SCS law - Letter before claim Help!

Seventy2

Hello all,

Today I have recieved a letter from SCS law about dept owed to CP Plus Ltd. Its for 3 parking fines each £120, total of £360 they are for "parking outside the space designated for parking". These were obtained in a large shopping centre last year. and in reality there was nothing wrong with the parking, the vehicle just wasn't parked in the "staff" car park but in the general car park. Many people at the shopping centre do this and a lot of them get the tickets and everybody ignores them... all of the dept recovery letters were ignored until I recieved this letter from SCS.

So I spent the entire day reading up on various threads and posts im honeslty terrified... it looks like, they will take this to court regardless of what I do now, and im only a student so I dont have the time to focus on court as well as the money...

The letter goes on to say "unless payment is made within the next 14 days, we are instructed to issue court proceedings teh same and any of our client;s legal costs, without further recourse to you"

They then say that if i wish to avoid all of this to go to dept recovery plus website or phone them to pay those fines, and finally the letter is finished with
"Please note that this letter is to be considered a letter before claim for the purpouse of the practical direction on pre-action conduct. Please read this practical direction, in paragraphs 13 to 17, concerning the court's powers to impose sanctions for failing to comply with its provisions".

Due to the whole ignore the tickets advice recieved more ticket have been obtained through out the period, and thats what im really scared about, now its £360, the next one could be much bigger...

Even after reading through all the newbie thread and other threads involving SCS, I feel lost and just want to know how to resolve this quickly, should I just pay? court seems like a very tough time...

Redx

you can IGNORE the DCA letters

if SCS have sent a real LBC then you should rebut it

there is no current method to resolve this quickly , but I will outline your choices for you

pay in full to prevent further action (which we never recommend)

wait it out for 6 years as that is when the statute ends on taking matters to court (although the debt is never "satisfied" as such - its eternal)

if an MCOL comes from Northampton within 6 years, defend it

get the landowner to cancel all the charges (this is the best way to try to resolve the matter)

you seem to be looking for a harry potter "magic wand" solution - there isnt one

ps:- the IGNORE the parking company advice has not been correct since 2012 , so over 4 years (almost 4.5 years now), these should have been appealed after receipt , within 28 days , to CP PLUS

its the debt collectors you ignore, not parking companies

Seventy2

Thanks for the reply, how do I know if its a real LBC, as I stated above towards the end in the letter they mention that "This letter is to be considered a letter before claim for the purpouse of practice direction...(etc, etc)

So does this mean it's a real LBC? where do I even begin to rebut, it. Im going to try to contact the landowner however I feel like its going to be almost impossible as its a huge shopping centre, so I just emailed the customer service email with the issue hopeful I can get a replay or a direction of who to contact.

I feel so out of my depth right now...

Redx

there is no "acid test" on what is a real LBC, because there is no definition of one , these companies are devious and rent out letterheads and so its a minefield

if you think it is a real one , you rebut it

if you think that DRP have issued it on an SCS letterheaded A4 , you can ignore it

you could check the BMPA zendesk to compare it

but if you want a black and white decision based on some government mandate , there isnt one , which is why these companies muddy the waters and why its all shades of grey

Seventy2

I looked on the BMPA zendesk there are 2 examples of fake LBC's from SCS and 1 of a possible real one. My letter seems like a mix of both... It's layed out like the legit one with all of the charged listed. But at the end it says to go to debtrecoveryplus.com to pay in full which is the dept collector not parking company themselves which are CP Plus Ltd.

After seeing these I suspect that it may be fake but should I just consider it a real LBC and try to rebut it anyway, there's no email oe phone number, only a postal address in canary wharf, london.

How do I even begin to rebut it?

Or should I just continue to ingnore it and see in an MCOL comes like you mentioned above?

I could take a picture of the letter, if thats helpful?

Redx

sounds like a DRP one to me , but its your decision to make, not ours

I am certainly not going to try to second guess what this paperwork is in case I am wrong , this isnt a legal forum , you asked for advice and I have given you the best advice I can (READ my signature)

the sticky threads explain how you rebut an LBC , but the person who wrote it has not updated it in a long time and I know changes were made since it was written (practice directions have changed)

I am not saying its easy , because it isnt, its all a legal jargon minefield

you must do what you feel is right in the circumstances, and accept the consequences once they manifest themselves

LBC letters have been discussed on here ad nauseum, so if you have a few hours to spare, find them threads and read all about them , including the SCS ones, plus BW LEGAL and GLADSTONES ones too

frankly, us regulars are sick and tired od these threads about debt collectors , there is nothing new to add , which is why coupon-mad wrote a thread about them

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5035663

one thing I do know, if you receive an MCOL from Northampton, it will be real and you must defend it

Lamilad

Seventy2 wrote: »

Thanks for the reply, how do I know if its a real LBC, as I stated above towards the end in the letter they mention that "This letter is to be considered a letter before claim for the purpouse of practice direction...(etc, etc)

So does this mean it's a real LBC? where do I even begin to rebut, it. Im going to try to contact the landowner however I feel like its going to be almost impossible as its a huge shopping centre, so I just emailed the customer service email with the issue hopeful I can get a replay or a direction of who to contact.

I feel so out of my depth right now...

First things first. This is defendable and winnable. So take a deep breath, count backwards from 10 and stop worrying about things that haven't happened yet e.g. court proceedings.

You say you've read other threads, so I'm guessing you've read Bristolmumindebt's recent thread which is a carbon copy of yours (same car park too, maybe)? If you had you would have seen her letter rebutting the LBC.

Read her thread, steal her letter, adapt it so it says the right things for your case then post your version on here for review before sending.

Then read the next thread about cp+ and LBC's/ court cases, then the next, and the next, and do on. As your knowledge grows, so will your confidence. If you do end up in court you may find you're chomping at the bit to get in there and spank then.

The search box is your friend, feed it some tasty words like 'cp plus letter before claim'. Also read the newbies thread if you haven't already then read it again to ensure you've understood it all.

Seventy2

Honestly you have been very helpful, and I greatly appreciate the time you have taken to get back to me. I suspect that this may be the DBR as well so I think I might ignore it... I don't know i'll sleep on it and decide tomorrow. many thanks again Redx

Seventy2

Thanks for the vote of confidence Lamilad I'll sleep on it and decide what im going to do tomorrow, I have seen her post, its not the rebut im worried about its what happens after haha.

Seventy2

Hello all again, I have been giving a lot of thought about this shady letter before claims I have received from SCS and even though I think it's just DRP trying to masquerade as SCS I don't want to take the chance, after reading a lot about SCS they seem to be quite proactive at following claims through.

I found a rebut letter written by a previous user last year and the wording seems to work well for my claim would it be ok to use this letter and send it off for my issue. If anyone has any advice regarding the rebut letter or writing them back in general that would be greatly appreciated.







[FONT=&quot]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.''

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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,[/FONT]

Coupon-mad

That's a good response to an LBCCC (or even a pretend debt style one) where the PPC doesn't use the POFA, like CP Plus and also CEL, Horizon, Smart Parking, etc.