SCS Law Letter before claim for multiple PCNs-over £1000!!

The_Deep

They have cited Beavis. Do some research and see if your events differ significantly from Beavis. If they do, and I suspect that the PPC were not paying £1,000 a week to farm the car park, point these out and again ask for a breakdown.

I suspect that a judge would take a dim view if they stonewall you again. This is a large amount of money for actions which damaged them little, and you have every right to know what they are charging for.

Keep the ball in play, it costs them money, and the more evidence you have of unereasonable behaviour, the less likely they are to see a penny of your money.

Coupon-mad

DiegoFuego wrote: »

Hi all
A few weeks back I received a letter from SCS Law on behalf of UKPC for multiple PCNs for overstaying in a free car park. The letter claimed to be a letter before claim. The total claim was over £1000 including fees added on per ticket.

The dates of the PCNs range from early 2015 and one earlier this year.

I have read the Newbies thread and followed the advice and sent the initial letter to SCS Law as recommended by the thread which tells SCS law that their letter is insufficient according to the Practice Directions. The guidance said to expect a template letter but the letter I received looked tailor made and they also sent a pack containing photos and letters which I didn't expect at all.

Looks like a template reply to me!

http://s1378.photobucket.com/user/DiegoFuego/media/Mobile%20Uploads/40CF744A-951E-4C33-8813-64307F4A08B3_zpsxrixvtae.jpg.html

Nothing tailor made about that letter at all except the odd line and your details. All they've done is send a standard reply with some photos UKPC gave them, which were there all along on UKPC's own website at the time of each PCN. You could have looked at those pics any time if appealing or putting in your details on their webpage. A letter showing those pics is unimpressive and nothing new.

Here are some threads which may help, easily found. I just searched this board for: 'SCS UKPC':

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5476500

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5470683

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5492032

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5489697

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5489157

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5427064

Anthony 94 beat UKPC in court at a hearing regarding multiple PCNs, recently:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5407858

...and bargepole who posts here sometimes, beat them too:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5460756


But in a major effort to avoid a claim (which is likely to follow) you should prioritise NOW an urgent series of major complaints to the Retail Store Manager(s) and landowner/site managing agent (again, very easy to find, this time with a Google search for the name of the retail park). We have had other threads about the Millennium Retail Park I think, try searching this forum board for 'Millennium'.

Do not take no for an answer to the complaint about this harassment of paying customers and do not take 'we don't own the car park' for an answer (because UKPC don't own it either so someone does - find the right person, complain). If it was a series of overstays on matchdays/sporting event days or something then make the point that a genuine shopper has no fair opportunity to know that the time limit changes depending on the day of the week. UKPC signs are there but they are ALWAYS pale, unremarkable and VERY high in small print, not legible.

Oh, and on this forum DO NOT reply to any private message from any poster 'offering to help' because they would have a vested interest and you can tell by the lack of post count (under 1000 posts and they are not a regular here). Do not reply, 'out' them b y naming and shaming them here if anyone pm's you - except a high-post-count regular like salmosalaris who you will notice has assisted in some of the linked cases above.

The_Deep

Know your adversary

• UKPC are former clampers who have been involved in quite a number of sordid scams, for example
  
  Hull Trading Standards took them to court on 15 counts of fraud. UKPC won all but one, but only because they had a better lawyer, a Q.C. If I recall correctly
  
  http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=63597
  
  They were bested by a Winchester barrister
• 
  http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?377246-UKPC-liable-for-trespass-**SUCCESS**
  
  They were involved in a large scale scam which resulted in a DVLA suspension
  
  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11858473/Parking-firm-UKPC-admits-faking-tickets-to-fine-drivers.html
  
  They are in trouble in court
  
  http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/search?updated-min=2016-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&updated-max=2017-01-01T00:00:00-08:00&max-results=50
  
  And then of course there was Tracey Kiss
  
  http://www.tracykiss.com/product-reviews/my-ukpc-parking-charge/

DiegoFuego

Hi all. Many apologies for the short period of silence but I have been away.

I have looked at all the advice and I have drafted a response that I am posting ASAP. Would any of you mind casting your eye over it and pointing out any glaring errors or omissions?

"Dear Sirs

I am writing to confirm acknowledgment of your letter dated......

Unfortunately, your response is still not complaint with the Practice Direction and I am quite surprised as to the nature of your claims in your most recent letter as I believe you should know that it is not at all acceptable.

I do not accept that the signage at the car park is sufficient to be able to set out the relevant contract for a driver to agree to. I therefore do not accept that there was a breach of any contract as set out by said signage. Also, in my opinion, your letter does not give enough facts as to the nature of the alleged overstays. Please provide concise details as to how you established that there was an overstay on each occasion.

My previous letter requested information as to whom you are acting on behalf of and you are still yet to provide this information. Please explain in your reply which party has directed you to act on their behalf in this matter.

Paragraph 6 of the Practice Directions states that you must explain how any money amounts claimed is calculated. Your claim that the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 means you do not have to quantify the damages is not acceptable. You must still explain how you have calculated the amount claimed.

Paragraph 6 also requires you to provide any and all key documents relevant to the issue in dispute. Therefore, if there are further documents that you intend to rely on in progression of this dispute, please provide them to me in your reply.

Also, please clarify how the circumstances of the ParkingEye v Beavis case is similar to this case. I believe the contract between your client and the landowner will differ in detail to the contract between ParkingEye and the owner of that particular car park. Please provide details of said contract between your client and the landowner to establish the "legitimate interest" it has in the car park.

As stated in my previous letter, I do not accept that Alternative Dispute Resolution is not available and I invite you to start that process in order to resolve this issue.

Please provide a fully compliant Letter Before Action and I will provide my response as required by the Practice Direction. Please respond within 14 days of the date of this letter. Further failure to meet the requirements of the Practice Direction may require the intervention of the Court to apply whichever sanctions it seems fit in this dispute.

Also, you are again reminded that your failure to adhere to the Practice Direction is in breach of the SRA Principles and I will copy all correspondence to them in any complaint I make about your conduct."

The_Deep

Looks good to me, but you might wish to flesh out why this differs from Beavis. You might mention that PE were paying the landowner £52,000 a year to farm their car park, they were therefore, to all intents and purposes, the landowner. Does the PPC have a similar arrangement?

DiegoFuego

I am not sure of the specific details as the management company who manages the whole site were not willing to divulge much. But from the conversation I had, the PPC was hired by the management company, not the actual landowners and so it is unlikely that the PPC has paid anything in the same way as the Beavis case. Is there a way I can find out? I have asked for details of their contract in the draft letter. I must also bear in mind I need to have this posted in the next day or so?

DiegoFuego

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Have you already blabbed about who was driving then?

No I haven't said anything about who is driving. I assumed as the registered keeper, as the driver wasn't identified, the contract they claim that was entered into must be agreed by the keeper in place of the driver. Otherwise, who breached the alleged contract?

I can change it if need be.

Coupon-mad

Nope, the contract is not being held to have been agreed by the keeper. They are trying to hold the keeper liable (under the POFA) for a contract they allege was agreed only by the driver. Or they are assuming the keeper was the driver. So I've removed the brief quote I posted to draw it to your attention and you need to EDIT it too!

You need:

I do not accept that the signage at the car park is sufficient to be able to set out the relevant contract for a driver to agree to.

And you should point out that if the PPC are to hold you liable as keeper, they need to have complied with the POFA Schedule 4 because the driver has not been identified.

BobJameson

Worth noting that SCS Law will continue to respond with template documents until they get bored and issue proceedings - They are getting paid, so they don't care...

DiegoFuego

BobJameson wrote: »

Worth noting that SCS Law will continue to respond with template documents until they get bored and issue proceedings - They are getting paid, so they don't care...

Then so be it. I am not rolling over.

And if you are here to help then I very much appreciate it and please contribute as much as you can. But if there is a feud you want to spill over in here with others as I have seen on some other threads then please please leave my thread out of it.

I am new here and I just want help with my issue.

No offence is meant and no offence is taken.