CP plus, letter before claim (SCS Law)

bristolmumindebt

Hello

I am starting a new thread as advised on the Newbie section.

Firstly thank you for all of the valuable information. I have spent many hours last evening and this morning, researching what I need to do.

Yesterday I received a letter from SCS Law on behalf of CP Plus Ltd for four PCNs totaling to the amount of £***. They relate to not displaying valid permits and to parking outside of designated parking spaces at work.

I ignored at the time (I know, I know, very stupid) as there was always had a permit, its just sometimes they were not displayed properly. I can go in to more detail, I am just unsure of how much information I should put on here, as I know these companies look at the page.

Obviously the PCNs have been highly inflated, from an original amount of £** to £80 each. I do not want nor have the funds to pay this in the next fourteen days, so will be challenging this.

I have found Gan's response which I am going to send back today, in regards to requesting more information such as landowner contract, etc.

Any other advice in the meantime, would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you so much.

Carthesis

When are these PCNs from - date-wise i mean?

The 'charge inflation' seems very very high.

bristolmumindebt

Hello,

They are all from 2015.

bristolmumindebt

Also...

Can I ask anyone...

When I send my reply back, what details should I include? my name and address??? Or just the reference numbers for each PCN?

I don't want to reply back and they say they never received correspondence from me and take me straight to court.

Thanks

Carthesis

Do you still have the original notices you got? Or any of the other correspondence?

Can you clarify whether or not they're actually taking you to court, or are they simply threatening you with it and if you don't pay up they'll have to "take instructions" from their client?

Do you have your employment contract handy? What does that say about parking provision at your place of work? Was it something that they brought in and notified you about? Is the permit something you pay for via either salary sacrifice or post-payment (i.e. do you have some paperwork that demonstrates the validity of your parking permit for all four infractions?)

bristolmumindebt

Hello

Thanks for response....
I unfortunately do not have any of the letters at all, just the last one I have received.

The letter states the following....

"We act for CP Plus Ltd and are instructed to recover the charges shown below incurred by you in relation to the parking of your vehicle....

You have failed to pay the above charges despite several letters from our client requesting payment.

Unless payment is made within the next 14 days, we are instructed to issue court proceedings to recover the same and any of our clients' legal costs, without further recourse to you.

We reserve the right to refer to this letter, in particular on the question of costs, should this matter proceed to trial.

In the event that a County Court Judgement is obtained against you and payment is not made, our client will consider all enforcement options.... (THEN TALK OF BAILIFFS ETC)...

If you wish to avoid the steps outlined above being taken, please contact Debt Recovery Plus Ltd directly to clear your balance either by.......

Please note that this letter is to be considered a letter before claim for the purpose of the Practice Direction on Pre-action conduct. Please read this Practice Direction, in particular paragraph 15, concerning the Court's powers to impose sanctions for failing to comply with its provisions.

Please also note that we do not consider that this matter is suitable for Alternative Dispute Resolution"

In regards to my contract, I don't believe that there is mention of parking, I do pay for a yearly permit and then "as you use" scratchcards. So my permit would have always been on show.

The others were for separate issues...I have edited this post, to avoid identification of myself

Basically staff parking was and is still a nightmare at our trust and it was common practice to double park and leave a note on the car with your extension when someone wanted you to move it.

CP plus took over managing our parking in 2015, and many many people got tickets galore. Whereas I should have followed suit at the time and appealed like many of my colleagues did (successfully), I didn't thinking the best advice at the time was to ignore.

bristolmumindebt

Thank you for the advice.

Will revise and upload promptly.

bristolmumindebt

So here is my response so far.....

Does it need more detail or shall I save this for court claim?

Dear Sirs,

Ref : ****

I have received your Letter Before Claim dated *****

I deny any debt to CP Plus Ltd.

The driver is not identified in your letter and your client has failed to meet the requirements of The Protection of Freedoms Act, schedule 4 to pursue me as keeper.

You also cannot presume that I possess all the documents referred to in your letter.
Please send me copies of all the documents sent by the client including the windscreen notices if any were attached to the vehicle.

When these are supplied, please also confirm whether the intended action is founded on a contractual charge, a breach of a contract or trespass
Please confirm that your client's contract with the land-holder includes specific authority to take legal action and that this will be produced for the court.

Whilst I await your timely response, I would also like to remind you of the guidance given to operators in POPLA's 2015 Annual Report by Henry Greenslade, Chief Adjudicator in which he reminded them of a keeper's right not to name the driver whilst still not being held liable for an unpaid parking charge under Schedule 4 of POFA.

When I receive the documents and your explanations I will be in a position to make a more detailed response
It would be unreasonable to proceed with litigation before you have clarified your client's cause of action.

I look forward to your response

Yours Faithfully

DoaM

Add something about Elliot v Loake after the The driver is not identified sentence, to head this off at the pass.

Carthesis

You also cannot presume that I possess all the documents referred to in your letter.
Please send me copies of all the documents sent by the client including the windscreen notices if any were attached to the vehicle.

You need to change this. The allowed presumption is that once they post a letter then it is deemed to have been rec'd by you after 2 working days. It's ridiculous in some ways, because how can you complain you haven't received something you didn't know you were going to get... but them's the rules.

I'd change the wording to:

Your LBCC refers to "a number of letters" sent to me by your Client - however I am now informing you that I was not in receipt of this items of correspondence and was therefore unable to act upon them at the time. Please provide copies of all documentation and correspondence, along with proof of dates of postage.

You **ALSO** need to point out to them that it is known that the postal Notices to Keeper issued by CP+ do not conform to the requirements of POFA Schedule 4 Paragraph 9, and thus because of this they are unable to transfer keeper liability in accordance with that Act.

To forestall them wittering on about 'the presumption you were the driver' and the use of Elliot -v- Loake to "prove" this, you **ALSO** need to add in wording suggested by C-M above referring to the presumption that the registered keeper was the driver, which has recently and repeatedly been thrown out by Judges. Have a look on this forum and on the Parking Prankster's blog for case references you can throw back at them. This section of the letter should **ALSO** refer both the solicitors and CP+ to the comments on this exact matter by Henry Greenslade.

Carthesis

Oh, and as you have done so, insist they send you copies of all documentation, so copies of the windscreen ticket you undoubtedly got issued, as well as the postal NtK, so that you can compare the two and pick out any differences.