Thanks
    KeithP
    Can someone please give me an idea of what my next steps should be?
    Originally posted by GreatWhite
    Have another read of post #18.
    .
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 10th Feb 18, 7:38 PM
    • 8,175 Posts
    • 7,461 Thanks
    The Deep
    UKPC is a fraudster, read this

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11858473/Parking-firm-UKPC-admits-faking-tickets-to-fine-drivers.html

    They were also named and shamed in the H of C last week as scammers, their card has been well and truly marked.

    Watch this

    http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/2f0384f2-eba5-4fff-ab07-cf24b6a22918?in=12:49:41

    If ir gets to court, bring it to the judge's attention and complain in robust terms to your MP. With a fair wind they will be gone by this time next year.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • GreatWhite
    • By GreatWhite 10th Feb 18, 7:43 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    GreatWhite
    Have another read of post #18.
    Originally posted by KeithP
    Could you tell me which specific section I should be looking at? Thanks.
    • waamo
    • By waamo 10th Feb 18, 7:46 PM
    • 2,621 Posts
    • 3,219 Thanks
    waamo
    Post 3 in the Newbies thread
    This space for hire.
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 10th Feb 18, 7:50 PM
    • 8,175 Posts
    • 7,461 Thanks
    The Deep
    Your next step should be to read Coupon Mad's post above, number 18 and follow the advice contained therein.

    Read it all to help you understand the whole scam. Do not foget to watch the video and complain to your MP as advised in Post Number 23.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 10th Feb 18, 9:41 PM
    • 5,658 Posts
    • 4,347 Thanks
    KeithP
    Could you tell me which specific section I should be looking at? Thanks.
    Originally posted by GreatWhite
    Yes I certainly can.

    It's post number two in the NEWBIES thread that you need to read - the whole post.
    Read it several times until you understand it.

    As you have received a Letter Before Claim, it might be an idea to initially pick out those bits that explain exactly how you respond to such a letter.

    As you can probably imagine, a Letter Before Claim is the beginning of the court process. Thus you can expect to find details on how to respond to such a letter at the beginning of the post that describes the Small Claims process.
    .
    • GreatWhite
    • By GreatWhite 10th Feb 18, 9:47 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    GreatWhite
    Yes I certainly can.

    It's post number two in the NEWBIES thread that you need to read - the whole post.
    Read it several times until you understand it.

    As you have received a Letter Before Claim, it might be an idea to initially pick out those bits that explain exactly how you respond to such a letter.

    As you can probably imagine, a Letter Before Claim is the beginning of the court process. Thus you can expect to find details on how to respond to such a letter at the beginning of the post that describes the Small Claims process.
    Originally posted by KeithP
    Hi Keith, thanks for that. I already received 1 LBC letter to which I replied. I received their reply and am now struggling to find out how I should respond.

    Part of the problem I'm having is that I unfortunately know that I'm in the wrong and don't really know what basis I have to reply with, if any.

    I've read the post you mentioned and I'm having a slightly hard time digesting everything.
    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 10th Feb 18, 9:50 PM
    • 5,658 Posts
    • 4,347 Thanks
    KeithP
    As you have already responded to the LBC, just wait for the claim form from the County Court Business Centre.

    No-one has said it is easy, but it may well be a bit daunting the first time.
    It will sink in... persevere.
    .
    • The Deep
    • By The Deep 11th Feb 18, 9:12 AM
    • 8,175 Posts
    • 7,461 Thanks
    The Deep
    Part of the problem I'm having is that I unfortunately know that I'm in the wrong

    Put that entirely out of your head. You parked where you should not have a few times, a very small deal indeed. They want 600 for that, you could vandalise a bus shelter for less..

    They are the bad guys, you have a cavalier attitude towards minor trespass.
    Last edited by The Deep; 11-02-2018 at 9:26 AM.
    You never know how far you can go until you go too far.
    • GreatWhite
    • By GreatWhite 11th Feb 18, 5:28 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    GreatWhite
    As you have already responded to the LBC, just wait for the claim form from the County Court Business Centre.

    No-one has said it is easy, but it may well be a bit daunting the first time.
    It will sink in... persevere.
    Originally posted by KeithP
    Hi Keith, I'm a little confused right now as to what to do next. I've received a large letter through the post which shows pictures of where I parked on what dates along with a photocopy PCN. Of course this is because I requested more proof from them and now they have sent me evidence.

    They've given me another 30 days to reply, so could you kindly advice me?

    Many Thanks.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th Feb 18, 5:35 PM
    • 53,987 Posts
    • 67,666 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Why not come off this tiny thread and look at the bigger picture on the forum?

    Such letters are discussed to death every week and we repeat ourselves all the time. Only less than an hour ago I suggested some obvious questions for someone else to ask when they got a stupid pile of 'evidence' in a letter.

    Every week, ad infinitum, we suggest how to reply to these letters, it's not difficult or legal, it's common sense anyone could do. Read some other threads.
    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.

    • GreatWhite
    • By GreatWhite 11th Feb 18, 6:47 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    GreatWhite
    Why not come off this tiny thread and look at the bigger picture on the forum?

    Such letters are discussed to death every week and we repeat ourselves all the time. Only less than an hour ago I suggested some obvious questions for someone else to ask when they got a stupid pile of 'evidence' in a letter.

    Every week, ad infinitum, we suggest how to reply to these letters, it's not difficult or legal, it's common sense anyone could do. Read some other threads.
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Hi Coupon-mad, could you tell me which thread that was in which you posted the questions in? Thanks
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th Feb 18, 6:50 PM
    • 53,987 Posts
    • 67,666 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    Click on my username - you do need to find out how best to use the forum.
    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.

    • GreatWhite
    • By GreatWhite 11th Feb 18, 7:27 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    GreatWhite
    Coupon-mad. I've just looked at a few threads and this is the only thing I could find to use as a response for myself. Please let me know if it'll be okay.



    It is admitted that on [date] the Defendant's vehicle was parked at [location]

    It is denied that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The Claimant is put to strict proof.
    The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the Defendant in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ("POFA")
    . Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:
    there was a !!!8216;relevant obligation!!!8217; either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
    that it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.
    It is not admitted that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.
    To the extent that the Claimant may seek to allege that any such presumption exist, the Defendant expressly denies that there is any presumption in law (whether in statute or otherwise) that the keeper is the driver. Further, the Defendant denies that the vehicle keeper is obliged to name the driver to a private parking firm. Had this been the intention of parliament, they would have made such requirements part of POFA, which makes no such provision. In the alternative, an amendment could have been made to s.172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The 1988 Act continues to oblige the identification of drivers only in strictly limited circumstances, where a criminal offence has been committed. Those provisions do not apply to this matter.
    Authority to Park and Primacy of Contract
    It is denied that the Defendant or lawful users of his/her vehicle were in breach of any parking conditions or were not permitted to park in circumstances where an express permission to park had been granted to the Defendant permitting the above mentioned vehicle to be parked by the current occupier and leaseholder of [address], whose tenancy agreement permits the parking of vehicle(s) on land. The Defendant avers that there was an absolute entitlement to park deriving from the terms of the lease, which cannot be fettered by any alleged parking terms. The lease terms provide the right to park a vehicle in the relevant allocated bay, without limitation as to type of vehicle, ownership of vehicle, the user of the vehicle or the requirement to display a parking permit. A copy of the lease will be provided to the Court, together with witness evidence that prior permission to park had been given.
    The Defendant avers that the operator!!!8217;s signs cannot (i) override the existing rights enjoyed by residents and their visitors and (ii) that parking easements cannot retrospectively and unilaterally be restricted where provided for within the lease. The Defendant will rely upon the judgments on appeal of HHJ Harris QC in Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd (2016) and of Sir Christopher Slade in K-Sultana Saeed v Plustrade Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 2011. In Pace v Mr N [2016] C6GF14F0 [2016] it was found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park furthermore In Link Parking v Ms P C7GF50J7 [2016] it was also found that the parking company could not override the tenant's right to park by requiring a permit to park.
    Accordingly it is denied that:
    there was any agreement as between the Defendant or driver of the vehicle and the Claimant
    . there was any obligation (at all) to display a permit; and
    the Claimant has suffered loss or damage or that there is a lawful basis to pursue a claim for loss.
    The Defendant avers that the residential site that is the subject of these proceedings is not a site where there is a commercial value to be protected. The Claimant has not suffered loss or pecuniary disadvantage. The penalty charge is, accordingly, unconscionable in this context, with ParkingEye distinguished.

    It is denied that the Claimant has standing to bring any claim in the absence of a contract that expressly permits the Claimant to do so, in addition to merely undertaking parking management. The Claimant has provided no proof of any such entitlement.

    It is denied that the Claimant has any entitlement to the sums sought.

    It is admitted that interest may be applicable, subject to the discretion of the Court on any sum (if awarded), but it is denied that interest is applicable on the total sums claimed by the Claimant.

    The Claimant!!!8217;s solicitors are known to be a serial issuer of generic claims similar to this one, with no due diligence, no scrutiny of details nor even checking for a true cause of action. HMCS have identified over 1000 similar poorly produced claims and the solicitor's conduct in many of these cases is believed to be currently the subject of an active investigation by the SRA.

    I believe the term for such conduct is !!!8216;robo-claims!!!8217; which is against the public interest, demonstrates a disregard for the dignity of the court and is unfair on unrepresented consumers. I have reason to believe that this is a claim that will proceed without any facts or evidence supplied until the last possible minute, to my significant detriment as an unrepresented Defendant.
    I suggest that parking companies using the small claims track as a form of aggressive, automated debt collection is not something the courts should be seen to support.

    This claim and the other very similar one merely states: ''parking charges and indemnity costs if applicable'' which does not give any indication of on what basis the claim is brought. For example whether this charge is founded upon an allegation of trespass or 'breach of contract' or contractual 'unpaid fees'. Nor are any clear times/dates or coherent grounds for any lawful claim particularised, nor were any details provided to evidence any contract created nor any copy of this contract, nor explanation for the vague description 'parking charges' and 'indemnity costs'.


    It is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant (if any debt exists, which is denied) would be the landowner.
    Parking terms cannot be re-offered by a third party contractor on a day-to-day basis (on far more onerous and potentially, completely variable terms) because these were never incorporated into the permission to park as granted by the landowner, which was a stand-alone contract, concluded at the point in time of the provision of a permit which carried very few terms of use and no 'parking charges' nor 'indemnity costs'.

    In the event that the court finds a contract based on signage can supersede the permit terms already agreed and the lease, I put the claimant to strict proof of a chain of contracts leading from the landowner to this claimant which enable these charges to be pursued in court by this contractor, for these alleged contravention(s), whatever they may be.

    The alleged debt(s) as described in the two claims are unenforceable penalties, being just the sort of unconscionable charges exposed as offending against the penalty rule, in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.

    It is not believed that the Claimant has incurred additional costs - be it legal or debt collector costs or even their unlawful, fixed sum card surcharge for payments - and they are put to strict proof that they have actually incurred and can lawfully add an extra sums and that those sums formed part of the permit/parking contract formed with the resident in the first instance.

    This case can be easily distinguished from ParkingEye v Beavis which the Judges held was 'entirely different' from most ordinary economic contract disputes. Charges cannot exist merely to punish drivers. This claimant has failed to show any comparable 'legitimate interest' to save their charge from Lord Dunedin's four tests for a penalty, which the Supreme Court Judges found was still adequate in less complex cases, such as this allegation.
    I request the court strike out both claims xxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxxx for similar reasons cited by District Judge Cross of St Albans County Court on 20/09/16 where a similar claim was struck out without a hearing, due to Gladstones' template particulars for a private parking firm being 'incoherent', failing to comply with CPR16.4, and ''providing no facts that could give rise to any apparent claim in law''.

    Statement of Truth: I confirm that the contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

    Parking (Code of Practice) Bill!!!8211; in the House of Commons at 12:43 pm on 2nd February 2018.
    Sir Greg Knight
    Motorists should have the certainty that when they enter a car park on private land, they are entering into a contract that is reasonable, transparent and involves a consistent process. Poor signage, unreasonable terms, exorbitant fines, aggressive demands for payment and an opaque appeals process, together with some motorists being hit with a fine for just driving in and out of a car park without stopping, have no place in 21st-century Britain.
    Stephen Doughty Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth
    I completely support the right hon. Gentleman!!!8217;s Bill., but I wonder if he will add to his list of unreasonable circumstances the repeated issuing of fines to individuals parking in their own parking space outside their property, which has affected me and many of the residents in the block where I live in Cardiff.
    Gladstones Solicitors of Knutsford is involved in many such cases!!!8212;to be clear, I am talking about the firm in Knutsford; This week, I raised concerns about such firms with the Solicitors Regulation Authority, and I am hopeful that it will take a close look at the matter and consider whether the firms are complying with the regulatory environment for solicitors, and with best practice.
    Names highlighted in the debate include Premier Parking Solutions, Premier Park Ltd, Link Parking, New Generation Parking, UK Parking Control and ParkingEye,
    • nosferatu1001
    • By nosferatu1001 11th Feb 18, 7:47 PM
    • 1,697 Posts
    • 1,910 Thanks
    nosferatu1001
    I!!!8217;m confused - you!!!8217;ve copied and pasted a defence in, but you!!!8217;ve not even received a claim form?
    Why are you sending them a defence?
    • GreatWhite
    • By GreatWhite 11th Feb 18, 7:56 PM
    • 18 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    GreatWhite
    I!!!8217;m confused - you!!!8217;ve copied and pasted a defence in, but you!!!8217;ve not even received a claim form?
    Why are you sending them a defence?
    Originally posted by nosferatu1001
    I've received a pile of photo evidence letters consisting of proof of the 6 times the vehicle was parked in those bays.

    I'm completely clueless as to what I should send next.

    Coupon-mad mentioned I look at his recent posts and this was the only thing which i found that I thought was relatable to myself.

    Please help guys.
    • Coupon-mad
    • By Coupon-mad 11th Feb 18, 10:01 PM
    • 53,987 Posts
    • 67,666 Thanks
    Coupon-mad
    You've copied a defence. You are not a defendant and they are not a claimant, yet.

    All you need to read are threads about replying to an LBC.

    An ordinary letter is all that's needed, if you wish to reply again before the claim stage.

    All you need to do is read any other thread about a LBC or LBCCC (same thing) so search the forum for one of those words (if clicking on my username found too many results!).
    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.

    • KeithP
    • By KeithP 11th Feb 18, 10:08 PM
    • 5,658 Posts
    • 4,347 Thanks
    KeithP
    I've received a pile of photo evidence letters consisting of proof of the 6 times the vehicle was parked in those bays.

    I'm completely clueless as to what I should send next.
    Originally posted by GreatWhite
    I can only repeat what I said earlier:
    As you have already responded to the LBC, just wait for the claim form from the County Court Business Centre.
    Originally posted by KeithP
    If you have no further questions of the claimant, then there is no need to respond.
    .
    • GreatWhite
    • By GreatWhite 12th Feb 18, 12:01 AM
    • 18 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    GreatWhite
    You've copied a defence. You are not a defendant and they are not a claimant, yet.

    All you need to read are threads about replying to an LBC.

    An ordinary letter is all that's needed, if you wish to reply again before the claim stage.

    All you need to do is read any other thread about a LBC or LBCCC (same thing) so search the forum for one of those words (if clicking on my username found too many results!).
    Originally posted by Coupon-mad
    Thank you for your reply. The problem I'm having is that I don't really know how to respond to this latest letter which SCS have sent me. They've got evidence of the dates and times which the vehicle was parked in that area 6 times. They've got photos of the signs that say parking is only for permit holders. They've sent evidence of the letter which they sent to my address which were all ignored, all 6 of them.

    Bearing all this in mind, I just don't know how I can win my case. This latest letter says I have 30 days to respond.
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

4,001Posts Today

9,728Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @mmhpi: A huge thank you to everyone who has signed our #RecoverySpace campaign letter so far - we have reached over 1,000 names! If you?

  • RT @fikee: Told a ridiculously cool young lad behind me in the supermarket that I loved his boots. He looked at me and in that split secon?

  • Happy Birthday Jordon. 21 today. Wish you as good a day as you can, and hope you are out of hospital and on the m? https://t.co/G0V9q9agzT

  • Follow Martin