UKCPS / Miah Solicitors

wright4d

Hi All

2 Years ago my son was renting a flat and with this flat came a parking space which could only be reached via an electronic barrier to which each space had an electronic fob. On the weekend he was moving out he was using his mothers car. Since he was moving out and it was not his car he did not want to stick the permit to the windscreen and it fell from the dash without him noticing it. My wife received a notice to keeper some days later and I immediately called them to discuss the issue and was told the charge was due. All advice on here and other places on the net at the time said just ignore them ( each year 2 letters arrive from UKCPS demanding money). Now 2 years down the line my wife has received a letter from Miah Solicitors demanding payment of £275.

Any advice on how to proceed she has not yet stated who the driver was, is it now time to state the name of the driver.

Thanks

ManxRed

Does the letter state that they MAY recommend to their client that legal action is taken?

Does it state that Miah have added £150 in legal charges to the original charge?

wright4d

Thanks, it states:
"Our client has informed us that the parking charge was not paid on the date due, therefore on or around the time of parking , the charge notice and the signs erected upon the land in question, both specified that a charge of £100.00 would be payable. In addition to this sum, our client has incurred a "25.00 administration fee which under the terms of the contract are payable by you. In addition to the above charges, legal costs in the sum of £150.00 have been incurred, these fees are also payable by you under the contract entered into when parking at the above location."

It does not say they MAY recommend to their client that legal action is taken but it says "we will take our clients instructions regarding how they wish to proceed which may include considering legal proceedings.

Is it time to name the driver.

ManxRed

Here's a suggested reply, nicked from Gan on the Pepipoo forum:

Dear Sir

Ref ****

I note your letter dated ***

I deny any debt to your client.
I also do not believe for one minute that your client paid you £150 in legal fees

Read the Fraud Act 2006 and see what Section 2 has to say about false representation

Yours Faithfully

wright4d

Thanks, main question is should we now tell them who the driver was

The_Deep

You can easily see off TMH by asking them (copied to the SRA) http://www.sra.org.uk/home/home.page what services they have carried out which would cost their client £150, and why they think that you should pay them.

IMO they are behaving in a manner likely to bring the profession into disrepute. Some time ago they employed as a consultant a Mr Ian Brill, an undischarged bankrupt and struck off solicitor, (now I understand re-instated), involved in a boiler room scam which earned him a very large fine.

http://www.ftadviser.com/2011/10/04/regulation/regulators/fsa-fines-firm-over-m-boiler-room-scam-OxBhKHfJzBlhOHeOuJaI7J/article.html

Read Gan's letter here

http://www.pepipoo.com/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t98605.html

I think that this is one you can safely ignore unless Miah do the unthinkable and follow it up.

ManxRed

wright4d wrote: »

Thanks, main question is should we now tell them who the driver was

I wouldn't bother.

Coupon-mad

wright4d wrote: »

Thanks, main question is should we now tell them who the driver was

No, don't make it easier for them. The keeper is in the strongest position if it goes further because the keeper can include in any defence, the requirements of Schedule 4 of the POFA 2012. You say 'My wife received a notice to keeper some days later' so keep that document and keep the matter in your wife's name as keeper.

Even a small claim (if it happens) has no effect on credit rating, no CCJ, and can be defended and won. The Barry Beavis v ParkingEye case is worth you looking out for (outcome due in October) because that's what plenty of PPCs will be waiting for, to decide if they have a 'feeding frenzy' of court cases or crawl back under their stones to an extent/change things.

wright4d

I have now started to put "ducks in a row" in the solicitor letter they have stated the payment is due "under the contract" so therefore am I right to assume we can only be liable for the losses suffered? if so then since they had no legal right to "rent" this parking space to a third party they have actually suffered no loss. Also the management company had no right to even enter into a contract with UKCPS to allow them to "charge for parking" in a space that was entirely for the use of only the occupants of the flat. So if UKCPS have entered into a contract which is fundamentally broken by the management company by allowing them to charge for parking in parking place assigned wholly to the apartment tenant then surely in law the UKCPS contract is null and void to start with.

Any thoughts?

Thanks

ManxRed

What they probably mean is that the sign states that you have agreed to pay them for the service of their rules.

So, it's a payment for service, rather than a loss for breach.

Of course, contracting to pay a service to allow you to breach terms and conditions is an utter nonsense and needs to be highlighted as such. What was on the signs?

wright4d

ManxRed wrote: »

What they probably mean is that the sign states that you have agreed to pay them for the service of their rules.

So, it's a payment for service, rather than a loss for breach.

Of course, contracting to pay a service to allow you to breach terms and conditions is an utter nonsense and needs to be highlighted as such. What was on the signs?

Not exactly sure what was on the sign after all this time. I have asked the tenant of the flat for a picture he took at the time.