CP plus, letter before claim (SCS Law)

bristolmumindebt

Thank you for the feedback, will get to work on this tonight:)

bristolmumindebt

Ok, third attempt.

Its taking me a while to get my head around terminology, etc....so here goes....

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.
As the registered keeper of the vehicle I have not received a Notice to Keeper. As you can see, the law is unequivocal on this matter. A Notice to Keeper must be served where the driver has not been identified. Without this, the creditor does not have the right to recover the charge from the keeper of the vehicle.
As there has been no admission regarding who was driving the vehicle and no evidence of this has been provided, the Private Parking Operator has failed to comply with the keeper liability requirements of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

Paragraph 4 of The Act states that

(1) The creditor has the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.
(2)The right under this paragraph applies only if— (a) the conditions specified in paragraphs 5, 6, 11 and 12 (so far as applicable) are met
The condition specified in paragraph 6 “is that the creditor (or a person acting for or on behalf of the creditor)—
(a) has given a notice to driver in accordance with paragraph 7, followed by a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 8; or
(b) has given a notice to keeper in accordance with paragraph 9.”
Paragraph 9 states this notice to keeper must be given within a "period of 28 days following the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to driver was given"
It would be unreasonable of CP Plus to rely on the assumption that the Registered Keeper was the driver (as in Elliot v Loake) which I would like to highlight was a criminal case with ample evidence against the driver.

Your Letter Before Claim 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 these 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.

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.
“There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle.

There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver. [...] If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''
I would like to remind both CP Plus and SCS Law that PCNs can only hold the driver liable for any debts owed, and the PCN should be fully compliant with the Protection of Freedom Act.
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


Thanks in advance for reading

Coupon-mad

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Respond robustly to SCS Law pointing out you are the registered keeper and they need to take the matter up with the driver, since CP Plus choose not to use POFA wording in their Notice to Keeper (postal PCN) letters.

Remind them that the case of Elliott v Loake has been found to be not applicable to a private parking situation and that a keeper cannot be held liable outwith the POFA Schedule 4. Quote Henry Greenslade from the POPLA Annual Report 2015 about keeper liability (it's easy to search for here under his surname alone).

Yep you seem to have covered most of the suggestions made by us all, as above.

I would just change this penultimate sentence:

I would like to remind both CP Plus and SCS Law that a PCN with the basic non-statutory wording that your client freely chooses to use, can only hold the driver liable. Kindly show me your client's evidence of who the driver was and I will be able to pass the matter to them. [STRIKE]for any debts owed[/STRIKE], [STRIKE]and the PCN should be fully compliant with the Protection of Freedom Act[/STRIKE].

bristolmumindebt

Thanks for everyone's help!!!

Clearairturbulance

Hello all, I too have received the same letter from SCS Law ( actually sent 07th Nov to my old address) I moved in March 2016, so I have just received it via the people who now live in my old house. My 14 day grace period has now expired too as a result. The car is owned by me, but my wife a midwife uses it too on occasion. It has all the required parking permits/scratchcard issue by the hospital but still attracts parking tickets for seemingly randomly

I have been up against cancer for the last 5 years and still here but could really do without these people writing to me now, please help me..

I am new to this posting/forum process so do not know how it works really but I want to get this right and put these people straight.

I have 3 main questions;
1. For Bristolmumindebt - how is your case going and did you receive a reply from SCS ?
2. For Coupon-mad, Carthesis,and DoaM - can I please ask for your advice and input please.
3 What additional detail do you need and can we communicate directly ?

Thanks all.

Carthesis

Firstly - let me say I'm glad that you've managed to fight off your health problems! Noone needs to be dealing with these scummy firms, illness or not, but it probably can't help!

Clearairturbulance wrote: »

I am new to this posting/forum process so do not know how it works really but I want to get this right and put these people straight.

I have 3 main questions;
1. For Bristolmumindebt - how is your case going and did you receive a reply from SCS ?
2. For Carthesis and DoaM - can I ask for your advice and input please.
3 What additional detail do you need and can we communicate directly ?

Thanks all.

The rule normally is one thread per topic - so if you can, please start your own thread for advice.

We don't normally communicate directly in general terms - all advice is given in public, on the forum, for others to reference in future. C-M normally advises that you not even read PMs from people with less than 1000+ posts, as the PPCs *DO* monitor these forums and might try to mislead you.

First piece of advice - you need to notify them AS A MINIMUM of your change of address.

Secondly, who is the PPC you got the initial ticket from?

Thirdly, was it a windscreen ticket followed by a postal notice?

Fourthly, do you still have the paperwork they sent through?

BUT PLEASE START YOUR OWN THREAD

Clearairturbulance

Hello, I have posted the details on a new thread as requested. Titled

SCS Law - CP Plus Ltd LBC letter

bristolmumindebt

Hello Clearairturbulance
I apologise for long reply to query. Its been a busy month with christmas, etc.

In regards to your question, yes I did get a reply from SCS law explaining they would forward my letter to their client.

I then got a lovely letter from the good old people at Debt Recovery Plus, basically saying...."Please note that a PCN was placed on the vehicle for notification purposes in each instance. Without evidence to the contrary, I must assume that, on the balance of probabilities, that these PCNs were duly received. Notice to Keeps and further correspondence was sent to the vehicle's registered address for notification purposes.

Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4:

S (8)(6) A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered......" Etc etc

Basically saying as I have not provided the details of the driver, I am liable for the payment by beginning of Jan.

I chose to ignore that letter (maybe wrong of me????) as it was not from CP Plus or their solicitors, I am just now waiting for a court letter which I am happy to go to and fight my case.

So just waiting further letter....

Hope that helps?

Coupon-mad

bristolmumindebt wrote: »

Hello Clearairturbulance
I apologise for long reply to query. Its been a busy month with christmas, etc.

In regards to your question, yes I did get a reply from SCS law explaining they would forward my letter to their client.

I then got a lovely letter from the good old people at Debt Recovery Plus, basically saying...."Please note that a PCN was placed on the vehicle for notification purposes in each instance. Without evidence to the contrary, I must assume that, on the balance of probabilities, that these PCNs were duly received. Notice to Keeps and further correspondence was sent to the vehicle's registered address for notification purposes.

Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4:

S (8)(6) A notice sent by post is to be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been delivered......" Etc etc

Basically saying as I have not provided the details of the driver, I am liable for the payment by beginning of Jan.

I chose to ignore that letter (maybe wrong of me????) as it was not from CP Plus or their solicitors, I am just now waiting for a court letter which I am happy to go to and fight my case.

So just waiting further letter....

Hope that helps?

So DR Plus have cited the POFA and tried to say you are liable, even though CP Plus do not use it. DR Plus need to be reported to the DVLA and BPA for that misleading pile of steaming rubbish:

aos@britishparking.co.uk

and copy in:

david.dunford@dvla.gsi.gov.uk


HTH

MothballsWallet

Are DR Plus and CP Plus "friends with benefits"?

It's a shame the OP can't just refer them to the reply given in Arkell vs Pressdram